House of Representatives
5 May 1977

30th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1977

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1587

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Abortions

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth humbly showeth that the undersigned are deeply concerned:

That abortion is the destruction of innocent human life.

That on 10 May 1973, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly rejected the Medical Practices Clarification Bill, which sought to legalise abortion on demand in the Territories controlled by the Federal Government.

That the Legislative Assembly in Canberra should consult Parliament again before discussing and debating the opening and operations of Population Services International and Preterm Foundation in Canberra.

That the situation regarding abortions in the Australian Capital Territory is the same as that in New South Wales where the statute prohibits abortion but allows a defence.

That the situation in the Australian Capital Territory has a great impact on situations in the States.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Federal Government will act immediately to prevent the establishment and /or operation of Population Services International and Preterm Foundation, and other private clinics, in the Australian Capital Territory.

That taxpayers’ money may not be used, through Medibank, to finance abortions,

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

Petitions received.

Television and Electronic Components Industry

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

  1. employment in the television and electronic components industry has been affected by the import of television sets and electronic components and
  2. over one thousand employees have been terminated from this industry.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament take steps to prevent the television and electronic components industry from being destroyed.

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

Petition received.

Rhodesia

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

That the Charter of the United Nations clearly precludes it from interference in the domestic affairs of a country or from obstructing the free transmission of news and information between individuals and between nations.

That the United Nations, in apparent illegality, has imposed many restrictions and sanctions upon Rhodesia which has been remarkably free from the bloodshed and turmoil of northern and central African lands, even to the extent now of actively encouraging armed conflict against the legally elected Government of Rhodesia.

Lord Graham as Minister of External Affairs and Defence has said: ‘International communism is our enemy, all this talk of political advancement and majority rule is no more than a smokescreen in the early skirmishes of an assault upon the whole of Africa … It is even difficult to see this enemy because it is not merely attacking us, but on a broad front is attacking the whole world order, its standards, its law and order, its moralities, its churches, its patriotisms, its philosophies and even much of its learning . . . ‘

That Communist Chinese infiltration in much of Africa over many years, and Cuban Communist troops reported to number 25 000 are dominating nearby Angola, and possess modern missiles etc.

It is urgent that Mozambique, now under communist domination and which has a common border with Rhodesia, does not receive any further aid from the Commonwealth Government of Australia, which has benefited mainly the terrorist guerilla movements that are responsible for the deaths of many Rhodesian people.

It is urgent for the Australian people to determine for themselves, the actual facts of the Rhodesian struggles.

It is urgent that the Senate and the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled, will observe common justice and proper humanity by inviting only authorised representatives of the present Government of Rhodesia to Australia, to do what they have been deprived to do previously, present their case fully and publicly so that this can be examined and tested, without interference, and so that the eventual impact on Australia’s own security and defence alliances can be gauged with better accuracy.

Your petitioners request urgent action to be taken immediately.

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

Petition received.

Pensions: Lone Fathers

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

The humble petition of the undersigned members of Parents Without Partners Australia Incorporated and citizens of Australia respectfully say that we are concerned about the discrimination and hardship being experienced by lone fathers and their children. They are faced with the same problems and financial needs as supporting mothers, without equal opportunity for comparable benefits. We feel that the Government do not recognise the needs of this section of our community.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament take immediate steps to ensure that this years Budget allows for lone fathers to be given the right to receive a pension on the same basis as supporting mothers. We also request that the Government take immediate action to instigate one ( 1 ) category of lone parent pensions to eliminate the discrimination currently experienced in the present structure.

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

Petition received.

National Highways and Public Roads

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

  1. Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate funding.
  2. Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 per cent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

That the Commonwealth Government should totally finance national highways and half the cost of constructing and maintaining all other public roads.

That since current road funding arrangements have seen a deterioration in road assets, this backlog in construction and maintenance needs to be reduced by the Commonwealth Government undertaking to make a larger financial contribution. by Mr King.

Petition received.

Local Roads

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

  1. Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate Federal and State funding.
  2. Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 per cent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

That the Commonwealth Government adopts the recommendations of the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads for the funding of rural local roads and urban local roads in New South Wales for the triennium 1977-1980. by Mr Lucock.

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. by Mr Morris.

Petition received.

page 1588

EAST TIMOR

Notice of Motion

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

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

That the House censures the honourable member for St George because in the notice of motion he gave on 26 April 1977: ( 1 ) he makes opprobrious references to His Excellency the President of Indonesia who is in amity with Her Majesty the Queen of Australia;

he asserts that the Foreign Minister of Indonesia was reported to have made allegations against the President of Indonesia and the former Prime Minister of Australia which the Foreign Minister was not reported to have made;

he asserts that the former Government was provided on 25 August 1975 with a document which the Department of Foreign Affairs certifies was never provided;

he asserts that the Leader of the Opposition has not issued a public detailed denial of allegations whereas the Leader had issued such a denial; and

he makes allegations against an honourable member who is constrained by the requirements of diplomacy and the interests of the nation from producing copies of letters and records of conversation to refute those allegations.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The notice of motion given by the honourable member for Chifley is a response to a notice of motion given by the honourable member for St George and illustrates very clearly the point I was making yesterday when I gave my ruling. I permitted the notice of motion to be given today but in future I will not allow a recitation of facts of the kind contained in both motions.

Mr Scholes:

– I rise to order. Mr Speaker, will you consider giving a ruling to the House that all notices, whether given verbally or handed to the Clerk, should be cleared by the Clerk prior to being given? That would require a notice of motion being given to the Clerk before the House meets. I would not think that this procedure would be a serious inconvenience to honourable members.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will consider the matter. I do not expect that I would require all notices to be cleared. After all, honourable members are entitled to take actions as they please in accordance with the Standing Orders.

page 1589

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1589

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT OF MR R. L. STALLINGS

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I ask: When did the Deputy Prime Minister tell him that he had offered Richard Lee Stallings a job? Did the Deputy Prime Minister tell him that Richard Lee Stallings was an employee of the United States Central Intelligence Agency? If so, was this before or after the Deputy Prime Minister’s personal explanation to the House on 4 November 1975 in which he said: if he -

That is Stallings - was a member of the CIA I certainly did not know he was.

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

– I fail to understand the honourable gentleman’s question because if I heard him aright he asked when the Deputy Prime Minister offered Mr Stallings a job. I think that the honourable gentleman or his Leader tried to raise these matters some time ago. They were demonstrated to have no substance at all and did not have the thrust that was sought. They still have no substance.

page 1589

QUESTION

GENERAL MOTORS-HOLDEN’S

Mr YATES:
HOLT, VICTORIA

– I ask a question of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. In view of the good relations that the directors of General Motors-Holden’s have established over the years with union leaders in Victoria, will the Minister inform the House what progress has been made concerning negotiations to avoid redundancies in either the plant at Dandenong or the spare parts division?

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

– It is my understanding that the General Motors-Holden’s proposal to advance a week’s annual leave and offer it to its employees has not been received favourably by union members, despite some initial reaction of a more favourable kind by at least some of the union officials. I am informed that the management of the company will be meeting with the union leaders at approximately 2.30 p.m., today and I expect that some clarification will come from that meeting as to whether the men are prepared to accept a week’s annual leave proposal or whether the company has any alternative proposals to put to them.

page 1589

QUESTION

TELEPHONE INTERPRETER SERVICE

Mr INNES:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. In the first instance I must apologise to the Minister because I understand that the AttorneyGeneral was representing the Minister when I asked the question the other day. I now ask: Will the Minister confirm that interpreters attached to the Department of Social Security’s telephone interpreter service, who used to assist doctors, lawyers, social workers and the police during interviews with non-English speaking migrants, can no longer offer this service because of the financial restrictions applied to the operations of the Department? Can the Minister assure the House that these restrictions will be lifted immediately so that non-English speaking migrants are guaranteed equality of access to medical, legal and social welfare services regardless of what language they speak? Will he ensure also that consideration is given during the preparation of the 1977-78 Budget to providing additional interpreters for this service to cope with the rising demand for assistance from professional and migrant organisations?

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

– I thank the honourable member for Melbourne for the question. I am not aware of the difficulty to which he refers, but I shall certainly convey his concern to the Minister for Social Security. Of course, if there is a shortage of interpreters, this would be a matter of great concern to the Government because the Government is concerned to ensure that the migrant community has interpreter services at all public institutions and facilities. I shall convey to the Minister and to the relevant Department the honourable member’s concern about this matter. I thank him for bringing it to our attention.

page 1589

QUESTION

INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC TELEPHONES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY

Mr GILLARD:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Is it permissible for public telephones to be installed on private property by Telecom at its cost? If the answer is no, will the Minister consider giving permission for such installations when application for a public telephone is made by a property owner, particularly in areas where vandalism continually renders adjoining public telephones inoperable?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The normal rule applying to public telephones is that they are to be accessible to the public. Therefore, in the main, they are on public property. But honourable members will recall a question last week concerning vandalism and the lack of service caused by it. If it is proved that there would be access to the public and that there is need, the Telecommunications Commission does not have an embargo against negotiation with private property owners on the installation of public telephones. So, the simple answer is that if there are people who have a private property in which there may be demonstrated a need for such installation we will be happy to do business with them.

page 1590

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL HEALTH

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Health a question concerning secondary illnesses or other illnesses being detected by the ophthalmological expedition sponsored by the Commonwealth investigating the problems of Aboriginal eyesight. The expedition has made comments from time to time about deafness and other ill health among Aborigines. If the ophthalmological expedition gives indications of these other health problems, is it proposed that there should be a follow up by another form of medical service for Aboriginal people?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– As the honourable member for Fremantle indicates, the national trachoma campaign which is currently being conducted in the Northern Territory and in other parts of Australia has been responsible for detecting other illnesses in the course of the survey. The Department of Health is currently investigating the possibility of conducting some follow up program where the team has not been able to give proper and due attention to illnesses that have come to light. I agree that the campaign provides an opportunity actually to screen a great number of people for a variety of illnesses. I hope that it will be possible to ensure that, where other serious illnesses are detected, we are able to give due attention to them at the time the survey is conducted throughout the remote areas of Australia.

I would also like to indicate at this stage that the trachoma campaign which is now being conducted, I think, in the northern part of the Northern Territory is still receiving assistance from the Department of Defence. It probably has been one of the best organised health programs in the remote areas of Australia and certainly will be responsible for overcoming a lot of the illnesses that presently are afflicting Aborigines and some white people in the remote areas of Australia.

page 1590

QUESTION

WORKER PARTICIPATION IN MANAGEMENT

Mr ALDRED:
HENTY, VICTORIA

-Has the Minister for Productivity seen a further report this morning calling for the appointment of workers’ directors to companies in Australia? Does the Minister agree that this in fact indicates a very superficial understanding of what worker participation is all about and that in terms of benefits to employees and better productivity, such things as improved communications, job enrichment and financial participation are potentially of far greater value?

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · LP

-I have not seen this morning’s report but there certainly is a strong tendency for people in the media to equate worker participation with worker directors. The question of worker directors has been examined in a number of countries. Germany has had a system of dual boards, one being a policy board and one being an administrative supervisory board. There is, of course, great merit in that. To me, the most important thing in the area of worker participation is that there be a system of good communication. If individual management and labour believe they can achieve that by having worker directors, so be it. I have always been of the view that there ought to be industrial relations directors in all Australian companies. If there are boards with legal experts, financial experts and marketing experts and so forth, all of whom are directors, there ought not to be a personnel manager, there ought to be a personnel director because people are the most important asset of a company. That would go a long way towards improving communications and a long way towards having something resembling worker participation. I also believe that many companies ought to explore the idea of works councils and works committees. This would improve shop floor communication with the board and senior management.

It is areas like that which the Government wishes to encourage individual management and unions to examine, rather than to adopt some symbolic notion of putting in a worker director when in fact that does not, of itself, improve communications between labour and management. I understand that the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales and South Australia has a policy of appointing worker directors. It is our view that this would not improve the communications between labour and management as such; in fact it could assist management in the sense that some members of the unions might understand better the problems of management. It would not necessarily improve communications between management and the shop floor, if the worker directors viewed their jobs as directors seriously and recognised that there were certain things they knew which they could not immediately tell the shop floor. If, in fact, they did then tell the shop floor immediately, that might prejudice a number of sensible policy decisions of the company. That could only be disruptive and would not improve things.

Our view is that management and labour ought to explore together and agree together on the system which they want to adopt to improve communications. There is no point in management deciding on something and saying that it sounds good and then trying to impose it. There is certainly no point in governments trying to impose it. My understanding is that even in the European Economic Community, the draft resolution which led to the establishment of the Bullock Committee in the United Kingdom has now been withdrawn and the EEC does not intend to proceed with the idea of worker directors.

page 1591

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR SCHOOL LEAVERS

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

-Can the Prime Minister yet give me the information he promised on Tuesday of last week about the Government’s reaction to the High Court’s declaration that the ban on paying unemployment benefits to school leavers before the end of the ensuing school vacation was contrary to the social services legislation?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– The Government’s action following that decision is still being examined.

page 1591

QUESTION

UNION DUES

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Is the Prime Minister aware that union dues represent a price to a union member as real as any other price he has to pay? Is he also aware of the Australian Council of Trade Unions’ resolution that union dues be raised to one per cent of average awards with the request that the target be realised as quickly as possible? Does the Prime Minister appreciate that this means that to achieve this target at today’s rate of inflation, even within 5 years, many unions would have to increase their dues by over 21 per cent a year? Would the Prime Minister therefore, in future discussions with Mr Hawke, and merely as a testament of good faith in time of inflation-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Lilley is arguing; he is not asking a question. I call upon mm to ask his question immediately or I will rule him out of order.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I shall now ask the question, Mr Speaker. Would the Prime Minister ask Mr Hawke, in future conversations with him, merely as a testament of good faith in inflationary times -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman is arguing. I give him one more warning.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Will the Prime Minister ask Mr Hawke whether such a resolution could be repealed at the ACTU Congress later this year?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The honourable gentleman has advanced an interesting proposal. Quite obviously increased union dues would add to the cost of living of those who are forced to join the trade union movement in order to gain a job in a particular vocation. I think it is worth noting now that on the implementation of this ACTU resolution the larger unions will have an income of up to about $ 10m a year.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– How much?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-About $10m a year. Their own administrations, of course, do not absorb anything like funds of that kind. Therefore very considerable funds would be left for political activities of one kind or another. Under those circumstances, I think it is imperative that there be a clear understanding by all trade unionists of the way in which trade unions spend their funds. We have the report of Mr Justice Sweeney on the maritime unions. In that report it was recommended that there be annual reports and financial statements to members of unions so that those members could understand how their funds are being spent. These matters obviously are under close examination by the Government. The nature of the ACTU resolution and the wealth that it would provide in the hands of a significant number of trade union leaders make it all the more imperative that rank and file members of the trade union movement have an understanding of the way in which their money is in fact being spent. I know the honourable gentleman would prefer the Australian Council of Trade Unions to contribute to a move against inflation by changing that resolution and having union charges reduced. If that is not possible, the best that the Government could do, I should think, would be to make quite clear that union management will have to advise its members on a regular basis of the way in which funds are spent so that it will be to a greater extent accountable for that than has been the case in the past.

page 1591

QUESTION

FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES

Mr CHIPP:
HOTHAM, VICTORIA

-I ask a question of the Prime Minister on the funding of political parties. Will he consider either appointing a joint select committee of this Parliament to report to this Parliament on the desirability of introducing legislation to require political parties to declare to the Parliament each year donations over a certain amount, or alternatively appointing a high level committee outside the Parliament to report to the Parliament on the desirability of legislation being introduced for the election expenses of all parties to be limited to a certain amount and for those amounts to be appropriated by the Parliament, as is done in the United States of America?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I do not believe that the electors of Australia have yet demonstrated that they wish to finance the honourable gentleman’s unborn child.

page 1592

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF

Mr HOLTEN:
INDI, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware that large areas of Victoria and southern New South Wales are experiencing severe drought conditions? Is the Minister ensuring that the various State governments and the country people involved are getting all the assistance and co-operation possible from the Federal Government? Has the Minister had any request from the States for any special assistance, such as long term low interest finance, over and above the traditional arrangements between the Federal and State governments? Finally, in view of the fact that many of the farmers affected have also had very low returns, particularly from beef, over a long period, will the Federal Government be prepared to consider sympathetically any special request from the States?

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

-It is true that, at a time when most of Australia is enjoying very excellent pasture conditions, drought conditions prevail in the honourable gentleman’s electorate and in some parts of southern New South Wales. The Commonwealth has a long-standing arrangement with the States which ensures that Commonwealth backing is given after a certain minimal expenditure is undertaken by the States. Alternatively where a natural disaster is of such an order that the States feel that joint funding of relief is preferable that option has been provided to the States. I sympathise with the honourable gentleman’s constituents and can assure him and, through him, them that adequate facilities are already available through the State Government for assistance in whatever way may be necessary to alleviate their present plight. If the honourable gentleman has information on particular instances I would suggest that he take the matter up initially with the State Government and the

State Government will then process the applications in the normal way. So far as I am aware, at this stage no request has been received from the Victorian Government for supplementary assistance; but, as I explained, the whole range of facilities for drought relief are essentially provided by State governments- in this instance by the Victorian or New South Wales Government. Any request that is passed on from them will be considered in the category of the normal arrangements that have existed for some time and certainly will be considered sympathetically by the Federal Government.

page 1592

QUESTION

HOUSING APPROVALS

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Treasurer. I refer him to the decline in March housing approvals as revealed by the official figures issued yesterday. Can this decline be expected to continue as forecast by Mr Cameron, the Director of the Australian Bankers Association? Further, is the decline due to the tight monetary policies pursued by the Government, as shown by the decline of $ 100m in cash terms estimated for approvals in the current financial year as compared with 1975-76? Is the Government contemplating increasing the supply of money to the residential construction sector?

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

-The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has a classic sense of mistiming. The facts are as follows: Before I came into question time I received a telegram from Mr J. V. Larkey, Executive Director of the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies. He states that the ABA Research Director, Mr Cameron, is quoted in all the morning Press as saying certain things. He quotes what Mr Cameron has said. He then goes on:

Advise you that downturn in lending refers to banks only.

That is his assertion. I will come to that in a moment. He goes on:

Permanent Building Societies will lend $1.6 billion for housing in 1 976-77 same as in previous year.

He continues:

The Permanent Building Societies will be able to lend $2 billion for housing in 1977-78. Permanent Building Societies well placed to take up any slack in bank lending for housing in June quarter. Overall lending for housing in June quarter will be sustained at appropriate levels in accordance with statement made by yourself -

That refers to myself as Treasurer- the Minister for Environment Housing and Community.

That is the first point. The second point is that so far as Mr Cameron is concerned my office follows these things up with a normal sense of alacrity. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is trying to interject, waits and listens for the answer he will be better informed. My staff spoke to Mr Cameron this morning and he said he had been badly misquoted. I invite the honourable gentleman to ring the Director of the Australian Bankers Association and affirm that proposition. Finally, just to put the ultimate squelch on the honourable gentleman, I mention to him, although I do not want to pre-release embargoed information, that he will find that when the Australian Statistician releases the normal regular document for savings bank loans outstanding for housing in March 1977 he will be surprised at the very sharp increase which the statistics will reflect. That covers the savings bank area of the residential sector of the building industry. I have quoted the Executive Director of the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies. I can do no more than that. I suggest that the honourable gentleman study the figures and be better informed.

page 1593

QUESTION

TELEVISION RECEPTION

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

-My question is addressed to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Is the Minister aware of the growing demand from people living in areas where television reception is unavailable or unsatisfactory for another stage of expansion of television in those areas? Can the Minister advise the House what progress is being made towards the provision of this amenity to those areas which suffer so severely by comparison with the very high proportion of Australians now receiving satisfactory television reception? Finally, does the establishment of a satellite for this purpose offer the ultimate in providing television in isolated areas across Australia and, if so, what action does the Government intend to take in this regard?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I am aware of the problem and I am concerned about it. The honourable members for Dawson, Leichhardt, Kennedy and the Northern Territory will know well and truly that I have travelled in their electorates looking at problems concerned with television. It is a fact of life that over 90 per cent of Australians do have access to television, although that applies to only about 1 5 per cent of the land mass. The problems do not exist only in the rural areas, although they are very significant there, but also in parts of the capital cities. The honourable member for Sturt has mentioned to me a problem he has had in Adelaide in which the terrain presents difficulties with television facilities.

The honourable member for Maranoa asked what progress has been made. Some progress has been made; I would wish more to be made.

The Department has the matter under study. I have had a look at the program that is desirable, because this problem affects all States of Australia. As to resources, it is a question of what finance can be made available, and we have to bear in mind the budgetary restraints presently before us. There is also a problem of manpower. We need technicians and engineers if we are to have the right sort of program. Finally, the honourable member asked whether satellites were the ultimate solution. I think the answer to that question is that they are the ultimate solution, but this is something which is a fair distance away, although perhaps not as far away as some people suspect. One of the officers of my Department was overseas only a few months ago making a study of satellites. We are linking into the world system, and I hope that in the not too distant future we can use satellites as part of the solution.

page 1593

QUESTION

TEA PRICES

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

-Is the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs aware that representatives from the Lipton Tea Co. are reported to be buying back tea from the supermarket shelves in preparation for a pending price explosion? If not, will he investigate the matter? If it proves that such is the case, what action will the Minister take? Does such activity make a mockery of many -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman has asked a question. That is as far as I am prepared to let him go.

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I was not aware of those reports. I will investigate them. I draw the honourable gentleman’s attention to the fact that later today I will be making a statement about the general issue of which his question forms part.

page 1593

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION: COST RECOVERY PROGRAM

Mr JULL:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. Is it a fact that the air transport section of the Department of Transport has embarked on a cost recovery program from civil aviation of 80 per cent? Will the Minister confirm that this program has now resulted in a return of 1 14 per cent? Is the Government embarrassed by this result? Will the Minister indicate what move he will make to rationalise the situation?

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

-It is a fact that the previous Administration sought to raise 80 per cent in a cost recovery program by 1978. The House will recall that, on assumption of government, we put a stop to that. The program required an increase in some charges of up to 300 per cent in the 1975-76 financial year to enable the Budget target to be met. The Government has the matter under review. The honourable member’s figure of 1 14 per cent is not correct if applied to all aviation in Australia. In fact, a 1 14 per cent recovery applies in particular to international aircraft flying into Australia. The reason for the over estimate of recovery arises from the fact that there was a greater number of aircraft movements than expected, including the movements generally of international aircraft into and out of Australia in this year. The average recovery rate of all sectors of aviation now rests at about 60 per cent. I can give the honourable member some percentages that are fairly accurate. The recovery rate is about 114 per cent for international operations, about 73 per cent for the major domestic operators, about 26 per cent for rural airlines such as East West Airlines Ltd and about 18 per cent for general aviation. That is about the level of cost recovery at the present time.

The other point I must make is that the international operators are tied to the 2-airline policy in respect of the rate of recovery. Until the 2- airline policy is reviewed we are unable to change the rate of recovery for the major domestic operators as distinct from the international operators. Of course we will be looking at the situation in the Budget context.

page 1594

QUESTION

LOCKHEED CORPORATION SALES IN AUSTRALIA

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Will the AttorneyGeneral table in the House the statutory declaration he received from Mr Geoffrey Nicoll relating to Lockheed Corporation sales in Australia? Will he name the Government senators who last year called on the former Australasian sales manager for Lockheed, Mr Peter Mingrone, at his house in Los Angeles?

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

-I will take on notice the question that the honourable gentleman asks and I will give him an answer.

page 1594

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL

Mr NEIL:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. Is the Minister aware that the conservator of fine arts and the curator of art at the Australian War Memorial have resigned? What plans has the Minister to avoid such regrettable losses in the future and to provide adequate conservators and curators for the Memorial?

Mr STREET:
LP

– I am informed that during the last 6 months the conservator of fine arts and the curator of art at the Australian War Memorial have resigned. Action is in hand to appoint a scientist to head the Australian War Memorial conservation laboratory. This is a new position. Action is also being taken to review salary levels of conservation staff employed throughout the Commonwealth services. There are few trained conservators in Australia to meet the demands of our museums and art galleries. It is also a fact that no academic institution until the present time has a course of training in these skills. However, I understand that the Canberra College of Advanced Education hopes to start a course of this kind next year. In the meantime, the only course of action available to us is to attract qualified and experienced staff from abroad to undertake this work. We are fully aware of the valuable collections in the Australian War Memorial and we are taking positive steps to ensure that they are properly looked after.

page 1594

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL MOTOR CAR CONSORTIUM

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Prime Minister and I refer to the problems of the Australian motor car industry and the fact that despite substantial protection the Australian people do not have any shareholding in that industry. Because of the natural reluctance of foreign companies to manufacture Austalian cars with Australian inventiveness such as that shown by Pritchard, Everingham and Sarich, will the Prime Minister consider the Government exploring the opportunity to form an international consortium with Australian, Japanese, United States and German interests whereby there could be a world wide motor car produced using the talents of Australians on the basis that the work force in Australia would at least be able to be employed manufacturing part of a car, thereby guaranteeing the utilisation of Australian talent as well as the utilisation of a world market?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The honourable gentleman puts forward an interesting proposal. I note that his own Administration did not pursue it when it had an opportunity to do so.

page 1594

QUESTION

PUCKAPUNYAL ARMY CAMP: ACQUISITION OF LANDS

Mr BOURCHIER:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– Can the Treasurer advise the House of the current position in regard to the proposed acquisition of lands adjacent to the Puckapunyal Army camp?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– I am happy to advise the House that as a consequence of the most vigorous representations to me and to my colleague, the Minister for Defence, which have been made by the honourable gentleman- effectively representing on this issue, as he has done for some time and will continue to do for a very long period, the interests of the electors of Bendigo- I have recently informed the Minister for Defence that there is no objection to negotiations proceeding for the acquisition. I pay tribute to the endeavours which the honourable gentleman has so successfully made to bring that about.

page 1595

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT PARTIES’ FUNDS

Mr ARMITAGE:

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister who has overall responsibility for the security of Australia. Will the Prime Minister confirm or deny that the Central Intelligence Agency channels funds through Caltex Oil and Utah to the Government parties?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I have nothing to add on that subject to what I said yesterday. I would say, however, that there is a security organisation in Australia which has a responsibility to report to the Government any matters which, within the statutory charter of that organisation, ought to be reported to it. It is the statutory obligation of that organisation to survey all foreign intelligence activities and agencies. If it detected anything untoward I am sure that the agency would report. I have the highest confidence in the director of the agency who was appointed by my predecessor. I hope that my predecessor also has the highest confidence in his own appointee.

page 1595

QUESTION

TASMANIAN FREIGHT EQUALISATION SCHEME

Mr MacKENZIE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does the Minister for Transport recall that in answer to a question asked by the honourable member for Wilmot on 28 April he said that he considered it unlikely that the south bound component of the freight equalisation scheme to Tasmania would include fresh fruit and vegetables? Can the Minister explain why he believes that those commodities would be excluded from the scheme whilst Tasmanian growers of fruit and vegetables can benefit under the north bound provisions of the scheme? Does the Minister realise that he could be denying the people of Tasmania access to high quality, nutritious fruit such as apples grown in premier mainland fruit growing areas in the electorates of Calare, Hume, Maranoa, New England, Mitchell, Macquarie and many others?

Mr NIXON:
LP

– I suspect that the honourable member is giving information to the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I wondered whether he was.

Mr NIXON:

– The Tasmanians are not going to find out, because the freight equalisation scheme will not be permitted to extend to include fruit and vegetables. So I am afraid that Tasmanians are going to be starved of goods of the quality of those grown in electorates such as Gippsland, Indi and others. In all seriousness, the freight equalisation scheme for Tasmania has been designed to assist Tasmanian industry. It was designed chiefly to try to give a boost to manufacturing industry in Tasmania. I think that the north bound scheme is proving to be very successful in that regard and it is also proving to be beneficial for the general economy of Tasmania. It was an initiative taken by this Government which has, I think, been well received by the Tasmanian people. I repeat that fresh fruit and vegetables are unlikely to be included in the south bound freight equalisation scheme because they are domestic consumption products as distinct from manufacturing products used for the production of goods for re-export to the mainand. I would like to give consideration to the honourable member’s question because I know that many Gippsland growers could take advantage of his suggestion, if implemented.

page 1595

QUESTION

SEA TRANSPORT TO AND FROM TASMANIA

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

– I ask the Minister for Transport a supplementary question. I have asked him several questions about Mr Nimmo ‘s report of 5 March last year- 14 months ago today- on transport to and from Tasmania and in particular I have twice asked him about Mr Nimmo ‘s recommendation that the Australian National Line carry out an expeditious study of the comparative cost of moving general cargo (a) on its own wheels between Westernport Bay and Devonport and (b) in boxes and flats between Webb Dock and Devonport. Five months ago he told me that the Westernport proposal would not be analysed before the transport assistance scheme had been fully implemented and that the ANL would not necessarily bc required to carry out all or part of this study. I ask him: Has the expeditious study recommended by Mr Nimmo 14 months ago yet been commissioned and, if so, who has been commissioned to carry it out?

Mr NIXON:
LP

-It is a fact that the Leader of the Opposition has asked questions on this matter. He will be particularly pleased to know that with the introduction of the freight equalisation scheme the Government went beyond what Mr Nimmo recommended. It did so simply to assist

Tasmania. I am sure I do not need to spell out the details of that assistance to the Leader of the Opposition. He no doubt has studied this matter and applauds the Government for the action it has taken.

Insofar as the recommendations of the Nimmo Committee are concerned, work has been done in respect of a new service between Westernport and Tasmania. The Leader of the Opposition will be delighted to know that not only has the Australian National Line been doing work but also private enterprise separately has been doing work. I hope that one part of the studies will shortly come to a sensible conclusion.

page 1596

QUESTION

APPLES

Mr GOODLUCK:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health.

Mr Martyr:

– Is it about apples?

Mr GOODLUCK:

-It is. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a disgraceful article appearing in today’s Canberra Times’! Briefly, the article states that the British Medical Journal says that an apple a day may not be as effective as salted peanuts in keeping the dentist away. In view of the decline of the apple industry will the Minister have his Department investigate the British Medical Journal’s outrageous suggestion and also check reports that the Premier of Queensland and the President of the United States of America have an undue influence on the British Medical Journal?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

-I did see the report to which the honourable member has referred but I did not put his connotation upon it. I am equally concerned about the implications the report might have for the Tasmanian economy. May I suggest that the honourable member refer the matter to the Queensland Premier who may be vitally interested in the ascendancy of the peanut. The apple obviously has something on the peanut, that is, it is said that an apple a day keeps the doctor away even though it might not diminish tooth decay.

page 1596

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs a question. I refer to his trip to Indonesia in September 1975 when he was then Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs. Is it a fact that while at Bali he was met by Mr Harry Tjam and Mr Lim Bian Kie? Is it a fact that the latter was then the private secretary to General Ali Murtopo, the deputy chief of the State intelligence co-ordinating body known as BAKIN? Is it usual for senior skilled and experienced operatives of the level of Tjam and Kie to be diverted to what the Minister has described as exclusively a socialising function, attending to the social requirements of a visiting spokesman of the Opposition in the Australian Parliament on a totally unofficial visit? Does he also assert that such senior skilled and experienced operatives -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is not entitled to argue the point. He may seek information by way of question.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I thought the last part certainly was a question. The other parts, I believe, were questions. Is it likely, in his view, that senior, skilled, experienced operatives of the level of Tjam and Kie would file reports as misleading in content as he claims the report referred to in the National Times to be?

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

– I have covered this ground sufficiently. There seems no need for me to try to extend the possibilities of the desperate honourable member for Oxley as he tries now to appeal to the left wing of the Party that deserted him as he deserted those views which he formerly held. All I will say is that I have indicated already that what was to be a holiday seemingly turned out to be some sort of semi-official visit when people arrived and completely surprised me. As I have said, they too have corroborated that. I have nothing further to add. The honourable member should dig deeper in his own Party for the real information about government attitudes to Timor.

page 1596

DARWIN CYCLONE TRACY RELIEF TRUST FUND

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister Assisting the Minister for National Resources · Minister for the Northern Territory · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable members I present the monthly reports of the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund for October, November and December 1976 and January, February, March and April of 1977. Due to the limited number available, reference copies of these papers have been placed in the Bills and Papers Office of the House of Representatives and the Parliamentary Library.

page 1596

PRIVILEGE

Mr NEIL:
St George

-Mr Speaker, I raise a matter of privilege. I ask that you refer to the Committee of Privileges the action of the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) today in moving the motion that he moved in that firstly, it is an attempt to intimidate members in the future from raising matters in the House in accordance with the forms of the House; secondly, it was a deliberate reflection on the Chair which had ruled my motion of 26 April in order, over the objection of the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes); thirdly, it seeks to prevent free speech in this House and is at the very least premature until the issues raised in my motion are dealt with; and, fourthly, Hansard will show that my motion of 26 April did not contain matter to which the honourable member for Chifley referred today and that his errors in quotation today must be a deliberate misleading of the House. I have waited until after question time before raising this matter in order that the Business of the House may proceed.

Mr SPEAKER:

-If an honourable member wishes to raise a matter of privilege, he must establish to the satisfaction of the Speaker that there is a prima facie case of privilege. The honourable gentleman has failed to satisfy me on that on any count. I do not interpret the actions of the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) as in any sense either attempting to or likely to intimidate other members of this House. I did not regard the motion as in any way a reflection on the Chair. The motion of the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) was not ruled in order; it was received as a notice of motion. I do not accept the point of the honourable member for St George that the notice of motion of the honourable member for Chifley is premature in anticipating a debate. That, m fact, would amount to a reflection on the Chair. What was put by the honourable member for Chifley was a notice of motion, which he was entitled to do. In future, a motion of that character would not be accepted, as I indicated to the House. I accepted that motion having regard to the fact that the motion of the honourable member for St George had been accepted earlier. There is no issue of privilege.

Mr NEIL (St George )-Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr NEIL:

– Yes, Mr Speaker. I seek your discretionary leave to speak.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may proceed.

Mr NEIL:

– The motion raised by the honourable member for Chifley today quoted my motion incorrectly. Firstly I did not say that the document had been delivered to the former Government on 25 August. I said that the Canberra Times had reported to that effect. Secondly, I referred to statements made recently by the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, Mr Malik, to a journalist and not to a leaked document in which Mr Malik had allegedly made some statements to Mr MacEachen. At the time of my motion there had been no denial by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam).

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

- Mr Speaker, the honourable gentleman has repeated what you allowed me to correct earlier about a denial of the allegation. You allowed me to make a personal explanation denying those previously. The honourable gentleman has just repeated them. I do not have to keep on denying something which I first denied 6 months ago. Mr Speaker, on the other point, of courseMr Peacock- You did not tell the truth.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister for Foreign Affairs will withdraw that.

Mr Peacock:

– At your direction, Mr Speaker, I withdraw the remark.

Mr Scholes:

– On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the Minister is required to make an unqualified withdrawal.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have accepted it as an unqualified withdrawal.

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

– You think because you lied others do.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw that statement.

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

-Yes, I do.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call upon honourable members to understand that in the national Parliament bickering across the chamber does not do the status of the national Parliament any good whatever.

page 1597

HANSARD REPORT

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, on a technical matter which arises from page 1445 and page 1446 of Hansard of last Tuesday. It concerns a matter that I mentioned to you yesterday. The record shows that the Leader of the House, Mr Sinclair, moved that a paper be printed. I moved that the debate be adjourned. The Hansard record reads:

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is moving a motion that is not available to him. The motion is that the report be printed. There is no motion to take note of the paper. That is the motion to which the honourable gentleman would be entitled to move a motion.

I have listened to the tape of this incident. There was some confusion, listening to the tape, in regard to the timing of the matter raised by me. I rose immediately. I think that you did not see me and you might have started to put the question before you recognised me. But whether that be so or not, the Hansard record would seem to indicate that the motion that the report be printed was not one to which honourable members could speak. That would be- I know you would agree, Mr Speaker- a wrongful ruling in terms of the Standing Orders. I simply put this on record so that what is in Hansard, whether or not it be a correct version of what happened in the House, should not be regarded as a precedent for the future. It is a technical point, but one does not like to see wrong precedents established.

Mr SPEAKER:

– What the honourable gentleman says has a great deal of merit. In fact like the honourable gentleman I have listened to the tape. I have a clear recollection of the events and the tape satisfied me that my recollection is correct. It is that I put the question that the paper be printed and that was passed. Then the honourable gentleman moved for the adjournment of the debate, there being at that point nothing to adjourn. But the Hansard report does in fact record the passing of the motion to print the paper as coming after the statements by the honourable gentleman and me and, therefore, to subsequent readers perhaps would give a wrong impression. I have spoken to the Principal Parliamentary Reporter and he has indicated to me that he is satisfied that the passing of the motion ought to appear before the passage between the honourable gentleman and myself. Were this done, that which the honourable gentleman is concerned about, that is, giving a basis for a wrong ruling, would be removed. It would not be altering the evidence after the event; it is making sure that the record of the proceedings is accurate.

Mr Wentworth:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker.

page 1598

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Commonwealth Bureau of Roads (Repeal) Bill 1977.

Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Bill 1977.

Bed Sheeting Bounty Bill 1977.

Agricultural Tractors Bounty Amendment Bill 1977.

page 1598

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 24 May at 2.15 p.m., unless Mr Speaker shall, by telegram or letter addressed to each member of the House, fix an alternative day or hour of meeting.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-The Opposition does not oppose the motion, the terms of which were announced to the House some time ago. But, on behalf of the Opposition, I ask the

Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) whether he can give us a detailed program of what legislation the Government expects to pass before the end of this session. I think it would be valuable for the House to know exactly what is expected of it before the end of this session, especially as the timetable as at present set out would appear to provide very limited time, and also as fairly extensive arrangements already have been entered into by committees of the House and otherwise for the week following the week on which we are listed to rise, which is a week in which I think there is a very great likelihood that we will be still sitting. If some advance notice were given of what legislation the Government anticipates being passed or requires to be passed in this session and what legislation it intends to stand over it not only may help honourable members to prepare their plans for the 2 weeks of sitting but also will give them some idea of what the future program is likely to be.

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

– by leave- I shall do my best to comply with the request by the manager of the Opposition business in the House and shall provide him with such a list as soon as possible.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1598

GENERAL BUSINESS

Suspension of Standing Orders

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

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent notice No. 17, General Business, being called on forthwith.

page 1598

PROPOSED REFERENCE TO COURT OF DISPUTED RETURNS

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

I move:

  1. 1 ) The House notes:

    1. that the firm of Patrick Partners carried on the business of stock and share brokers under that name, principally in Sydney and Melbourne;
    2. that the said firm had 12 partners, of whom Michael Ehrenfried Baume, now the Honourable Member for Macarthur, was one;
    3. that on 27 July 1975 11 members of the firm other than the Honourable Member signed an authority under sub-section 188 (1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, as amended, authorising Mr J. H. Jamison, a registered trustee, to call a meeting of his creditors and to take over control of his property, and the authority became effective for the purposes of Part X of the Act on that day;
    4. that on 27 July 1975 the Honourable Member also signed an authority under sub-section 1 88 ( 1 ) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 as amended authorising Mr J. H. Jamison, a registered trustee, to call a meeting of his creditors and to take over control of his property, and the authority became effective for the purposes of Part X of the Act on that day;
    5. that on 27 February 1976 deeds of arrangement with each of the 11 partners other than the Honourable Member were approved by special resolutions passed under paragraph 204 (1) (b) of the Bankruptcy Act at creditors meetings held on that date;
    6. that the deeds of arrangement were executed on 19 March 1976 in compliance with sub-section 216 (1) of the Bankruptcy Act;
    7. that all 1 1 deeds of arrangement provided in the recitals (inter alia) that:

Recital A. The Debtor was at all material times a partner of Patrick Partners, Stock and Share Brokers (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Firm’) who carried on business principally in Sydney and Melbourne.

Recital B. On the 27 July 1975, the members of the Firm consisted of the persons named in Part A of the First Schedule hereto. Michael Ehrenfried Baume (hereinafter referred to as ‘Mr Baume’) was prior to 24 February 1975 a partner in the Firm and there is a dispute between Mr Baume and the Firm as to whether he was a partner thereof as at 27 July 1975. Mr Baume claims to be entitled to indemnities in respect of the debts and liabilities of the Firm from certain of the Partners and Former Partners of the Firm.

Recital C. On 27 July 1975, the Debtor, and the other members of the Firm (not including Mr Baume) signed an authority under Section 188 of the Act appointing the Trustee as his Controlling Trustee. Mr Baume also appointed the Trustee as his Attorney with powers limited to dealing with his interest (if any) in the Firm.

Recital F. The debtor is desirous of entering into this Deed of Arrangement in favour of his creditors in order to make arrangements for his affairs and secure payment of his debts in whole or in part to his said creditors on the terms and subject to the conditions herein-contained;

  1. that all 1 1 deeds of arrangement provided in clause 9 that:

In consideration of Mr Baume completing an agreement to make arrangements for the satisfaction of the debt of $106,082 claimed to be due by him to the Firm (the amount so paid by Mr Baume being part of the amount referred to in Clause 3 (b) hereof and forms part of the funds available for distribution to the Joint Creditors hereunder) and in consideration of the payments to be made by the Trustee in accordance with the provisions of this Deed, the Joint Creditors each covenant with the Trustee not, during the Currency of the Deed, to bring any action, suit or demand or take any steps to enforce payment by or against Mr Baume for any indebtedness in respect of which Mr Baume may be jointly or severally liable with the Debtor to any Joint Creditor and on the expiration of the Currency of the Deed the claims of all Joint Creditors (whether Participating Creditors or otherwise) against Mr Baume shall be deemed to be fully discharged and satisfied and shall thereupon be released and extinguished. The Trustee shall agree with Mr Baume to take such proceedings at the request and cost of Mr Baume and subject to such indemnities as the Trustee may determine to seek to restrain any Joint Creditor from bringing any action, suit or demand or taking any step to enforce payment against Mr Baume arising out of any indebtedness to a Joint Creditor in respect of which Mr Baume is jointly liable with the Debtor or to defend any such action, suit or demand so brought. The Trustee shall also agree with Mr Baume that the Trustee will not bring any action suit or demand or take any steps to enforce payment by Mr Baume for any indebtedness due jointly or severally by Mr Baume to the Debtor or the Firm or in respect of which Mr Baume is responsible to the Firm whilstever Mr Baume observes and performs the obligations on his part contained in the agreement entered into by him with the Trustee hereinbefore provided and upon the expiration of the Currency of the Deed all such claims and demands against Mr Baume shall be released and extinguished. If Mr Baume fails to complete the agreement with the Trustee as hereinbefore provided before the Commencement Date then this Clause shall not apply to Mr Baume;

  1. that all 1 1 deeds of arrangement provided in clause 1 (inter alia) that:

In this Deed unless the context otherwise requires the following expressions shall have the meaning set opposite the same respectively:-

The Commencement Date’ means the date on which this deed is executed.

Currency of the Deed’ means the duration of the Deed is provided by Clause 14 hereof;

  1. that all 1 1 deeds of arrangement provided in clause 14 that:

This Deed shall operate for a period of five (5) years from the Commencement Date;

  1. that the Honourable Member executed also on 19 March 1976 before any of the 1 1 deeds of arrangement were executed a deed as contemplated by the opening words of clause 9 hereinbefore referred to;

    1. that the Honourable Member has complied with the requirements of the relevant covenant in that deed;

  2. that in a judgement of 21 September 1976 Mr Justice Riley of the Federal Court of Bankruptcy determined in the matter of Dowling and others:

    1. that on the evidence each of the deeds of arrangement was entered into in accordance with Part X of the Bankruptcy Act, complied with the requirements of that Part, and was duly executed by the debtor concerned and the Trustee;
    2. that pursuant to sub-section 233(1) of the Bankruptcy Act each deed was therefore “binding on all the creditors of the debtor”;
    3. that even though each of the 1 1 deeds related not only to the liabilities of the debtor who executed it but also those of the Honourable Member, it could validly contain provisions which refer to liabilities of a person other than the executing debtor;
    4. that a deed of arrangement may contain any reasonable provisions requisite to give effect to the purposes of the deed if they do not contravene those provisions of the Act made applicable to deeds under Part X of the Bankruptcy Act;
    5. that the effect of the provisions relating to the Honourable Member which the deeds contain is that $106,082 contributed by the Honourable Member may be available for distribution among the creditors that would not otherwise be available with the added advantage of the avoidance of litigation against the Honourable Member over his liabilities to creditors and by him over his entitlements to indemnity from his former partners;
    6. that there is nothig in these provisions that offends any provision of the Bankruptcy Act and each of the 1 1 deeds is valid and binding;
    7. that having regard to the circumstances of the execution of the deeds of arrangements the deed signed by the Honourable Member need only have been executed by him before the debtors executed their deeds of arrangement for clause 9 to apply and therefore as he did in fact execute his deed before the deeds of arrangement were executed creditors are bound by the deeds of arrangement and clause 9 of those deeds applies to the Honourable Member,
    8. that the injunctions sought by Mr Jamison the trustee of the deeds of arrangements pursuant to sub-section 30(1) of the Bankruptcy Act be granted restraining certain creditors from taking any step to enforce payment by the Honourable Member for a debt in respect of which the said creditors alleged the Honourable Member is liable and which was the subject of proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and the making of an order that the creditors be restrained from proceeding with the action;

  3. That the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia provides (inter alia) in Section 43 (ii) that if a member of the House of Representatives takes the benefit, whether by assignment, composition or otherwise, of any law relating to bankrupt or insolvent debtors his place shall thereupon become vacant.

    1. The House therefore resolves that the question whether the place of the Honourable Member for Macarthur has become vacant pursuant to the provisions of Section 45 (ii) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia be referred for determination of the Court of Disputed Returns pursuant to section 203 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

This matter is an involved one. It is not easy to present it to the House in such a concise way as to allow considered judgment by the House. You, Sir, noted the problems with the detail that was given with the notice of motion. This exemplifies some of the difficulties that occur. As far as I know, there are no fresh, startling revelations in this matter. All the factors germane to the matter are known. In this matter that I have raised the House is not being asked to determine the qualifications of the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume). Its attention is being drawn to section 45 (ii) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, which provides among other things, that if a member of the House of Representatives takes the benefit, whether by assignment, composition or otherwise, of any law relating to bankrupt or insolvent debtors his place shall thereupon become vacant. The House is then being asked to take note that, from a variety of sources, it has been suggested that the honourable member for Macarthur has taken advantage of such an arrangement; so there is doubt as to his qualifications to sit. Following upon these 2 factors it is suggested that the House should facilitate the process of judicial determination of the matter rather than take it upon itself to determine it.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act provides for the Court of Disputed Returns to deal with such matters. In a matter where precise legal interpretation is required it is preferable for the Court to do so rather than for the House to decide the matter on what would be seen by people outside the Parliament to be .party political grounds and so reduce the dignity of the Parliament itself. There are recent parallels in this course to be followed. The Senate in the case of Senator Webster wisely decided that, as the matter was one of legal interpretation, it should go to the Court. In that case the Court cleared Senator Webster of any doubt. Another case recently was the case in Victoria when the qualifications of Bunna Walsh to sit as a member of the Legislative Council were challenged on the basis of a conviction many years before in the children’s court. In that the case Mr Walsh was disqualified. However, there was such revulsion about a children’s court penalty being raised in this way that subsequent legislation has removed this as a cause of disqualification there.

I cite those cases because they emphasise the desirability of the process of judicial inquiry being pursued. It is the duty of the courts to interpret the law. Our responsibility is to make the law. One cannot expect other people to have respect for the dignity of the membership of this House unless we accord it a high degree of dignity and respect. In saying this I am dealing with the latter part of the motion first. I have done this deliberately so that my request for action by the House is seen clearly. Having done that I must move to establish that doubt does exist with regard to the honourable member for Macarthur ‘s qualifications to sit in this House. The collapse of Patrick Partners is a matter of public notoriety. It has been the subject of much examination, discussion and even litigation. All sorts of issues have been raised, including dishonest actions by financial journalists, dumping of holdings at inflated prices and so on. But this is not the matter for discussion further today.

In putting the reasons for doubt on a calm, reasoned basis I rest principally on, firstly, the report of an inspector appointed pursuant to the Securities Industry Act of the State of New South Wales to investigate and report on certain matters concerning Patrick Partners from 1 July 1974 to 6 August 1975, which was dated 21

December 1976, which is known as the Masterman report and appropriate portions of which have already been tabled in this House; secondly, a judgment given by Mr Justice Sheppard in Meth and Co. (Australia) Pty Ltd and others v. the Commercial Banking Co. of Sydney Ltd; thirdly, a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Riley on 1 April 1976 and found in Volume 10 of the Australian Law Reports at page 71; and, fourthly, a judgment handed down by Mr Justice Riley on 21 September 1976. Sir, as the latter judgment is not widely available, I seek leave to table a copy of the reasons for judgment.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Dr JENKINS:

– It may be appropriate at this stage also to seek leave to table for the information of honourable members copies of, firstly, a deed between Mr Baume and Mr Jamison and the Commercial Banking Co. of Sydney Ltd and the Bank of New South Wales dated 19 March 1976 and, secondly, a deed of arrangement between Norman Roy Course and James Hardie Jamison dated 19 March 1976, which are relevant to the judgments and the discussion.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Ellicott:

– Leave is granted. I understand that the honourable member will vouch for their accuracy.

Dr JENKINS:

– Yes, I have asked for those copies to be tabled so that they will be available for the information of honourable members.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Leave is granted.

Dr JENKINS:

– Let us consider the validity of the partnership of the honourable member for Macarthur, Mr Baume, in Patrick Partners. I understand that there has been some dispute with regard to the type of partnership and the actual dates concerned. Let me deal with this by quoting a paragraph from page 86 of the Masterman report. It states:

On the evidence before me I am satisfied that Mr Baume continued to be a partner of Patrick Partners subsequent to February 1975 and indeed continued to be a partner up to the date the Partnership closed its doors. As he explained in evidence he was constrained by debts which he owed the Partnership to continue in law to remain a member of the Partnership even though his intention was not to return to it. In my view his signature on the various documents connected with the renewal of his Dealer’s Licence in June 1975 constitute clear admission that he remained a partner. Further support for the conclusion I have reached can also be drawn from his involvement in the discussions which took place on Sunday the 27th of July. Accordingly in the balance of this Report I proceed on the basis that Mr Baume was at all times during the period with which I am concerned a partner of Patrick Partners who had been given leave of absence at the end of February 1975 and had relatively little contact with the affairs of the firm thereafter.

The first sentence is surely the relevant one that the House has to note, particularly that part that states:

  1. . and indeed continued to be a Partner up to the date the Partnership closed its doors.

Constraints of time lead me to ask the House to take note of the information given in the motion regarding factors in the deeds of arrangement and so on. Time does not allow us to deal with all the material that is in these things. The judgment of Mr Justice Sheppard that I have mentioned refers to some of the advantages of deeds of arrangements. He said in opening:

I do not wish to say more than that I think that in the interests of many persons concerned with the failure of Patrick Partners a much more detailed investigation than could be carried out in these adversary proceedings is called for. Regrettably the fact that there is an arrangement pursuant to Pt. X of the Bankruptcy Act means, so long as that situation continues, that there will be no public examination of the debtors. The provisions of sec. 69 of the Act are not picked up by Pt. X: et. sec. 231. I think that this is a case where public examination of the leading figures in the debacle which occurred is called for. The members of the firm were, after all, fiduciary agents and there is here revealed material which is capable of suggesting that some at least of the members of the firm may have acted towards their principals in breach of their obligations.

He concluded his statement by saying:

As I indicated during the hearing these papers will be sent to the Attorney-General for the purposes of his taking such action, including reference to the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth, as he may deem appropriate.

Using this comment, which shows the benefits of the deeds of arrangement, I turn to the allegation that Mr Baume, now the honourable member for Macarthur, additionally and separately received the benefits of arrangements made under Part X of the Bankruptcy Act 1956 by the partners. This is because the effect of clause 9 of the deeds of arrangement is to prevent any actions from being brought against the honourable member for Macarthur for the debts of Patrick Partners by any creditors, including creditors who may have, or have had, claims against the honourable member, and also to release him from obligations or liabilities at the expiration of 5 years. This can be seen in Mr Justice Riley’s judgment of 2 1 September 1 976 in which he said:

The effect of the provisions relating to Mr Baume which the deeds contain is that $ 106,082 contributed by Mr Baume may be available for distribution among the creditors that would not otherwise be available, with the added advantage of the avoidance of litigation against Mr Baume over his liabilities to creditors and by him over his entitlement to indemnity from his former partners. In my opinion there is nothing in those provisions that offends any provision of the Act, and each of the eleven deeds is valid and binding on each of the first four respondents.

Mr Justice Riley in this case gave much attention to other matters as they affected Mr Baume before he made this statement. In the statement he clearly referred to the benefit derived by the honourable member for Macarthur from these arrangements made under the Bankruptcy Act. He made further comments on page 4 of the judgment. He said:

Mr Baume did, as contemplated by the opening words of CI. 9, complete an agreement to make arrangements for the satisfaction of the debt of $106,082 claimed to be due by him to the firm. He did so by executing a deed (which I shall call the Baume deed ‘), also on 1 9 March 1 976; and he has complied with the requirements of the relevant covenant in that deed.

So it was not only a matter of the other partners coming to a deed of arrangement, but it was also a matter of the honourable member for Macarthur taking part in such a deed. It is to this very type of arrangement that section 45(2) of the Constitution refers. One has to refer to relevant dates in this matter. The honourable member for Macarthur was elected on 13 December 1975. The deeds of arrangement I refer to were signed on 19 March 1976. It would seem to me that both the eminent jurists, Mr Justice Riley and Mr Justice Sheppard, have found that the deed of arrangement signed by the partners of Patrick Partners on 19 March 1976 are now operating validly, and because they are operating validly they now provide a benefit under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 to the honourable member.

Having shown that and having raised that doubt, this surely should be of concern to the House. As I have submitted previously, in order to put the issue beyond any doubt- certainly to me much doubt exists- the House should show respect for itself and show its seriousness with regard to the qualifications of members by not impeding in any way a judicial inquiry and a judicial decision in this matter. On these grounds I try to make no absolute judgment. I have tried to show that the materials that exist raise a doubt about the qualifications of the honourable member for Macarthur. These materials are freely available to all. When that doubt exists I believe that the House should support my motion for reference of this matter to the Court of Disputed Returns.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I second the motion, and I speak at this stage because I understand that the Government intends to put up only one speaker-and that will not be the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume). Accordingly, I am obliged to speak now. The Government proposes then to stop the debate after the speaker from its side concludes. I would have preferred to be able to answer any case that may have been put up. The issue is not one of personality; it is one of the Constitution and the obligations of members of this Parliament. So it does not matter what personalities we have to mention during the course of this debate. What is at issue could apply to any one of us. The Constitution provides that a bankrupt cannot be chosen as a member of Parliament. That immediately means that 1 1 of the 12 members of Patrick Partners could never be chosen as members of this House. They are bankrupts. The issue is whether the twelfth member, that is, the honourable member for Macarthur, is a bankrupt within the meaning of the Constitution. There is no contest as to the validity of his election but there is contest whether he is entitled to remain here. The Constitution does state that any member who takes the benefit, whether by assignment, composition or otherwise, of any law relating to bankruptcy or insolvency shall forfeit his seat. Of course, it can be said that that is a legal matter, and so it is, and relates to the ramifications of whether we, in this Parliament, with all our limitations, are entitled to say: ‘You have taken the benefit of an insolvency provision in the Bankruptcy Act and, therefore, you must forfeit your seat’ Lumb and Ryan clearly make the point that we should not necessarily debate this matter in detail but that we have an obligation, where the matter is raised and where the Parliament itself has provided for these matters to be determined by a court, to have them determined by a court. The motion moved by my colleague, the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins), does not propose that we pass judgment here but that the prima facie facts clearly indicate that the High Court should determine the matter on the merits. I think that would also be in the interests of the honourable member because, if he is acquitted of any suggestion that he has taken the benefit, nothing further would happen. If we do not allow the matter to go to the court, there will always be the stigma that the Parliament was used to protect a member of the Government, and that is not in the interests of good democracy or good government.

Lumb and Ryan clearly draw a distinction between people who are bankrupt and people who have taken advantage of bankruptcy. In other words, bankruptcy can be avoided by using the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, which clearly was done by the honourable member for Macarthur. I do not think he has ever denied that and it is stated in the Masterman report. But, for the sake of the House and as a basis on which it should pass the motion to permit this course to be followed, these are the fact. The honourable member for Macarthur joined the firm called Patrick Partners and was registered as a partner under the Business Names Act of New South Wales, together with 1 1 other members. Under the State law, he held himself out to be a partner. That law provides that, if a person wishes to retire from a partnership, he must give notice of such dissolution. Section 36 of the New South Wales Partnership Act provides that, if a person retires from a partnership, he must advertise his retirement in a local newspaper or in the Government Gazette. He has to give notice to people who, if they deal with a partnership not knowing that he has retired from it, are entitled to hold him responsible. Particulars of registration of the business name of Patrick Partners were not changed, and no evidence was ever given to the public that the honourable member had retired from the partnership. If the provisions of the law were applied, the honourable member would be liable for all the debts of Patrick Partners.

Masterman ‘s report clearly shows that Patrick Partners was insolvent to the extent of an enormous amount of money. It was insolvent in the sense that it was unable to pay its creditors. Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Act had to be utilised to protect Patrick Partners in the sense that it might be able to make some arrangements, and that it did. The Bankruptcy Act, which is a Federal Act, clearly states how that may be done. Section 188 of the Act provides that, if a person wishes to avoid the sequestration of his estatenot bankruptcy but sequestration- he must sign an authority under section 188 appointing a trustee. The honourable member for Macarthur did that, and Masterman found that he did it. Accordingly, there is no dispute that that authority was signed and that it was signed while he was a member of this Parliament. Section 40 of the Bankruptcy Act clearly states that any person who signs an authority under section 188 of the Act has committed an act of bankruptcy.

So, we have all the ingredients necessary to say that there is insolvency. There is membership of a partnership and there is an act of bankruptcy. Then, we come to the final point raised by the honourable member for Scullin. Has an advantage been taken to avoid the ultimate fate of being a bankrupt by saying: ‘I have entered into an arrangement and taken the benefit to avoid that stigma’? While a person might be able to avoid the stigma of bankruptcy, he cannot avoid the ramifications of the Constitution of this nation, which provides that if a person has entered into that sort of arrangement he is liable to have his seat declared vacant. There is a very good reason for that. The Opposition does not put this on a personal basis, but any member of this Parliament who is beholden to others because of debt or other liability may well have his judgment on matters such as national security legislation confined or restricted because of obligation to others. The honourable member himself in the evidence given to Masterman admitted such a possibility in his endeavours, as he said, to get out of the partnership. The big issue in relation to public interest is that a number of creditors of Patrick Partners have been to members of Parliament asking why it is that only 1 1 people appear to be involved and that a member of Parliament seems to be exempt. They cannot understand it. They think that some special preference, some special privilege, has been given to a member of this House. Nevertheless, it has to be said that there is no chance of any member of this Parliament obtaining any special privilege or any special preference. In fact, he should be the first to go before a judicial tribunal to say: ‘I have done no wrong. ‘

The question here is one of the legal actions of the honourable member for Macarthur, and again I repeat them. He was a member of a partnership who never took any action to say that he was no longer a member by registering the appropriate forms or by advertising in the appropriate newspapers. According to the Masterman report, he admitted that he was a member of the partnership when he signed a statutory declaration to renew his membership to enable him to retain his stocks and shares licence, and I think he did that at some time in June 197S. He signed an authority in July 197S stating that the partnership was unable to meet its debts and that, according to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, he was signing the authority and appointing Mr Jamison to be his trustee. Mr Jamison then entered into arrangements with creditors whereby the honourable member would pay $106,000 by 30 June, or such other period as the committee of inspection would allow, to enable him to avoid litigation. As the honourable member for Scullin said, the benefit was taken by that action of paying a sum of money. I might say in passing that $106,000 was substantially more than any of the other partners had to pay. The committee of inspection told me personally that it had not approved the deed because it was defective in the sense of consideration being valuable consideration.

Other public interest matters are involved, although we need not go into them. However, the creditors certainly want them raised on the basis whether a member of Parliament should say that he is going to pay $106,000 and then $ 106,000 is not paid. That is the simple approach of the creditors on this issue. Further, they are hostile towards the trustee, although we need not debate this, on the matter of whether or not he carried out his duties. The deed was supposed to be made with the approval of the committee of inspection and the committee has said that it did not approve that deed. Nevertheless, the deed does exist because Mr Justice Riley adverted to it. People named Allen wished to pursue the honourable member because he was a partner and therefore personally liable for the debts of the partnership, but when they sought to pursue their legal rights, which they would be entitled to do, they were met by an injunction instituted by Jamison preventing them from doing so because of the deed of arrangement. His Honor Mr Justice Riley said that the deed stood. It was a valid deed and meant that the honourable member had compounded his obligations, had taken advantage of not being jointly and severally liable for the whole of the debts of the partnership but was liable for a sum of only $106,000. But he can avoid litigation because he gets the benefit of that deed, and that was clearly spelled out when, as my colleague has already mentioned, His Honor found the deed to be validthat is the Baume deed- and that the money would be available for creditors, with the added advantage of the avoidance of litigation. In other words, the honourable member is in a very special position because the Bankruptcy Act provides that creditors cannot sue in any court of this country if a person takes the benefit of an assignment which is recognised by the bankruptcy law. When Allen, a creditor, sought to enforce his rights on the basis that Baume was different from the others, because he had said that he was not a member of the partnership and therefore Allen could attack that issue in the court, he was prevented from so doing. Mr Speaker, do you not there see that people in this country who think they are entitled to press their claims against the honourable member would feel that he is being put into a very sheltered and special position of which no other person has been able to get advantage?

We raise the matter on that issue. Nobody in this Parliament should be associated with that sort of attitude and be able to say: ‘I am not a member of the partnership. That is good enough. I have no interest in it. I have paid $106,000’. I point out that that is disputed. An honourable member cannot say that that is good enough because it is not. The honourable member could well have paid the $106,000 but that is denied. He could well have entered into the deed of arrangement and, of course, would still fall within the ambit of section 45 of the Constitution in that he has taken advantage of a composition of arrangement, which he has done. If the liability of Patrick Partners to creditors is deemed to be about $lm, those creditors are entitled to sue each and every one of those partners for the sum of $lm. That is the law. A person cannot abrogate his responsibility on the basis that he has a deed of arrangement which states that that will hold him out of court. It will to the extent that it states the person cannot be sued because he has taken advantage of the Bankruptcy Act. But once the person concerned does that, he cannot say that the Parliament cannot do anything about the matter either. The issue is that the honourable member has taken advantage of this position. Therefore, he would be a prisoner of some provisions of the Bankruptcy Act and really is not a free agent in the Parliament.

Perhaps this can be disproved but it can be disproved only by legal argument in the High Court of Australia. That is the appropriate place to put such arguments. Politics does not enter into this matter on the basis that Parliament itself has provided within section 203 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act that:

Any questions respecting the qualifications of a member of the House of Representatives or respecting a vacancy may be referred by resolution-

That is all this motion is asking the Parliament to do. I would think that it would be in the interest of every member of the House to see that when these accusations are made they are properly determined by an impartial judicial body before which evidence can be given.

The issue is this: Masterman clearly found that Baume was a member of the partnership. Baume denied that he signed the authority in an effective form. But the authority under section 188 was signed by Baume in July and witnessed by Mr Applegate of Sly and Russell. So the issue, when it came before Masterman, was not challenged on the basis that the authority was not signed; it was challenged on the basis that it was not properly witnessed. This is what Baume has said. If we look at the evidence given by Applegate, we find that he really denies that, although he cannot get it in detail. He denies that there was any suggestion that the authority was not signed in his presence. That is very clear. In fact, one wonders how Mr Applegate could continue to practise in New South Wales as a solicitor if he allowed himself to be so impugned as the honourable member has impugned him on the basis that he witnessed a document when he should not have witnessed it.

I find that when we look at all the facts, sym- pathetic as we may be to any honourable memer of this Parliament who has financial liabilitiesthat could happen to any one of us- the issue is the Constitution itself and the problems in that Consitution for members of Parliament. People have great responsibilities when they enter this Parliament. They have the obvious responsibility of saying to the electors, whether they be in the electorate of Macarthur or anywhere else: ‘I did not take any special advantage. I received no special preference. I am perhaps worse off than most of you. I have to face up to accusations in the Parliament’. When accusations of the substance I have put are made, they should not be decided here by resolution to determine the guilt or otherwise of the honourable member; they should be referred to the High Court on the basis that there they can be determined. The Court can determine whether the honourable member has taken a benefit or whether he has not. The creditors think he has. Most people in Australia would think that he has. Perhaps there is an answer. If there is, to be sustained it would have to deny the validity of the Masterman report.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Attorney-General.

Mr ELLICOTT:
AttorneyGeneral · Wentworth · LP

-Mr Speaker -

Dr Klugman:

– Plenty of friends in the High Court, anyway.

Mr ELLICOTT:

-Is the honourable member talking about me?

Dr Klugman:

– No.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– If he is not, he had better make it clear. This question is basically one of interpretation of the Constitution. It is a question of law. The facts in this matter that are relevant are not really in dispute so far as I understand them although there may be some variation here and there. It is a question of whether the Constitution catches up the position of the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) in such a way as to cause his seat to be declared vacant. Section 47 of the Constitution states:

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a Senator or of a member of the House of Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.

Section 203 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act does bring in a qualification to that and enables this House, if it wishes, to send the matter off to the Court of Disputed Returns. It is the Government ‘s view in this matter that, because of the question and the answer that can be given to it, this House should determine the matter and not send it off to the High Court of Australia.

I ask honourable members who have a regard for this matter to listen to what I say. As I understand it, although some emotive phrases were used by the honourable member for KingsfordSmith (Mr Lionel Bowen) basically honourable members have attempted to approach the subject in the way I suggested, namely, as a question of law applied to the facts. I ask honourable members opposite to listen carefully because I am anxious that they should understand what I am about to say and what I am about to put to the House and that they should feel some confidence in what I am about to say because I will put it as the first law officer of the Commonwealth and not in any other way.

One thing that is important to understand is this: Section 44 of the Constitution, in dealing with people who shall be incapable of being chosen- that is chosen or elected to this Houserefers in the relevant part to a person who is an undischarged bankrupt or who is insolvent. So the thrust of this section is to take some action in relation to a person who is insolvent. However, that is not the section that is relevant to this matter because the honourable member is neither bankrupt nor insolvent in the sense that the words are used in that section. Mr Speaker, I make the point right at the outset- it is very important to understand this-that there is no evidence that the honourable member is insolvent or has been insolvent. That is a very important fact to bear in mind and I ask honourable members to understand it. If they do not understand it and comprehend it at the beginning, they will get caught up in all sorts of emotional exercises. I ask honourable members to bear that in mind.

Dr Klugman:

– Is that why you will not send it to the High Court?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Prospect has continued to interject. I warn him to cease doing so.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– Section 45 (ii) of the Constitution is the relevant provision. It states:

If a senator or member of the House of Representatives-

Takes the benefit -

I emphasise the words ‘takes the benefit’- whether by assignment, composition, or otherwise, of any law relating to bankrupt or insolvent debtors … his place shall thereupon -

I emphasise the word ‘thereupon ‘- become vacant.

It is important first of all to note that if a person had taken the benefit prior to his becoming a member- that is to say, at a time prior to his electionthe fact that he had entered into a deed of arrangement in the strict sense to which I will refer subsequently, would not preclude him from being elected because section 44 (iii) refers to an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent. Neither of those terms applies to a person who has taken the benefit, whether by assignment, composition or otherwise, of any law relating to bankrupt or insolvent debtors. I point that out to honourable members. It is not essential to what I am about to say but I point it out.

When we read those words ‘takes the benefit … of any law’ and apply them to the Bankruptcy Act we find that the Bankruptcy Act deals not just with debtors, people who owe money to others. The word ‘debtor’ means a person who is unable to pay his debts, as they become due, out of his own moneys. That has a specific meaning. I guess we are all debtors in one sense, but I hope that none of us is so unfortunate as to be a debtor in the sense in which that section defines that word. That again is an important matter and it is relevant to what I referred to earlier, namely, that there is no evidence before this House to suggest that the honourable member for Macarthur was at any relevant time a person who was unable to pay his debts as they became due out of his own moneys. That in itself is not basic to what I am saying, but I point it out to honourable members.

The basic point to understand is that this Act applies to people who find themselves unable to pay their debts as they become due. Section 188 of the Bankruptcy Act speaks of a debtor (being such a person) who desires that his affairs be dealt with ‘under this Part’ without his estate being sequestrated. Again it emphasises that it is a person taking the benefit of this Act, that is, taking benefit by way of a deed of arrangement. He or she can enter into a deed of arrangement if he or she so wishes, but it must be in accordance with the Act. I do not want to take the House through the various provisions of the Act, but it does contain technical provisions for the execution of the deed following a meeting of the creditors. There is provision for the appointment of a trustee. It is made quite clear that a deed of arrangement is a particular document which is executed by the trustee and by a person called a debtor. The honourable member for Macarthur at no time purported to act as a debtor within the meaning of Part X of the Bankruptcy Act. That is quite clear. What honourable members opposite are seeking to do, with respect, is to convict him for a course of action which he did not take but might have taken. They are seeking to do that instead of concentrating on the basically important issue, and that is what in fact he did.

Judgments have been referred to. The judgment of Mr Justice Riley has been referred to. That judgment raised the question of the validity of the deeds of arrangement. We should read in association with those deeds the deed that Mr Baume executed. Let us be clear about the fact that he did not execute a deed of arrangement. That is quite clear. He executed another deed; it was not a deed of arrangement. Honourable members opposite can call it a deed of arrangement if they want to do so, but I can assure them that it is not a deed of arrangement within the meaning of the law. It was not so treated before Mr Justice Riley. There is no basis on which it can be asserted to be a deed of arrangement. One might say that it was a deed executed contemporaneously with a deed of arrangement but not executed by him as a debtor under this Act as a deed of arrangement. If honourable gentlemen opposite wish to assert simply that it is a deed of arrangement, I think they will find it very difficult to back up that assertion. Section 233 of the Bankruptcy Act provides:

  1. 1 ) A deed of arrangement that is entered into in accordance with this Pan and complies with the requirements of this Part is, upon being duly executed by the debtor and the trustee, binding on all the creditors of the debtor.

That section gives force and effect to those eleven deeds of arrangement which were executed by the 1 1 partners of Patrick Partners. None of those deeds was executed by Mr Baume.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– They named him as a partner in it.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– None of the deeds was executed by Mr Baume.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith was listened to in silence. I ask him to cease interjecting.

Mr ELLICOTT:

-I repeat that no deed of arrangement within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act was executed by the honourable member for Macarthur. That is quite clear.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– That is disputed.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– That is not disputed. No assertion has been made anywhere that he executed a deed of arrangement. The honourable member cannot say otherwise, with very great respect. To say otherwise is to mislead the House. He did not sign a deed of arrangement.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– He did.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I call upon the Attorney-General to make his point. I call upon the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith to cease interjecting. The resolution of this motion will not be helped by interjections and assertions being made back and forth across the table.

Mr Scholes:

– You are using the Parliament to subvert the law.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Corio will remain silent.

Mr ELLICOTT:

-I ask that the honourable member for Corio be requested to withdraw that remark.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call upon the honourable member for Corio to withdraw.

Mr Scholes:

– It is a true statement. The Parliament is to be used to subvert the law. The Attorney-General has said so himself. It is a statement which is not in dispute. If you require it to be withdrawn, Mr Speaker, I withdraw it in deference to the Chair.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The statement has been withdrawn. I call the Attorney-General.

Mr Scholes:

– The law will have no respect in Australia in the future.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I call upon the honourable member for Corio to cease interjecting. If the honourable gentleman holds any view he can state that view if and when he has an opportunity to enter the debate. He is not entitled to continue to try to put over a point of view by way of interjection. I ask him to assist in the running of the House by remaining silent.

Mr Scholes:

– In view of the fact that the Attorney-General has already informed the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith that any honourable member who seeks to follow him in this debate will be gagged, members of the Opposition will have very little opportunity to put a point of view different from that which the Attorney-General is putting.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman knows that interjections are out of order.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– The point which I put through you, Mr Speaker-I do not want to trouble about the interjections- is that under section 233 of the Bankruptcy Act a deed of arrangement which is entered into in accordance with the Act and which complies with the requirements of Part X is, when executed by the debtor, binding on all creditors. I have already made the point that the honourable member for

Macarthur was never a debtor within the meaning of the Act. He never executed a deed of arrangement. The Act says that upon a deed being duly executed it is binding on all the creditors of the debtor. I refer to that simply to indicate to honourable members how it was that, by virtue of the execution of the deeds of arrangement by the 1 1 Patrick partners, clause 9 of that deed became binding on the creditors. Of course, that had the effect of enabling the settlement of disputes between the honourable member for Macarthur and the trustee. They were settled in a way which was thought to be advantageous to the creditors of Patrick Partners. I do not want to say any more about that matter; I simply want to explain to honourable members how the deed executed by the honourable member for Macarthur became relevant.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The AttorneyGeneral ‘s time has expired.

Motion (by Mr Howard) proposed:

That the Attorney-General be granted an extension of time.

Mr Scholes:

– Before we vote on that motion, I ask whether it is intended that the debate be then allowed to continue.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no opportunity for debate on this question. The question is: ‘That the Attorney-General be granted an extension of time’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– Having referred to section 233 and indicated its relevance, I now return to section 45 of the Constitution. I remind honourable members that it states:

If a senator or member of the House of Representatives-

Takes the benefit, whether by assignment, composition, or otherwise, of any law relating to bankrupt or insolvent debtors … his place shall thereupon become vacant.

The question is: Has the honourable member for Macarthur, on the facts as we known them, taken the benefit- not on the facts as they might have been, but on the facts as they occurred, with the deeds executed by the 1 1 Patrick Partners and with the deed executed by the honourable member for Macarthur? That is the question. As I said at the beginning, this is basically a question of interpretation and the application of the Constitution to those facts.

The matter has been considered by the Solicitor-General and myself and we have approached it on the basis of the facts as we understand them. We have set them out in a joint opinion. Having considered the facts, we have formed a firm opinion that the place of the honourable member has not become vacant. I table in the House our joint opinion on the matter. It is a considered opinion and I say to members of the House that it is a firm opinion. The honourable member for Macarthur has made available to me a copy of an opinion which he obtained from a previous Attorney-General, who I believe is well respected- Mr Hughes, Queen’s Counsel. Mr Hughes also expresses a firm view that the seat of the honourable member for Macarthur has not become vacant. Another opinion obtained by the honourable member for Macarthur at an earlier stage- in April 1976- from junior counsel, Mr David Bennett of the New South Wales Bar, is to the same effect. I also table those opinions.

I do so simply on the basis that inevitably in a debate in this House, honourable members opposite would want to say the sorts of things they have said already this morning. They have tried to throw up some doubt based on some emotive approach to the facts in this particular case. Of course this is designed to put the honourable member for Macarthur in a position he should not be put in. With very great respect, honourable members opposite should accept the proposition that this question of law is quite clear and has been quite clearly answered. There is no need for the matter to be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns. Therefore, the Government wants this matter to be decided by this House.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-This approach is in line with actions that have been taken by the Victorian Government which passed legislation retrospectively within the last 1 years to protect the Victorian Premier.

Motion ( by Mr Ellicott) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.)

AYES: 71

NOES: 31

Majority…… 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put-

That the motion (Dr Jenkins’s) be agreed to.

The House divided. (MrSpeaker-Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.)

AYES: 31

NOES: 71

Majority…… 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr BAUME:

– Yes, I do. During the recently concluded debate the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) alleged several things which are untrue. These were presented as facts in that debate; facts which affect me and certainly damage me. The honourable member said that I had clearly used the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act. That is untrue. At no stage have I used the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act to seek any special privilege. He said further that I was given special privilege as a member of this House. No privilege was sought; none has been received. He claimed that I had executed a deed of arrangement under the Bankruptcy Act. That is false and is known to be false. It was claimed by the honourable gentleman that $106,000, which was to be paid under a deed that I had signed but which had nothing to do with the Bankruptcy Act, had not, in fact, been paid. That is untrue and is known to be untrue. An amount of $80,000-odd of it was paid in cash.

Mr Scholes:

-Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Opposition was and is prepared to continue the debate. The question has been resolved and I suggest that the honourable member is not making a statement of how he was misrepresented but, in fact, is refuting points made in the debate. This course is not open to him as he did not take part in the debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may continue his personal explanation.

Mr BAUME:

– It was alleged that this debt was not paid. It has been paid. It was alleged further that this was a debt to the creditors of the partnership. It was not. It was an alleged debt to the partnership itself.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is now debating the matter. He is entitled to correct misrepresentations but not to argue.

Mr BAUME:

– In brief and in summary, statements purporting to be fact, affecting me and damaging me, were made in the debate. They were not fact and are known not to be fact.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN (Kingsford-Smith) -Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– Yes, I do. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) has just said that I made misleading statements to the House on a number of matters. He said that I had made the accusation that he had taken advantage of the Bankruptcy Act. I made this statement and explained it on the basis that the honourable gentleman had entered in to a deed of arrangement, which I say it is. Clause 9 of the deed of arrangement of the creditors referred to his deed. They are interdependent. I referred also to the authority executed under section 188 of the Bankruptcy Act. To that extent I reiterate what I have said. I said also that creditors had informed me -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is debating the matter. This is not an explanation of how he has been misrepresented.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– The honourable member for Macarthur said that I had misled the House and that there was no truth in what I said.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Macarthur said that he had been misrepresented. He then purported to set the record straight. The honourable gentleman now is reiterating what he said earlier on the basis that by twice repeating it, this will require the honourable member for Macarthur to twice repeat the misrepresentation. I cannot allow the honourable gentleman to continue on this basis. If he has been misrepresented he can say so.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Mr Speaker, I note your ruling. The honourable member said that he had paid the full sum of $106,000. 1 want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this amount has not been paid.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman cannot claim to have been misrepresented by the honourable member for Macarthur claiming that the money has been paid.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The point I am trying to make is that if I do not make this explanation the honourable member for Macarthur, who did not take part in the debate, will be allowed to use the forms of a personal explanation to say that everything I said before was deliberately untrue. It is not so. I will not be put in a position in this House of being accused of making untrue statements. They are actually true and can be sustained. The honourable gentleman forfeited his right to speak when he did not participate in the debate. He cannot use the forms of the House to say that somebody else has misled the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is now debating the matter. I ask him to resume his seat.

The time allotted for General Business has expired.

Suspension of Standing Orders

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

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent consideration of Notice No. 1 General Business be continued until 2.30 p.m. this day.

page 1610

QUESTION

TRADE UNION MOVEMENT: INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES

Mr HAMER:
Isaacs

– I move:

That this House is of the opinion that the following question should be put to the citizens of Australia in a poll on the occasion of the next election for the House of Representatives: ‘Do you approve of industrial action by way of strikes or work bans being carried out by certain sections of the

Trade Union Movement, where this action has no relation to industrial disputes ‘.

In moving this motion I would like to preface my remarks by making clear the position from which I speak. I do not speak to denigrate in any way trade unions or trade unionism. I am not involved in what is called a ‘union bash’. I have respect for the trade unions as an institution integral to our free society and as bodies that protect ordinary citizens of this country in many aspects of their work situation. I am aware also of the historical contribution made by the trade union movement to the development of Australia. I speak, however, to draw attention to the activities of some individuals within trade unions who bring disrepute on the union movement and whose activities, if they continue, can only adversely affect our community.

An election for the House of Representatives is due to be held in 1978 or 1979. At that time the citizens of Australia again will be asked to decide who should govern the nation. At that time I believe it important for the electors of Australia also to be asked whether they approve of political strikes and work bans. This is becoming a vital issue because no matter which party is in power, no matter which group has been elected via the political process, there are some groups in our society holding key positions who are determined to make political decisions on behalf of the whole community without reference to and often in defiance of the parliamentary process. I refer, of course, to strikes and work bans enforced by sections of the trade union movement for political purposes. This question of political strikes is a vital one for the community and, I believe, will become more urgent if current trends continue. Over the past few years we have seen numerous politically motivated strikes and bans- the Medibank strike; bans on Indonesian shipping; bans on United States nuclearpowered warships entering our ports, in clear contravention of the ANZAAS Treaty; bans on building of roads and other structures and bans on demolition of various buildings.

Some unions have so broadened the scope of their activities that the stage has been reached where there is virtually no area of political, social or econmic life upon which they are not prepared to take direct action in support of their aims and views. This is not to say that I believe it is wrong for unions to express views on matters affecting society or on the actions of government. In a liberal democracy this is a legitimate course of action for all groups and all individuals. As a member of this Parliament I have met with trade union representatives and discussed their views on various economic and industrial matters. But it is one thing to tender advice and seek to influence government policy; it is quite another to attempt to impose decisions on governments and on the community. It is the latter phenomenon we have been seeing repeatedly in recent years. I can understand unions or individual unionists refusing to carry out some particular work on the grounds that they morally object to it and could not be a party to it. There are parallels in the medical profession, for instance, where some doctors or nurses will not take part in certain medical operations. One might think this reasonable. I do not advocate forcing people to perform work they find morally abhorrent. However, it is one thing for a person to say: ‘I will not carry out this task’ but completely different for a person to say: ‘I will not carry out this task and nor shall anyone else’. This is essentially how some militant unions operate. They not only withdraw their own labour but also, through threats, intimidation and arranging boycotts from other unions, ensure that others are unable to exercise freely their right to supply their own labour.

The cost to the community of political strikes can be enormous. I give but 2 examples: The bans on the construction of Melbourne’s Newport power station have delayed for years the building of this vital component of Melbourne’s future electricity supply. Some unionists still wish to prevent it being built and to prevent others from doing so. The prospect of future power shortages in Melbourne is looming. There can be no doubt that the jobs of many will be affected. Yet this group of union militants considers it has the right to block the decision of the Government overwhelmingly elected by the people of Victoria. Another example of a political work ban is the question of the shipment of wheat to Chile. The union ban on wheat sales to Chile was imposed in 1973 because of the overthrow of the communist government in Chile. The ban is blatantly political. Before the union ban, Chile ranked high among Australia’s wheat customers. In the 3 years from 1971 to 1974 Chile bought almost l.S million tonnes of Australian wheat. It was our fourth largest customer in 1971-72, but since 1973-74 we have sold no wheat to Chile. This was action that can only adversely affect our farmers, and frankly I cannot see how it assists the people of Chile.

If I might digress for a moment, I marvel at the selective conscience of some unions. One wonders why there is not a ban on wheat sales and other export to the Soviet Union- a nation notorious for its suppression of human rights, for locking up dissidents in psychiatric hospitals and harassment of ethnic groups. I believe this inconsistency gives a clear indication of the political motives of such militant unionists. On the question of wheat sales to Chile, former Australian Labor Party Minister for Agriculture, Senator Wriedt, said:

It is a matter for the government of the day to make a judgment as to whether Australia continues to trade with a country, and on what basis. I do not think it is the role of any group in the community to make decisions of the nature of these loading bans.

I agree with that. The principle inherent is clear. It is the Parliament, the body elected directly by the people of Australia, that should make decisions relating to the Government of the nation, not groups of unionists. It is abhorrent that such small groups have the ability to obstruct government decision making. It is abhorrent that we are confronted with groups not merely expressing their views on some issues but, through their ability to create chaos and to disrupt the community, attempting to impose their views on government. On the whole those who have supported these political strikes have shown themselves to be the enemies of democratic processes. Communist influence in many of our biggest and most important unions is strong. These people have no desire to make the present democratic system work. Their aim is to destroy it. The Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, Australia’s largest union, has several communists in critical posts. The seamen, waterside workers, locomotive enginemen, the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association, the building workers and building labourers also have communists in senior positions in their unions.

With this in mind it is interesting to examine the justification given for political strikes. We are told that political strikes are carried out on behalf of the community, because the Parliament does not really represent the people. It is claimed that direct action is needed to make the so called voice of the people’ heard. It is sheer nonsense to claim that the interest of the community in general is best served through a process of extraparliamentary action. It is nonsense to claim that the union movement is more representative than the Parliament. It should not be overlooked that trade union membership makes up only 20 per cent of the population, less than 60 per cent of the workforce and only a third of the voting public. The falsity of the claim of the union militants is further exposed when one sees that many unions have expressed their opposition to political strikes. For instance, the Tasmanian branch of the Shop Assistants Union stated:

Unions have a traditional industrial role and the strike weapon should not be used for political purposes and issues . . . Redress is in the ballot box at periodic elections.

The Federated Clerks Union stated:

Political strikes constitute an attack on both the institution of trade unions as well as the democratic method of government.

I agree strongly with those sentiments. Further it is interesting to note that the Morgan gallup poll taken last year indicated that 75 per cent of people are opposed to political strikes. Even a l arge majority of ALP supporters believed them to be unjustified. And of course, as I pointed out, there is also a large section of the union movement opposed to this sort of action. In spite of all this, the extreme radical minority persists in its claim of representing the people. It continues its attempts to intimidate elected governments, allegedly on behalf of the people.

Given the ability of the extremists to create chaos and the importance of this issue to the future of this society, it is my belief that their claim should be put to rest once and for all. The only way that this can be done is simply by consulting the people the militants claim to represent. At the same time as the next election for the House of Representatives a referendum should be held on the question. All citizens would then be given a clear opportunity to give their opinion on whether these political strikes are justified, on whether they feel that the Parliament or the union militants really represent them, on whether political strikes and work bans are justified.

The holding of referendums has a long history in democracies. Issues of great importance often have been put to the people directly. In the United States of America some 2 1 of its 50 States have provision for referendums. In the largest State, California, at the last State elections some 15 questions were put to the vote. Similarly a referendum was held in the United Kingdom on the question of joining the European Economic Community- a matter of great importance. In Australia, constitutional questions are put directly to the people, as was the question of conscription during the First World War. Some might claim that the holding of a referendum is an abdication of the responsibility of parliament, of the principles of representative government. However, it is the representative nature of parliament that is being challenged by the militants. It is a question of confidence in the parliamentary process. This question must be put directly to the people.

I turn to the question of the value of holding a referendum. Many here might endorse my remarks about political strikes yet doubt the value of putting this question directly to the people. It is my belief that a referendum would b e of value in many respects. In making these remarks I take it for granted that Australians would vote overwhelmingly against political strikes. Firstly, it would once and for all remove all pretence that the militants are working on behalf of the people. It would remove all moral justification for their actions. If they persist they and their ideology would be discredited in the eyes of the public. As these strikes in some instances are part of a political process partly aimed at gaining public support this would act as a brake on their actions.

Secondly, one needs to examine the position of the moderate union officer. Moderates are aware that their unions can exercise political power, even if they believe it incorrect to use the power in this direction. They are constantly being urged to use their union’s potential political leverage even if this disrupts the community. A clear decision by the people in a referendum on this issue would be a powerful propaganda weapon for the moderate to use against militants in defence of his position. He could hardly be accused of selling out the people’s interests in refusing to participate in a political strike if the people had clearly shown that they did not approve of such behaviour.

Thirdly, a referendum expressing the desires of the people could be of use as a guideline for industrial courts when disciplinary actions are brought against unions. When the case is put, for example, to deregister a union, the court when considering the record of the union in political strikes could be guided by the views expressed in such a referendum. Deregistration of a union is a powerful weapon if there is another organisation ready to fill the gap thus created. In short, I believe there is good reason to believe that a referendum is of value to the community.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr HAMER:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I pointed out to the House the great dangers to the community represented by political strikes. I made it quite clear that I was in no way opposed to unions or to strike action in pursuit of legitimate industrial interests. I have advocated that there be a referendum on political strikes for 3 reasons and in the confident belief that at such a referendum the desirability of political strikes would be overwhelmingly rejected by the Australian people.

The first of the 3 reasons that I put forward in favour of the holding of such a referendum is that it would destroy for ever the pretence that these political strikes are conducted in the interests of the community. That is something that the community should be able to decide for itself. Secondly, it would strengthen the moderate unionists in their opposition to this type of strike action in pursuit of political objectives. Thirdly, it would encourage the industrial courts to take appropriate action against unionists and union leaders who abuse their power to impose political disabilities on the community.

The issue of political strikes and work bans is one that Australia will face more and more this decade. We cannot ignore it in the forlorn hope that it will go away. It must be faced. A referendum must be held. That would no doubt strengthen community resolve on this matter before it reaches crisis point.

History is studded with instances of the exercise of power outside the established process of government leading to the development of authoritarian rule. What our society and this Parliament face at the present time is an exercise in freedom of action which in the long run will lead to the destruction of the system upon which that freedom of action is based. Winston Churchill once said that our system of parliamentary democracy is the worst possible form of governmentexcept for all the alternatives. And government by union militants is a very much worse alternative. A referendum on this subject would help to strengthen this Parliament and the community. It is a step that must be taken to defend our liberal democratic institutions.

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

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr Neil:

-I second the motion and reserve my right to speak at a later time.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is a pity that the valuable time of this Parliament has been taken up with such a trivial matter as that which the honourable member for Isascs (Mr Hamer) has brought forward. He knows as well as every other member of this House that the proposal to hold referendums is a dereliction of his duty and the duty of the Government, which was elected to govern. It is not unusual for the inept, incompetent Government that we have to come forward with such a proposition. I concede that it is being put forward not by the Government but by a Government supporter. It follows axiomatically that if people support such an inept, incompetent Government then it must be their attitude towards things generally.

The honourable member for Isaacs must know, as I and every other member of this House know and as the people of Australia know, that 28 questions have been put to the people of Australia since Federation and that only five of those questions have been carried. In other words, on 23 occasions the people of Australia have said No. So he is standing on very safe ground in putting this matter forward as a referendum proposal because he knows that the answer to it by the people of Australia would be a resounding No. He has invited that answer by the way in which he has phrased his question. If the honourable gentleman is sincere and really wants to test it in this way, I invite him to rephrase his question so that the answer to it would bring a Yes vote from the people of Australia and see how far he then goes. He knows that this proposal is a ploy. He is smiling smugly. He knows very well that it is just a bit of window dressing. It is an opportunity for him and the fellow union bashers who sit with him to stand up and use the old, tired, worn-out phrases about political strikes, militant unions and communist union secretaries and to ignore all the time the fact that union leaders are elected by union members and, I might add, are elected to act in the best interests of those members, and without exception that is the case in Australia. The honourable member likes to use nice, flowery phrases, such as ‘political strikes ‘.

The honourable member for Isaacs instanced the Medibank strike. I have been a member of a union for some 38 years and I have worked in industry for about that long. In all of that time the wages that I took home at the end of each week to my darling wife, who then had to dole that money out amongst the butcher, the grocer, the rent collector and the rest, were of prime concern to me. As to the Medibank issue, if I were back on the job and my wages were being reduced by $5, $6 or more a week because of the Medibank levy it would surely be a matter of concern to me. The fact that I was taking home less money under a Liberal-National Country Party Government that had promised me more before the elections would be a matter of concern to me. How does the honourable member equate that with a political strike? He listens to the scabs, pimps and free-loaders who refuse to be involved in that sort of situation and comes forward in this House and tries to canonise those people.

It seems, as I am continually being told by honourable members opposite, that we live in a free enterprise system. However, I find nothing free or enterprising about it. It is neither free nor enterprising; it is not even private. The free enterprise system is motivated by profit. There would not be an honourable member opposite who would not agree with me when I say that the prime motivation behind the free enterprise system is profit. People be damned; but profit must stand inviolate. Under those circumstances we will have people in powerful positions, such as magnates of corporations, taking decisions that may not be in the best interests of the community as a whole. This Government, by its very actions, will support those decisions and anybody who dares to stand up and oppose them will be labelled an extremist, a communist or some other dirty noun that the Government can wrap its tongue around. I am putting to the House that there is no need to defend the integrity of the union movement and the unionists in Australia. Their integrity is beyond reproach.

Mr Wentworth:
Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– That is known quite well by everybody except those who might be just a little mentally defective.

The honourable member for Isaacs also mentioned the entry of nuclear warships into certain ports. I assume he meant the port of Sydney, which refused entry to a nuclear warship. Why does he not explain to us that the people who wished to bring the American nuclear warship here had not been able to give the Premier of New South Wales or anybody else for that matter any guarantees that the city of Sydney and the port of Sydney would be safe in the case of accidents. I understand that the honourable gentleman spent some considerable time in the Royal Australian Navy. As such he would know that ships and other vehicles are prone to accident on occasions. The Liberal-National Country Party Government of Australia in Canberra was quite prepared to put all of the people of Sydney- some 2 million of them- at risk and allow this ship to enter the port. It was the responsible, intelligent, sensible trade unionists and, I might add, the Labor Government of New South Wales that refused the ship entry to the port of Sydney. Anybody who claims that action is irresponsible must himself be irresponsible. This House and, through it, the people of the nation will judge where the irresponsibility lies.

The tearing down of homes at a time when there is already a housing shortage in Australia in order to build roads that will soon become congested and clogged and lead to other evil things is opposed by trade unionists and they are taking positive action on this issue. Are they to be condemned for doing that? Some monuments, some relics from our past, which are part of our heritage still stand. They did not go under the wrecker’s hammer. They did not finish as a pile of rubble, simply because responsible people, trade unionists, stood in the way of those who for profit would tear down these parts of our heritage. Are these acts by unionists irresponsible? Are they acts which honourable members opposite would condemn? Do honourable members opposite really mean what they say or do they speak with their tongue in their cheek, building up to a bigger campaign?

There is the whole question of uranium. It has already been dealt with in Queensland by railway workers there and will be dealt with by other workers if those sitting on the other side of this House think that it is simply a matter of mining and selling uranium with profit as the motive and saying: The people be damned’. This is the attitude of those who sit opposite. It is the attitude of those who pay their bills to get them into this place as a government and keep them here. As an aside, it was interesting to read an article in the Age today which shows that $lm belonging to the Liberal Party in Victoria is invested in finance companies. The Liberal Government in Victoria manages the State Savings Bank. Who is it that prevents the State Savings Bank from engaging in hire purchase activities in Victoria? It is the Liberal Government. That is the moral attitude of these people. They are no different here from what they are in Victoria or in any other State when we have this combined assault upon people who take action to preserve things that they would destroy. They are the wreckers, not the unions, not the members of the unions.

They bleat about there being no democracy in trade unions. Has an example of no democracy in unions ever been placed before this House? Honourable members opposite talk about domination of the rank and file members of unions by their leadership. Has there been any evidence of this brought forward? They are phrases that are used to try to discredit something that those opposite fear. The reason that people hate is that they are afraid. Those who sit opposite hate and never miss an opportunity to bash the unions. Why do they fear the unions? They think that by winning a popularity poll at election time it leaves them with the sole responsibility of managing this country. They are not doing that very well if one of their members is talking about governing by referendum. They do not have a sole right. I can point to many governments in Australia, particularly the Government of Queensland. The Queensland Government was elected by a popular vote of 29 per cent of the people. It does not represent the other 71 per cent of the people. Who is to protect the interests of the people under those circumstances? One must look forward to the trade union movement doing a most responsible job in this area.

Mr Corbett:

– It is a coalition government and it got more than that, and you know it.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-The honourable member for Maranoa, who of course is the member of the same Party as the Premier of that State, tells me that it is a coalition government and the coalition got more than that percentage of the vote. But Queensland still has a Country Party Premier- a peanut grower from Kingaroy.

Mr Corbett:

– It is one of the most progressive States in Australia too.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-That defies answer. The whole exercise brought forward by the honourable member for Isaacs was a sham. It was thrown out as a smokescreen. It was put up so he could deliver another virulent attack on what he believes to be the enemy of this country, but he cannot get many people to agree with him. He mentioned a gallup poll that does not reflect opinions accurately. Gallup polls, like his referendum question, will get the answer they invite. The honourable member spoke about industrial and political disputes. He should go to the Year Book and check the record. He could find that in 1973- the first book I grabbed was the 1973 one, but one year is no different from the next- out of 2300 strikes 145 were about something other than wages, hours of work, leave, pensions and compensation provisions, managerial policy, physical working conditions and trade unionism. Yet the honourable gentleman would have this House believe that all strikes that take place in Australia are irresponsible, have nothing to do with wages and have nothing to do with working conditions. Would he drive men to work when working conditions were unsafe? Would he drive them to work on the Westgate Bridge in Melbourne, which collapsed and killed many workmen? Would he be one of those simply because trade unionists exercised their right to withdraw their labour when they did not feel it was safe to work? It is quite clear from the attitude of those opposite that that is the sort of thing they would do. There is legislation before the House now which will endeavour to do that sort of thing.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The time allotted for consideration of General Business notice No. 1 has expired. The honourable member for Burke will have leave to continue his. speech when the debate is resumed.

The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next sitting.

page 1615

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

-by leave-By the authority vested in it by resolutions of both Houses of the Parliament, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence is empowered to investigate and report on matters referred to it by either House, by the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Minister for Defence, and it may initiate its own references. It also has the power to appoint sub-committees to conduct investigations. In the reconstitution of the Committee in March 1976, the Committee decided to appoint 3 subcommittees to investigate a number of matters upon which it considered it important that the Parliament should be informed. The Committee believes that it is appropriate that the House should be informed of the activities of the Committee and its sub-committees.

The main Committee itself has met regularly and has been briefed on a number of important matters regarding both foreign affairs and defence. The sub-committees have been given references initiated from within the Committee. The reference of sub-committee A is Australia’s territorial boundaries, including such aspects as the law of the sea and Antarctica. This subcommittee has completed its initial report, which dealt with the territorial boundary between Australia and Papua New Guinea in the Torres Strait area, and this was presented to Parliament on 9 December 1976. This sub-committee is continuing its charter by initiating further investigations into the broader aspects of Australia’s territorial boundaries, including Antarctica and the exclusive economic zone.

The reference to sub-committee B was to investigate the domestic crisis in Lebanon and its significance to the Middle East situation. Because of the hostilities existing at the time in Lebanon the Committee gave priority to investigating humanitarian aspects of the Lebanon crisis, and a report was presented to Parliament on 2 December 1976. The sub-committee is continuing its work in the wider field of the significance of the fragile Middle East situation and has submitted its draft report to the full Committee, which has fully endorsed the report. It will be p resented to Parliament during the current par- liamentary sittings.

Sub-committee C was authorised to investigate the question of industrial support for defence needs as seen by the full Committee and is drawing to the end of its inquiry. It is hoped that the report from this sub-committee may be available during the current period of sittings. The House can rest assured that the Committee and its sub-committees are conscientiously fulfilling the tasks the Parliament intended for them.

page 1616

LOAN (WAR SERVICE LAND SETTLEMENT) BILL 1977

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

Mr Deputy Speaker, might I ask that copies of my second reading speech be distributed now so that those very assiduous members behind me may have an opportunity to read it at the same time as I do. In this general context, might I say that we would hope that it is possible in the normal course when ministerial statements or second reading speeches are made for the procedures of the House to be modified so that the speech can be distributed at the time the Minister at the table commences instead of after he has concluded. I wonder whether arrangements could be made to that end.

This Bill provides for the raising of loan moneys amounting to $3m for war service land settlement in the States of South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. It has been the Government’s custom to introduce a fresh Bill each year or so to seek parliamentary approval for these funds. It is anticipated that the borrowing authority provided by the existing Loan (War Service Land Settlement) Act will be exhausted by 30 June 1977 and accordingly a further $3m is sought. As honourable members are aware, the Commonwealth is responsible for the provision of the whole of the capital moneys required for the Scheme in these 3 States. The money will, of course, be appropriated in the annual Budget in the ordinary way and the year’s appropriation will represent the sum of the requirements of the 3 States concerned for these particular purposes. At the present time, South Australia requires about half of the year’s appropriation, Western Australia about onethird and Tasmania the balance.

As has been stated in previous years when similar Bills were introduced to Parliament, the bulk of this money is required to make advances to settlers to provide adequate working capital to cover current working expenses, the purchase of stock, and capital funds for replacement of plant.

A very small allocation-$10,000-may be required to meet costs, classified broadly as development, relating to fees expected to be incurred in finalising some surveys and in a drainage study in progress at Loxton in South Australia. Settlers were not required to possess capital resources of their own as a condition of entry to the War Service Land Settlement Scheme. Because of this, their ability to withstand the effects of adverse seasonal conditions or the severe cost-price squeeze to which some have been exposed, by the accumulation of financial reserves and working capital, is greatly reduced. The great majority of settlers are, in fact, viable. However, much publicity has been given to the plight of a small number of settlers on Kangaroo Island who are in financial difficulties and who are non-viable. However, they are the exception. The Government is introducing this legislation for the purpose of assisting those settlers in South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania considered viable but suffering from the disabilities outlined above. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) adjourned.

page 1616

ROADS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 1977

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

Second Reading

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– I move:

This Bill has two purposes- to amend the National Roads Act and the Roads Grants Act by providing an additional $3.2m Commonwealth financial assistance to the State of Western Australia for road works in the current financial year; and to amend these two Acts and the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act and the Transport (Planning and Research) Act by making provision for State expenditure on payroll tax to be eligible funding under each of these Acts. The proposed increase in financial assistance to Western Australia is necessary to ensure that no State receives less financial assistance for roads than in the previous year. The extra amount of $3.2m will bring the total road funds allocated to Western Australia for the year 1976-77 to $5 8.8m, this being the amount received by that State in 1975-76.

Consequent upon this Bill the National Roads Act and Roads Grants Act will provide for a total allocation to the States in 1976-77 of $436.7m after allowing for the additional funds provided for in the Bill. As honourable gentlemen are aware, the Government has consistently acted to ensure that the needs of local government are provided for and the proposed allocations, adopted after consultation with the State Government, will assist local government by providing funds for the improvement of the rural road system in Western Australia. The House will be aware that there have been a number of queries regarding the eligibility of payroll tax as State funding under these Acts and the Government has decided to clarify the situation by the proposed amendment.

I now turn to the Bill, which comprises 4 Parts. Part I sets out the usual preliminary information; Part II, Clause 3 to Clause 6, relates to the National Roads Act; Part III, Clause 7 to Clause 1 1, relates to the Roads Grants Act, and Part IV, Clause 12, to the payroll tax provisions. The allocations to the different road categories are set out in the detailed schedules included in clause 6 in respect of national roads and export roads and in clause 1 1 in respect of categories for the Roads Grants Act categories. The Bill provides for the additional amount set out in the schedules to be added to the 1976-77 appropriations. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 1617

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (FURTHER PAYMENT) BILL 1977

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

Second Reading

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise a contribution by Australia of $A133.76m towards the fifth replenishment of the resources of the International Development Association, or IDA as it is commonly called. The IDA, established in 1960, is an affiliate of the World Bank which assists its poorest member countries by providing long term interest-free credits for sound development projects, utilising grant funds provided by its developed member countries. The IDA is by far the largest and most effective concessional lending institution in the world today. It has approved development credits totalling more than $US 1 1 billion for all the major sectors of economic development, with special emphasis on agriculture and transportation as well as projects for education, urbanization, industry, population and nutrition, tourism, telecommunications and electric power.

Starting with initial subscriptions made in 1960 and thereafter, together with 4 subsequent replenishments of its resources, IDA has been provided with a total of some SUS12 billion for lending to the poorest developing countries. The resources of the Association are replenished every 3 years. The fourth replenishment totalled SUS4.5 billion to cover commitments over the 3 years period ending 30 June 1977. Since IDA resources will be fully committed by 30 June 1977, additional resources are required to cover lending operations after that date.

Following protracted negotiations on a fifth replenishment, which commenced almost 18 months ago, member countries decided, having regard to the needs of the poorest countries, that they should provide a substantial increase in IDA resources compared with the level they had contributed to the fourth replenishment. The traditional donors of the IDA agreed, subject to parliamentary approval in the various countries concerned, to provide an amount for the fifth replenishment equivalent to SUS7.2 billion. In addition, a number of countries intended to contribute resources to IDA for the first time. These countries are Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the Republic of Korea. Kuwait, a traditional donor, apart from its share in the SUS7.2 billion total, has agreed to make an extra contribution. These contributions to IDA by the oil surplus producing countries and Korea are a welcome development. I ask leave of the House to have incorporated in Hansard a table which sets out the prospective contributions to be made to IDA under the fifth replenishment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

The table read as follows-

Mr PEACOCK:

-Honourable members will observe from this table that the total replenishment has been set at SUS7.64 billion. This will furnish IDA with a substantial increase in its resources in real terms compared with the previous replenishment, to meet its requirements for a further 3 year period. The amounts specified are payable in the national currency of each member country up to the equivalent of the amounts in United States dollars shown, and fixed in terms of the exchange rate applying on 14 March 1977, when agreement was reached among donor countries. Thus our obligation is fixed in terms of Australian dollars and is not subject to adjustment due to fluctuations in exchange rates. Australia’s share of 146.90 million United States dollars is equivalent to 133.76 million Australian dollars. This represents a share of 2.04 per cent of the SUS7.2 billion target for traditional donors and is equivalent to Australia’s share in the fourth replenishment. Most other donors maintained their percentage shares in this way. In absolute terms, our contribution of $A133.76m represents a very substantial increase on the amount of $A60.81m which Australia provided under the fourth replenishment.

Australia again has the option of paying its contribution either in cash or by lodging nonnegotiable, non-interest bearing promissory notes encashable on demand as and when funds are actually required by the International

Development Association for loan disbursements. In accordance with past practice and in line with the practices of most other members of the IDA, we propose to lodge promissory notes. This will spread the impact on the Budget over a number of years. Small encashments are expected to be made in 1977-78 with the bulk of the encashments taking place in each of the following four to five years.

During the discussions on the level of the fifth replenishment it was agreed that essentially the same voting power arrangements which were made under the fourth replenishment should continue to apply. Accordingly, although contributions to replenishments as opposed to the original subscriptions to the IDA, do not carry voting rights, a small proportion of donors’ contributions is counted as a subscription. This is designed to ensure that the relative voting power of each of the developed member countries of IDA can continue broadly to correspond to its relative share of total resources contributed by these countries. Complex calculations undertaken by the staff of IDA indicate that of the total amount which Australia is expected to make available under the fifth replenishment, an amount of only $A2 12,416 should take the form of an additional subscription with voting rights. The balance will represent an additional contribution. This distinction is provided for in clause 4 of the Bill.

I should also mention that the agreement governing the fifth replenishment will not become effective and the obligation to contribute new resources to IDA will not become binding on any member country unless and until members, whose contributions total not less than $US6 billion or 80 per cent of the total, give IDA formal notification that they will make the contributions authorised for them. Because the contribution for the United States is SUS2.4 billion or more than 30 per cent of the total, this means, in effect, that the fifth replenishment cannot become effective and other countries will not be required to contribute to IDA without formal notification from the United States to the IDA that it has taken all the necessary legislative steps to enable it to participate on the basis of the agreement reached for the fifth replenishment.

It had been hoped that the fifth replenishment would become effective by 1 July 1977 when funds provided under the fourth replenishment will have been fully committed. It seems clear that the United States will not be able to give the formal notification required by that date. In order to enable the IDA to continue its lending operations in the interim other donors have been asked, and have generally agreed, to make voluntary advance contributions on a collective basis totalling not less than $ US 1.2 billion to IDA, in anticipation of the conditions of effectiveness for the agreement being fulfilled and to cover lending operations for a substantial part of 1977-78. Such voluntary advance contributions would of course be deemed ultimately to constitute payment towards the amounts due under the fifth replenishment. Similar delays have occurred under previous replenishments and Australia has made voluntary contributions in the past. In accordance with past practice the Bill has been drafted in a way which will enable Australia to join most other donors in making an advance contribution to IDA.

As honourable members will know, Australia has always been a strong supporter of the IDA and has been a member since its inception. IDA like the World Bank is an efficient institution which is capable of undertaking large scale projects in a technically proficient way. Although its credits are interest free, the projects which it finances are subject to the same rigorous standards of appraisal that the World Bank applies to its own lending operations. Indeed, the 2 institutions have a common staff and are served by the same Executive Board. IDA has been of particular benefit to countries in the Asian region. Since the inception of IDA about two-thirds of all IDA credits have gone to countries in Asia, particularly the Indian sub-continent, and Asian countries will continue to receive the greater share of IDA funds. IDA has also lent relatively large amounts to Papua New Guinea and that country is expected to receive further credits in future.

Considerable importance has been attached in the various major international fora to an early and substantial replenishment of IDA resources. Continued Australian support for the IDA is therefore clearly in Australia’s national interest. This Bill provides an opportunity for honourable members once again to demonstrate their bipartisan support for the IDA as an efficient and effective development finance institution and our willingness to provide the poorest developing countries with highly concessional assistance through this organisation. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) adjourned.

page 1619

INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BILL 1977

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

Second Reading

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise an initial Australian Government contribution of $A8m, to be paid initially in the form of promissory notes, to the International Fund for Agricultural Development- IFAD- as well as to approve Australia’s membership of the Fund. As honourable members may know, the decision to set up the International Fund for Agricultural Development was one of the major initiatives taken at the 1974 World Food Conference in Rome. Australia was one of 3 developed countries, together with the Netherlands and New Zealand, which with 3 1 developing countries cosponsored Resolution XIII of the World Food Conference which recommended the establishment of such a Fund. The Secretary-General of the United Nations subsequently convened a conference to work out the details and size of the Fund. Following meetings of interested countries in May and October of 1975 and in February 1976, the terms of the Agreement for the establishment of the Fund were finalised at a plenipotentiary conference on 13 June of last year. The text of the Agreement is set out in the Schedule to the Bill. However, the Agreement was not opened for signature before prospective contributors to the Fund had made pledges amounting to an aggregate of $US 1,000m. This was achieved in December 1976, and the Agreement was opened for signature at the United Nations on 20 December 1976. To date 40 countries have signed the Agreement and six have ratified it. Australia signed the Agreement on 30 March 1977.

Membership of the Fund is divided into 3 categories. Category I comprises members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Category II the members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries and Category III other developing countries. The Agreement will enter into force upon ratification by 6 States in Category I, 6 States in Category II and 24 States in Category III and when the aggregate of initial contributions amounts to at least the equivalent of $US750m.

The principal objective of the Fund is to make available finance ibr agricultural development projects. More specifically, the broad aims of IFAD include the encouragement of agricultural development in low income countries, with particular emphasis on food production in those countries which have the most serious food deficits; the encouragement of greater utilisation of the potential for food production in other developing countries; the improvement of the living conditions of the rural poor through activities which will increase their opportunities and incomes; and a reduction in malnutrition through the improvement in food production and distribution systems. The Fund will become a new Specialised Agency of the United Nations.

One of the important features of the International Fund for Agricultural Development is that it will tap not only the traditional aid resources of the OECD countries, but also the substantial resources of the members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The OPEC countries and the OECD countries are making roughly equivalent total contributions to the Fund. The Government warmly welcomes participation by the OPEC countries in a co-operative venture of this nature with the developed West. Australia played a significant role in the establishment of IFAD and has, as a prospective member, pledged an initial contribution of $A8m in the form of non-negotiable noninterest bearing promissory notes encashable over a period of not less than 3 years. This compares with pledges by the United States of America of $US200m, the United Kingdom of stg15m, Canada $C30m and New Zealand $NZ2m. Amongst the pledges of the OPEC countries are Saudi Arabia ‘s pledge of $US 1 00m and Iran’s pledge of $US 104m.

The Government believes that the International Fund for Agricultural Development has an important role to play as a new source of investment for projects designed to increase food production in developing countries. The Fund accords with one of our chief aid priorities of providing the impetus for developing countries to help themselves to achieve self-reliance in food production. It is particularly appropriate that a major primary producing country such as Australia should play an active role in an organisation of this nature. Furthermore, it is likely that, as IFAD gets under way, there will be commercial opportunities for Austraiian agricultural machinery, technology and expertise in connection with IFAD projects. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations already looks to Australia for significant contributions in such specialised areas as dryland farming and pastoral land use in arid zone Middle Eastern countries. IFAD can be expected to continue, and to expand on, this pattern.

The principal obligations imposed on Australia are stated in Articles 4 and S of the Agreement. Under section 3 of Article 4, the Governing Council of IFAD may invite Australia to make contributions to the resources of the Fund additional to its initial contribution. The major rights Australia will enjoy under the Agreement are those stated in Article 6 concerning the organisation and management of the Fund. Australia is entitled to be represented on the Governing Council and to appoint one Governor and an alternate to the Council which will conduct the business of the Fund. I believe that it is in both Australia’s national interest and in the interest of the international community as a whole, that we should play an active part in the International Fund for Agricultural Development by contributing $8m to the Fund and ratifying the Agreement establishing the Fund. I commend this Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) adjourned.

page 1620

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1977

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

Second Reading

Mr STALEY:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Chisholm · LP

– I move:

The main purpose of the Bill is to amend the States Grants (Advanced Education) Act 1976 and the States Grants (Advanced Education Assistance) Act 1976 to provide, in accordance with the established policy and procedural arrangements, supplementary grants totalling $15,612,080 to cover cost increases which have occurred since the 1976 and 1977 programs in respect of colleges of advanced education were adopted. The supplementary grants being provided for the 1976 program comprise $2,834,000 for recurrent expenditure and $1,489,380 for capital expenditure.

In the case of the 1977 program, the amounts of cost supplementation being provided for in the Bill comprise $7,66 1 ,000 for recurrent expenditure and $3,627,700 for capital expenditure and are based on indices to take account of increases in costs up to December 1976. Adjustments for subsequent cost movements will be required as the relevant indices become available. As the amendments included in the Bill affect the programs detailed in the schedules to the Act, the opportunity has been taken to include in the revised schedules a number of intra-program transfers of funds which have been approved under the provisions of the Acts. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) adjourned.

page 1621

STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1977

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

Second Reading

Mr STALEY:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Chishoim · LP

– I move: That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Schools) Act 1972, the States Grants (Schools) Act 1976 and the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1976 to adjust grants to the States for government and non-government schools. The amended schedules will finalise the adjustment of 1976 grants in respect of cost increases to December 1976 and adjust grants for 1977 to December 1976 prices. The funds appropriated will provide for an increase of $3.3m over the allocations in the existing Acts covering the 1976 program. The adjustment of grants for the 1977 program in respect of cost increases involves an additional appropriation of $ 10.9m. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) adjourned.

page 1621

STATES GRANTS (TECHNICAL AND FURTHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1977

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

Second Reading

Mr STALEY:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Chisholm · LP

– I move:

This Bill amends the States Grants (Technical and Further Education) Act 1974 and the States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Act 1976 to adjust the approved programs of grants to the States for technical and further education, to provide for cost supplementation to December 1976 price levels. The Bill maintains the real value of grants approved by the Government in the light of known variations in costs since adjustments were made in the Budget sittings last year.

This Bill completes the cost supplementation process for the States Grants (Technical and Further Education) Act 1974. The additional amount provided is $0.686m. It also adjusts retrospectively the amounts available within the various schedules in the Act to take account of determinations made by the Minister administering the Act in accordance with sections 16 and 24 of the Act. These determinations were taken to meet the wishes of the States in adjusting the flow of funds available under the various schedules of the Act to suit the particular expenditure needs of the States. An additional $2.762m is being provided for the 1977 program. Further amendments to the States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Act 1976 will be necessary as information becomes available on movements in costs during 1977. 1 commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) adjourned.

page 1621

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1977

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

Second Reading

Mr STALEY:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Chisholm · LP

– I move:

This Bill amends the States Grants (Universities) Act 1976 and the States Grants (Universities Assistance) Act 1976 to adjust the approved programs of grants to State universities for the years 1976 to 1977 respectively. The Bill maintains the real value of grants approved by the Government in the light of known variations in costs since adjustments were made in the Budget sittings last year. The additional amounts to be paid to the States have been calculated on the basis of cost levels for the December quarter 1 976 for operating expenses and December 1976 for building expenditure. The additional amounts for 1976 total $7.3m of which $5.3m is for operating expenditure and $2m for building projects.

In respect of the year 1977 an additional $ 15.9m is provided of which $ 15.6m is for operating expenditure and $300,000 for building projects. Further amendments to the States Grants (Universities) Act 1976, in respect of grants for building projects, and to the States Grants (Universities Assistance) Act 1976 will be required as information becomes available on movements in costs during 1977. 1 commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) adjourned.

page 1622

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 April, on motion by Mr Ellicott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · Balaclava · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Bill as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of debate. I suggest therefore that you permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

-Is it the wish of the House to follow that course? As there is no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The 2 Bills we are discussing in this cognate debate are related because we are dealing with what is called administrative law. There is not a great deal of precedent for administrative law. At the outset I want to say that the Opposition welcomes and supports the Bills. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was created in the time of the previous Labor Government and it gives an opportunity for citizens to establish their rights as against administrative decisions. We think that is a very important democratic way of saying that the Parliament itself is not going to be supreme in all of its actions and where there are administrative determinations and decisions, as there have to be in the normal course of events, rights will be given to people in certain circumstances to say as citizens that they object to those determinations and decisions. There has to be an opportunity for these views to be looked at impartially.

We note with interest that plans are well advanced to enable appeals to be taken to the Tribunal under the Social Services Act. Appeals will also be provided in the future under a large number of Australian Capital Territory ordinances. We concur with the Government s belief that the Tribunal has a very important role to play. The Tribunal’s work is expected to increase substantially not because in all cases administrative decisions are wrong but because it ought to be expected that there will be a number of queries as to whether in fact they are right.

The Tribunal is to be constituted in a number of different ways. We note that the legislation proposes to create the class of senior nonpresidential member. Instead of the Tribunal having a constitution that requires that there be a presidential member and 2 non-presidential members this Bill proposes that the opportunity be given for the Tribunal to be constituted in any number of 4 ways. There can be a presidential tribunal, a non-presidential tribunal, a presidential tribunal comprising a president plus 2 nonpresidential members and a tribunal of a senior non-presidential member plus 2 others.

I note that the legislation proposes a number of consequential amendments. Section 36 is to be amended in 3 respects. This section relates to a certificate being given by the Attorney-General which says that in certain circumstances there is a question of security and a question of public interest which must be taken into consideration. Accordingly that is a matter that has to be considered by the Tribunal. I only make this passing comment: I note that in certain circumstances the Tribunal can make that information available to some of the parties only, not to all of them. There must be good reason for this. I was wondering why the limitation applied in some cases only to some parties and not to all of them.

I also note that other provisions are covered in section 43A and section 66 which could relate to unauthorised disclosure of information. As I have said, at the outset we support these matters.

Might I say in support of what is being put here today, not only in respect of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Amendment Bill but also the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Bill that investigation into this legislation has been the subject of detailed report. The first investigation was carried out by the Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee known as the Kerr Committee. I notice that this committee reported in August 1971. 1 am not always able to give praise to my colleague, the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Ellicott), who is sitting at the table, particularly in view of some of the more recent debates that have taken place in this House. We do not always agree on matters. But the honourable gentleman was a member of that committee. I note with interest that he has been able to use his talents to introduce legislation of this type and we applaud him for it.

Both of these pieces of legislation have been before the Administrative Review Council which was set up by the Attorney in accordance with the provisions of the previous Bill which was introduced by the previous Labor Government The Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Review Council were part and parcel of that legislation. The Council is made up of very well qualified members who were appointed by the Attorney. The Council includes not only representatives who are skilled in the law but also those who are skilled in the faculty of common sense, and that requirement has a lot to do with administrative law and administrative discretion. Both of these pieces of legislation have been approved by the Administrative Review Council. I join in saying that this is a very worthwhile watch dog operation. In other words, we have an impartial group that can review amendments to laws or suggest new ones. We can see that there has been a fair amount of investigation into the legislation in the first instance by the Labor Government and since by the present Government. The Kerr Committee reported on this matter and now the Administrative Review Council has also vetted the legislation and the amendments. The Committee on Administrative Discretions was established for the purpose of carrying out surveillance of the discretions that are used. The ombudsman legislation has already been introduced and in accordance with Labor Party policy an ombudsman has been appointed. The Labor Party still strongly supports that proposition because the precedent has been set throughout the world that such a person has a most important and effective role to play. Honourable members will note from reports of the Ombudsman presented in the Parliament that some 20 per cent of complaints have been deemed to be well founded. Therefore we can see again that an effective role can be provided for a number of people to look at administrative law and administrative decisions.

Administrative decisions can be in accordance with the law and others may not be. This brings me to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Bill. On this legislation the Attorney has succinctly said there is always going to be a review of unlawful actions. At the present time we have them taken by way of prerogative writ in State courts with a number of cumbersome and technical procedures. What better way to do it than by the present suggestion- that is that the matter go to the Federal Court of Australia for judicial review. Having created a court, it has a definite function to fulfil, particularly in respect of what is deemed to be Commonwealth legislation or the legislation of an Australian Parliament A Federal Court having been created, it is the proper court to be a court of review. Honourable members will note that it is mentioned especially that the Court does not substitute decisions of its own but merely says whether decisions made are lawful or unlawful. That is the crux of the whole debate. The Bill does not create some higher authority than the Parliament. It is purely a question of whether we can say there is an avenue for people to test the decision. We also have an opportunity for reasons for decisions to be made available to people. I think that is very commendable because it gives the people in Australia, the people who create parliaments and governments, an opportunity to test the validity of those decisions.

I want only to make the point again that the Opposition supports this Bill in its entirety. I understand that the Attorney-General proposes to move some amendments to either or both of the Bills. I do not know the nature of those amendments at the moment. Let me say, in summing up, that this is a very effective process which we are now supporting in this Parliament. It will give strength to the Parliament and strength to the bureaucratic decisions that must be made pursuant to laws that are passed. I want to make one point that I used to make with regard to other areas. It is that it is important that the Parliament itself does not vacate the field. There is still a role for Parliament to play and for parliamentarians to play. I can think of no better advocates for reform than parliamentarians themselves. They must not take the view that because there is an Ombudsman, an Appeals Tribunal or a Judicial Review Board that they have no role to play. I think that they have an even more important role to play. They may be anxious to discuss decisions made by the personnel of those bodies. That is their duty; that is their obligation. Adjournment speeches of course, are often made on that basis. I would like to think that some government in the future will have a look at the talent, well equipped or perhaps not so well equipped, which may be considered by a committee of the Parliament. I know that members of Parliament are often asked to make submissions to change the law that exists because of administrative decisions. It could well be, despite the ambit of these Bills, that the decision may be found to be right and yet in many cases members of Parliament could say in the course of thrust of debate: ‘Have a look at its application in practice. Surely it was not intended when we passed this legislation that it would have these ramifications or these defects ‘.

What I would like to see is a citizens committee. It would be a committee of parliamentarians and members of Parliament would be able to go along to their colleagues and say: ‘I want to look at a particular section of the Trade Practices Act. Look how it is affecting one of my constituents. Look how it is being interpreted. Did we really think it had that limitation or that defect?’ I would like to think that some time in the future governments of any colour will give support to the fact that members of Parliament are, in the main, inundated with a number of submissions as to what is wrong with legislation, either in its interpretation or in its omissions. I can cite a number of practical cases. Members of Parliament represent people and corporations who are looking after their own domestic affairs or those of their children or in the trade and commercial field. Many of them have a number of bona fide complaints as to what they feel is a gap in the law or an unfair administrative decision. I think it would be a welcome addition to what is called administrative judicial review if members of Parliament also had an opportunity, through a committee constituted on a non-party basis, to say: ‘Well, the committee is always there’. Any member of Parliament who felt he had a case and wanted to put it before that committee would be entitled to do so.

I think that committee could make reports to the Parliament as to how laws or administrative decisions are working in practice. There is a fair segment of administration deemed to be policy. That policy often expands and contracts with the mental capacity of the people who are administering it. It has no greater legal definition than that. The variations can be enormous. For example, in the postal and telecommunications field there are all sorts of variations, by way of interpretation, in the policy decision making which must be applied to the very many commercial transactions that flow through that field. It can be seen during question time and in debate in this Parliament that there are always queries as to ho w the policy is being interpreted, whether it has varied, or whether it is giving preference to some section of the continent against another. All of these issues come up. I would like to think that there could be a committee of the House to deal with matters and through which members of Parliament could push causes forward.

I have no doubt that they would do so only on a bona fide basis. They would only do so on the basis that they could have with them the constituent or corporation which felt that an injustice was being done. That is another role to which I think we ought to give a lot of strength. That in no way weakens what I have said previously in the course of supporting this legislation. There are people, not in this Parliament, well qualified and well equipped to make determinations on the basis of administrative decisions. In a nutshell, the Opposition supports both these pieces of legislation and wishes them a speedy passage.

Mr NEIL:
St George

-The Government must be congratulated on introducing this legislation. In the near future, when the legislation is passed, Australia will be in the forefront of democratic countries in regard to administrative appeals or reviews. The tiers that are being established include the office of Ombudsman, the Administrative Appeals Tribunals, the Federal Court of Australia, with powers to deal with administrative decisions and, subsequently, the Freedom of Information Bill, which has been foreshadowed. Also there will be a Bill to set down standard procedures for Commonwealth adjudicative tribunals in Une with the recommendations of the Kerr Committee. The whole area has bedevilled society, and lawyers in particular, since the Second World War. There were problems before that time but the growth of delegated legislation, the growth of modern bureaucracies of state have produced many problems for the individual citizen. It has been necessary to seek recourse outside the ordinary processes of the law. That is not to criticise the law as such. When persons have rights that must be adjudicated upon, a court traditionally looks at the position very carefully and in great detail. That is quite proper.

If, in the more spectacular cases involving civil rights or the individual’s freedom, the courts were to do anything other than scrutinise in the absolutely closest and most minute detail the entire position, there could be miscarriages of justice. It is most important that where the freedom of the individual is concerned both sides of the case be presented in detail, that all evidence be taken at length, that all the documents that are available be looked at and that the rules of law which apply be analysed carefully and applied by the judge or the higher tribunal on appeal. Much of that procedure is not appropriate where we are dealing with modern legislation designed to assist to produce better social conditions for people or to put into operation policies of the Government where the individual rights of the person concerned are very important but where it is not necessary to go into tremendous technical detail in determining , those rights. Indeed, if too rigid an application is placed on dealing with these disputations, then the difficulties to which I have referred arise. In particular, technical rules of law can develop which shut a man out from a remedy.

There have been many cases in the recent past of apparent injustice caused because the law was insufficient for the particular case. I briefly give one example that occurred in New South Wales in recent times. About four or five years ago a new scheme for the quotas to be applicable to poultry farmers was introduced in New South Wales. In many cases poultry farmers found that their activities had to be completely restructured. The legislation provided for a committee to allocate quotas but also provided for a review committee to look at these allocations. In one case that came before the courts in the recent past a farmer, a young man and his wife, had taken over a farm from his parents on the outskirts of the Sydney area.

The couple found that they were entitled to a much lower quota than they were able to run because the quota was based upon the capacity at a date prior to when they took over the farm. It happened that for one year only the young man ‘s father had taken a break from egg production and transferred to meat production. So, the egg production was reduced in that one year only. When the young man was running his own poultry farm two or three years later- his quota being assessed on the situation of his father in one year of the 20 years of his operation, that year being one or two years before- the young man found that he was given a drastically reduced quota. He applied to the review committee for a review. The legislation provided for a review committee to be set up which varied little, if at all, from the membership of another group known as the Egg Marketing Board of New South Wales. I do not make any reflection upon the Board or the review committee.

The review committee made a decision and subsequently it was disbanded under the legislation. It just went out of existence. Thereafter the courts in New South Wales received a challenge to this man ‘s quota and the courts held that there were serious doubts whether the law had been applied in the assessment of the original base quotas and in the review procedures that were conducted. However, because the quota review committee had been disbanded, nothing could be done. It was not possible for the court, even though it might have wished to do so, to make an order that there should be a revision of the quota. In fact all the quotas in New South Wales at that time had been fulfilled. So, although it was possible to see an error of law and a clear injustice the remedy was not available because as the law stood the court could not effect a remedy.

I seek an assurance from the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott). In his second reading speech he said that appeals may be brought to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal only where the relevant Act provides for an appeal. I should like to be sure, as I hope and I am confident is the intent of the Attorney-General, that as many Acts as possible should have that provision in them. Indeed, we should search the statute book and, as a matter of course, where it is appropriate ensure that appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is available. There should only be very exceptional cases where the appeal is not available. Legislation that provides for boards to be set up to make decisions and then to be disbanded so that nothing could be done about the decision afterwards is to be avoided because it wreaks great injustice. Unless a particular Act provides for recourse to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal the whole purpose of the Tribunal can come to nought.

Allied to that factor, I point out with regard to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Bill it is important that theoretical situations do not come about. What concerns lawyers are cases where the courts find injustices have occurred because the law has not been complied with but nothing can be done because there is no body to whom an order can be directed. I hope that the clause in the Bill which deals with this matter is sufficiently wide. For some time I have thought that the whole law of declarations, or declaratory orders, needs a great deal of consideration. It is a confused area of law. Books are written about it. A new one appears probably every year or so. There are a tremendous number of cases on this issue of declarations- when they will be available, when they are not available and how they operate. Indeed as far as government departments are concerned, it is often up to the Government itself to accede to the declaration. Governments always do that but there may be circumstances where other bodies might in some way try to avoid the effect of a declaration. A review of the law on declarations is required to make sure that decisions that have to be made by the courts can be made and the plaintiff is not refused a right.

Bear in mind also that as things stand now in the courts a person may go to the court and the court may say that he has a good case because the board acted wrongly but there is nothing the court can do about it now because the board has been dissolved. The public may be surprised to learn that almost invariably the plaintiff, having been told all that, will lose his costs and will have to pay the costs of the other people because whoever wins the action is awarded an order for costs. So, if a plaintiff brings a case against the Government because of something that an instrumentality has done and proves his point, he cannot get a remedy because the law is deficient; and he loses his costs. It is a ridiculous situation. I ask the Attorney-General to assure the House that to the greatest extent possible these Bills cover those problems.

I am a little concerned about some of the provisions as to Crown privilege. I shall leave it until some time has elapsed to see how those matters work out in the interpretation by the courts. I hope that the Attorney-General will adopt the procedure of reviewing through a council or in some other way the workings of the various tiers of administrative review that he is establishing. No doubt members of Parliament will be asked at various times to contribute thoughts as to how the review should be conducted and how the system is working. If an action is brought against a government instrumentality in one of the courts or on appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and there is too great a degree of claiming of Crown privilege, in some cases that could impinge upon the rights of the individual. Often the individual is seeking to expose some act done by the government, bureau, department, committee, body or whatever it may be. He may have to subpoena its documents or obtain the minutes of the body that dealt with the case. He may have to go into the whole background of the matter. If he is unable to do that because of various claims of privilege, of course he may be unable to prove his case.

Examples come to mind in which a plaintiff has commenced a case seeking judicial review of an administrative body’s decision and, having issued subpoenas, shortly before the hearing, he has found on inspection of the documents that a number of matters appear in them which strengthen his case or even give him another set of headings on which to bring his case because the actions of the body concerned, not being public until then, may well have broken the law m ways that were unknown to him even when he started his action although he may have known that the body erred in some other way. I suggest that Crown privilege should be limited as much as possible to those cases where there is a genuine security problem or the more serious aspects of the need for Crown privilege. It is good that reasons should be provided. Reasons are important because one cannot even challenge a decision sensibly unless reasons are provided because one does not know the basis of the decision. A large number of amendments are proposed. I have only just received copies of the amendments and it is not possible to make detailed comment on them. They do not appear to deal with the substance of the Bills. However, I will reserve my position regarding those amendments at this time.

I commend the Attorney-General for broadening the scope of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It is unfortunate that so few cases have been brought before the Tribunal. Only 24 applications were made until 26 April. On the other hand, of course, it may mean that everything in the garden is rosy and there are no real problems. However, the extension of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is welcomed. Its extension to the social security area will be very welcomed by the public at large, and that would cut both ways. Persons, for example, who have a legitimate grievance because they have not received the proper rate of pension and those in these complicated areas who have found that they have been wrongly assessed as to some benefit would welcome this provision. It would take some workload off the Department and also off the members of Parliament, although we will always assist our constituents wherever possible. It might also enable all persons to be sure that such situations as appeals against the refusal of unemployment benefit will be dealt with on a comprehensive plane and all parties concerned could have confidence in the outcome. I suggest that those appeals are very appropriate matters to be placed within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. I do not know whether that is the actual intent, but it would be welcome. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Amendment Bill is a Bill to amend a piece of legislation for which the Labor Government takes credit. The AttorneyGeneral (Mr Ellicott) said in his second reading speech that plans are now well advanced to enable appeals to be taken to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal under the Social Services Act and that appeals will also be provided under a large number of Australian Capital Territory ordinances. The Attorney-General went on to say:

It has become apparent that the Tribunal should have a different structure iritis to be equipped to hear appeals on a wide range of matters without making excessive demands on the services of presidential members at a judicial level.

The Attorney-General then said at a later stage:

The other provisions of the Bill that require special mention are those relating to the protection of information that ought not, in the public interest, be publicly disclosed in proceedings before the Tribunal or as a result of having been produced, in confidence, to the Tribunal. Section 36 of the principal Act empowers the Attorney-General to give a certificate that the disclosure of information concerning a specified matter or the disclosure of the contents of a document would be contrary to the public interest.

The Attorney-General then went on to fix the criteria for the issuing of such certificates. I indicate to the Attorney-General that more is involved than social service appeals and appeals concerning A.C.T. ordinances. What worries me- I was denied the opportunity to speak about this subject when the Insurance Amendment Bill and the Life Insurance Amendment Bill were before this chamber during its last sitting- is that appeals will he from appeals under the Insurance Act of 1973 and the Life Insurance Act of 1945. The Opposition was denied an opportunity to raise those issues on that occasion. I think that it is therefore appropriate that I should do so at this time.

In my time in this Parliament, at any rate, the Insurance Act and the Life Insurance Act have undergone considerable structural amendment and change. They have had to be amended and changed to meet the complexity of the insurance industry. As a consequence the appeals that will now be made to the Tribunal structured under this piece of legislation will test the competency and the capabilities of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as it is now constituted. Because of the complexity of the insurance industry and the appeals that are going to lie from both general and life insurance, I question whether this is the appropriate Tribunal to deal with these sorts of appeals. I wanted to do so on the previous occasion and I now do so on this occasion.

The second thing that concerns me, as I will touch on later, is the embargo on the findings of the Tribunal being made public.

I understand that the jurisdiction of the Insurance Tribunal is to be transferred to this Tribunal under clause 24 of the Bill. The grounds of appeal in the Insurance Act have not been changed. An appeal lies against administrative decisions of either the Treasurer or the Commissioner for Insurance. These may be with respect to areas which are complex and demand a thorough knowledge of the industry. I wish to take the Attorney-General through sections of the Insurance Act because this will show conclusively the complexity that will weigh on the Tribunal. I still claim that the Tribunal is not structured to meet that complexity. That will take some time. The general Insurance Act gives rights of appeal to the Tribunal.

Mr Ellicott:

– To what Bill are you referring?

Mr JACOBI:

– I am referring to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Government has taken away appeals to a tribunal established under the Insurance Act and the Life Insurance Act. It has now decided that appeals shall lie under this Tribunal. I am setting out to show the complexity which the Tribunal will have to face. Section 27(3) of the Act concerns an appeal against a refusal to grant an authority. Section 30 (6) concerns an appeal against a refusal to admit certain assets against a determination. Section 31 (3) provides for an appeal against the direction of the Commissioner under section 31(2).

Mr Ellicott:

– Are you referring to the Life Insurance Act?

Mr JACOBI:

– I am referring to the Insurance Act. Formerly the right of appeal for the Life Insurance Act lay to the High Court of Australia.

Mr Ellicott:

– I follow that.

Mr JACOBI:

– Is the Minister trying to upset me?

Mr Ellicott:

– I am trying to understand what you are saying so that I can answer.

Mr JACOBI:

-If the Minister would be kind enough to be attentive I shall try to explain it to him. Section 31(2) of the Act provides for bodies corporate lodging financial statements every year. If this is questioned an appeal will lie to this particular Tribunal. That is a complexity within itself. Section 33 (8) concerns an appeal against a determination by the Commissioner under section 33 (3). That is, an appeal will bind the Commissioner or the Treasurer on the value of assets. In that case an appeal will lie to this

Tribunal. Section 36 is against the cancellation of authority to underwrite insurance. Section 41(3) applies to the apportionment of receipts. Section 46 (5) concerns the refusal to appoint or the revocation of appointment of an auditor to a particular insurance company. If the Commissioner or the Treasurer refuses that appointment, the company has the right to appeal to this Tribunal. Section 51 (2) provides for an appeal against a direction given not to deal with certain assets. I advise the Minister that that situation can become extremely complex. Section 62(3) provides for an appeal against a direction or variation of a direction. This section is not particularly important but, nonetheless, an appeal can lie from it. Section 93 (5)- a provision to which I objected when the original Bill was introduced-provides for Lloyd’s or Lloyd’s underwriter to show cause and by notice why Part VII of the Act should not cease to apply to Lloyd’s. In short, this is a revocation. Section 105 (10) provides for an appeal against the direction or a variation of a direction given under this particular section.

I have referred to the Insurance Act. Under all these sections in the Act appeals can lie to the Tribunal on 2 grounds. With regard to the Life Insurance Act new appeals by 1Tfe insurers and auditors by way of the Tribunal are granted in the following circumstances. In the case of auditors there is a ground for appeal under section 47 which concerns the refusal to approve an auditor. This is the same right as that which applies under the Insurance Act. The grounds for companies to appeal lie under section 16(1) (a) which concerns the refusal to allow a company to carry on some form of business other than life or general insurance. This is a new provision, and it could well be a contentious one. Section 19(1) concerns refusal to register a company. Section 23a refers to cancellation of registration. Section 39 (2) deals with refusal of permission to make a particular type of investment. This is a new provision, but no appeal by the life company will lie to this Tribunal. A company may appeal against a direction under section 40a to vary a statement as set out in the Act. Section 47 is the same as applies to auditors. It may appeal against rejection of a series of accounts under section 52 (3). An appeal may be made against a direction given under section 58 ( 1 ) to a company after an investigation. Reference was made m the second reading speech enabling appeals to be taken to the Tribunal under the Social Services Act and Australian Capital Territory ordinances. I wonder whether the Minister or the Department considered this point. Obviously they did in preparing the earlier Bill. I am suggesting to the Minister that because of the complexities of the industry I doubt very much whether this is the appropriate tribunal to deal with these appeals.

Last October I put a whole series of questions to the Treasurer by way of letter for a variety of reasons. I received replies in January of this year. I shall read a couple of them. I asked:

Why are the determinations of the Insurance Tribunal -

As it was previously constituted- not made public once they have been advised to you, the Insurance Commissioner and the company concerned?

The reply was:

While an authority to carry on insurance business granted by the Insurance Tribunal is required under the Insurance Act to be notified in the Gazette, there is no such provision in relation to refusals of authority, and legal advice indicates that it would be impracticable for this information to be published in a similar way under existing legislation.

Some 2 years ago the fact that a Victorian company had been refused authority to underwrite was not made public by the Commissioner or the Treasurer. The net result was that people were perambulating all around Victoria working on the assumption that the policies they held were in fact valid. I ask the Minister whether in a case of an appeal against irrevocation or the right to underwrite the decision is to be made public. If so, are the results of the inquiry to be labled or made public. I further asked the Minister:

What are the names of the individuals who were directors, at the time of liquidation, of the 1 6 insurance companies subject to the Insurance (Deposits) Act 1932-73 which have been placed in liquidation . . .

The answer was:

Not available. This information is not required to be provided to the Treasurer under the Insurance (Deposits) Act 1932.

I assumed, and I am right, that questions of liquidation have nothing to do with this legislation or the Tribunal, but the important point is that the identity of individuals and directors who may be implicated in an appeal to the Tribunal by a company that does not have the right to underwrite ought to be made public.

I do not think sufficient consideration has been given to the workload that might lie on the Tribunal as the result of the growing complexity of the insurance industry and to the possibility of a growing number of appeals in a variety of areas in which the Tribunal is to be asked to make decisions. In the areas that are to be important in the insurance industry the public has a perfect right to know the activities, good or bad, of the company, its directors or auditors. Decisions by the Tribunal on these matters are of public importance.

Mr ELLICOTT:
WentworthAttorneyGeneral · LP

– in reply- I thank honourable members for the way in which they have participated in the debate and for the very kind words which, at times, they have said about the Attorney-General. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) referred to the Kerr committee and to the members of that committee. As is quite clear from the attitude of the Opposition at this time the recommendations of the committee have, in effect, been adopted by the Parliament. I pay tribute to those who served on that committee, namely, Sir John Kerr, Sir Anthony Mason, who is now a Justice of the High Court, and Professor Harry Whitmore. I particularly mention Professor Harry Whitmore because he is a leading authority on the subject of administrative law not only in Australia but also in the rest of the world.

I know from my own participation in that committee that he made a great contribution to it and, of course, to the final report. It is also a fact that he became a member of what is called the Bland committee which ultimately recommended an ombudsman and which also looked at the form which administrative appeals should take in the Commonwealth area. I take this opportunity to place on record the appreciation of the House and of successive governments of the work in this field of the persons I have mentioned. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith asked why some but not all documents which were the subject of production against the question of privilege might be shown to one party as against another. That was put in simply to recognise the fact that there could be odd occasions when the Administrative Appeals Tribunal felt that it was in the interests of justice that a particular party should have access to the documents or perhaps an intervenor who might be there should not have access to them. It was simply to provide against that eventuality that that matter was put in the Bill.

The honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) raised some questions which I appreciate. He asked: Are we engaged in the exercise of extending the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The House will recall that when the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act was first brought into the House by the previous Government it did not have any schedules. In Opposition we took the view that schedules ought to be put into the Bill. They were ultimately inserted, by agreement, I think in the Senate. This piece of legislation was then given some teeth. Since it has been brought into operation in July last year, and indeed before that, there has been a successive consideration of Commonwealth Acts and regulations. That is still going on. The purpose is to ensure that as many discretions as possible which can be made the subject of review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will be included by regulation within the scope of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Another question which has arisen- and the honourable member for St George mentioned it- is a continuing review of the operation of the Tribunal. I remind the honourable member that the Administrative Review Council has been set up, as proposed in the recommendations of the Kerr Committee, to make sure that the workings of the Ombudsman, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and any other area of administrative law, are operating adequately. It is for that reason that we have the fortune to have a high powered and representative committee to do just that. Needless to say, the Parliament can be its own watchdog in this area, as well as the Council and, if I may say so, the AttorneyGeneral.

The honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) raised a number of questions. The Bills to which he referred- the Life Insurance Amendment Bill and the Insurance Amendment Billwere debated in this House some weeks ago. They then went on to the Senate, and I understand they are about to become law. However, I do not think that should give the honourable member reason to be apprehensive. In fact some attempt was made in those Bills to deal with the questions he brought forward. For instance, clause 24 of the Insurance Amendment Bill, which inserts a new section 63 in the Insurance Act, provides in part:

In giving a direction as to the persons who are to constitute the Tribunal for the purposes of a review of a reviewable decision of the Treasurer or the Commissioner, or for the purposes of a request under sub-section 41 (2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 197S in respect of such a decision, the President shall ensure that each nonpresidential member of the Tribunal as so constituted is a person who, in the opinion of the President, has special knowledge or skill in relation to the insurance business.

That is the whole purpose of a number of the amendments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. There is no question that the intention is to ensure that the Tribunal will have on it people appropriate to the particular task, and it is desired to have them sit in various tiers so that that sort of expertise may be available. It may be that in some, indeed many, matters the President will not sit. Let me say at the outset that he could not possibly sit in all matters if what is proposed comes about. For instance, if this Tribunal takes over some social security appeals, appeals under the Life Insurance Act and the Insurance Act, and repatriation appeals it would be impossible for the President to deal with them. As an example, I think that there are 10 000 appeals every year under the Repatriation Act That highlights the fact that the purpose of these amendments is to so structure the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that it will be adequate to the task and be able to sit in the tiers that are necessary for it to do so. I bring those matters to the attention of the honourable member for Hawker. The honourable member also raised the question of the Tribunal not being able to publish its reasons. So far as I can gather from my reading of the insurance Bills, there is nothing there to prevent the Tribunal publishing its reasons. I can see no reason at the moment why it cannot publish its decisions. There are provisions which deal with holding the proceedings in private, but at the same time there are provisions, so far as the hearing is concerned, enabling the Tribunal to loosen that and to say who can be present and so on.

In concluding the second reading debate on this matter, I add that in a sense this is an historic occasion. It brings to fruition a very broadranging system of administrative law in this country. Some amendments of a technical and procedural character will be proposed, but at this stage I simply again commend the Bill to the House. I seek leave to continue the debate at a later hour this day.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1630

INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS

Ministerial Statement

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– by leave- I wish to inform the House of decisions the Government has taken about the organisation of the intelligence and security services in Australia. These decisions follow the Government’s study of one of the reports of the Royal Commissioner on Intelligence and Security, Mr Justice Hope, which he recently presented to the Governor-General. There is always difficulty in publicly discussing matters of security and intelligence. The Government however, intends to make public those parts of Mr Justice Hope’s reports which can be revealed without prejudice to national security.

The Government will also state publicly to the maximum possible extent its decisions in regard to the Royal Commissioner’s recommendations. Honourable members will recall that Mr Justice Hope was appointed the Royal Commissioner by the previous Government to make recommendations on intelligence and security services the nation should have available to it. This report is on that part of his terms of reference calling for a review of the machinery for ministerial and official control, direction, and co-ordination of the activity of the various services. The report also deals with the arrangements for the assessment of intelligence.

I now table an abridgement of the findings and recommendations of the Royal Commissioner in respect of these aspects. The abridgement has been prepared by the Royal Commissioner at my request to assist in the fullest possible discussions and debate on these vital matters. We are publishing all the elements of the report the Royal Commissioner himself believes can and should be published. Honourable members will notice that the abridgement is entitled ‘Third Report’. Other reports have been presented, and the Government’s decision in relation to these will be announced when consideration of them has been completed. Mr Justice Hope has advised me that the decisions I shall announce will not pre-empt recommendations in the other reports.

The fundamental finding of the Royal Commissioner is that Australia needs a highly professional system of intelligence and security services, and that this need is now more apparent than ever before. Other important findings of the Royal Commissioner are: Australia needs intelligence of quality, timeliness and relevance. Intelligence is increasingly relevant to the formation of national policies in a number of areas and this is a trend that will continue. We must have our own information, our own intelligence, in order to maintain the necessary degree of selfreliance in our international posture. The Australian intelligence community is fragmented, poorly co-ordinated and organised. The process of intelligence assessment must be objective and seen to be objective. The Commission’s findings affirm the growing importance of intelligence and security services.

The Commission also finds, however, that these services have not occupied an appropriate place within the machinery of government and that their activities have not been well enough co-ordinated. Accordingly, the Government has decided that there should be a special committee of Ministers comprising the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Leader of the House, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Defence and the Attorney-General to set overall policy and oversee the work of the intelligence community. The

Ministerial Committee should be supported by a committee of Permanent Heads, comprising Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet as Chairman, Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Secretary of the Department of Defence, Chief of Defence Force Staff, Secretary to the Treasury, Director-General of Office of National Assessments and the DirectorGeneral of Security. The Committee of Permanent Heads’ principal function would be to advise the ministerial committee on matters of concern to it.

Mr Justice Hope’s report makes it clear that these arrangements would be in line with similar reforms which have been put into effect in many western democracies. In accepting the recommendations, the Government has expressed the ministerial committee’s terms of reference more broadly than those recommended by Mr Justice Hope. The terms of reference of the Ministerial Committee will be ‘to exercise policy control and managerial oversight over the national intelligence community, external and internal, in respect of targets, priorities, activities, organisational requirements, broad allocation of resources, performance and co-ordination and inter-relationships of the various agencies’. These terms of reference will allow Ministers collectively to have the fullest opportunity and the responsibility of maintaining an effective and efficient intelligence community, responsive to the needs of government and the rights of citizens.

A major group of findings by the Royal Commissioner relates to the organisation of the intelligence assessment arrangements. In his report, Mr Justice Hope stresses that the Government of the day should have available to it an intelligence assessments agency which can provide independent advice on a wide range of matters of national importance. Mr Justice Hope found that the present arrangements are capable of improvement, and that those who received our intelligence assessments felt that against the tests of quality, timeliness and relevance, Australia’s intelligence production is not as good as it should be.

The Government is determined to correct this situation. The Government’s decisions reflect acceptance in principle of Mr Justice Hope’s recommendations but incorporate some variations on matters of organisation and administrative arrangements where these were considered desirable by our advisers. The Government has decided there shall be a new intelligence assessments agency, entitled the Office of National Assessments, which will be concerned with assessing international intelligence and not with domestic situations. The Office shall be concerned with national assessments- ‘national’ meaning a matter affecting the responsibility of more than one Minister, department or authority, or being of a level of importance warranting Cabinet reference, or being of importance to basic Government policy, or having major implications for the basic premises of departmental policy or programs. It shall avoid comment or advice regarding policy. The Office will not be organised to collect intelligence by clandestine or other means. It will draw its intelligence from other sources.

Particular features to which I draw honourable members’ attention are that the Office shall be free from external direction as to the contents and conclusions of its reports and assessments. I emphasise to the House the utmost importance of that directive. It will be independent of any Government department or authority. Under the administrative arrangements order, it will be associated with my Department but will in no way be under its control. It shall be expected to offer objective intelligence reports and assessments. It will be able to co-operate with other agencies, for example, the Joint Intelligence Agency and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in the production of joint reports and assessments.

In due course, the Government has it in mind to introduce legislation defining the functions and responsibilities of the Office. The legislation will provide for a statutory office of DirectorGeneral of the Office of National Assessments. The Director-General of the Office will be of first division status and will report to the Prime Minister. The Office will consist of the DirectorGeneral and an Assessments Staff of officers who will include seconded officers from the Commonwealth departments, the defence force and the intelligence agencies. The Office would have a permanent core of career officers professionally qualified in the assessment of international intelligence in the political, strategic and economic fields.

The subject matter of national interest will include international economic as well as international political and strategic questions. This reflects the Government’s concern to have the best possible intelligence assessments on matters in the economic and resources fields which will be of increasing relevance. In addition, the Office will be assisted by a National Assessments Board and an Economic Assessments Board. These Boards will be chaired by the Director-General and consist of experts drawn from interested departments who will provide expert comment on the subjects under assessment. Reports from the Office will, however, be issued by the DirectorGeneral and on his authority. The Government intends that the Director-General should have access to all information and expert advice necessary for him to make his assessments.

The Office of National Assessments is to have a major role in the production of intelligence assessments and will be an important part of the intelligence community. As mentioned earlier, the community will be subject to policy control and managerial oversight, through the machinery arrangements at ministerial and permanent head level decided on by the Government. However, the responsibility for existing agencies in the community- for example, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Joint Intelligence Organisation- will remain with the present Ministers. The Royal Commissioner recognised the continued need for an intelligence capacity in specialised areas of defence, working in close conjunction with the new Office. He found that in these areas also intelligence needed to be timely, relevant and of quality. The Government has accepted that the defence organisation needs to retain an intelligence capacity. Consequently, the Joint Intelligence Organisation will continue under its present title and with its existing functions, except those in the area of national assessments and current intelligence which will be transferred to the new Office.

While the Government intends to establish the Office of National Assessments by legislation, reforms are too urgently needed to await enactment of that legislation. Consistent with the approach taken by the Royal Commissioner, the Government has decided that the changes should be implemented forthwith, by administrative action in anticipation of the passage of legislation. The Government has decided to appoint a most distinguished public servant, Mr R. W. Furlonger as the Head of the new Office. I might add that he has had experience in this area, in the Joint Intelligence Organisation, on other occasions.

Finally, I should mention 2 particular matters. The first is Mr Justice Hope’s recommendation that the head offices of the intelligence agencies should be located in Canberra. The Government believes that the intelligence agencies should be given maximum opportunity to keep in touch with all parts of the system of government. We shall examine the practicality of moving the head offices. In any event, the Government will encourage the greatest possible contact between the intelligence community and the other arms of government ‘ in order to ensure that the intelligence community and the departments of government are in close touch and accord on matters of concern to the government and the community. Secondly, honourable members will note that the Royal Commissioner has stressed the need to achieve a bi-partisan attitude on these important questions of intelligence and security which affect the national interest. I have therefore arranged with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) that he should be kept informed of significant matters in this field on a continuing basis under arrangements of secrecy. This follows the convention which applies in the United Kingdom. When I was Leader of the Opposition the then Prime Minister saw to it that Mr Justice Hope informed me of the course of his inquiries. That was done. I have made sure that Mr Justice Hope keeps the Leader of the Opposition continually informed. In relation to these particular matters the Leader of the Opposition was briefed earlier today by my Department.

The decisions announced today involve significant improvements to our intelligence arrangements. This will be achieved in particular by the new ministerial and senior officials’ committees of the intelligence community. These will provide policy guidance and direction which have been lacking in the past and which are essential in this crucial area of Australia’s interest. Secondly, the establishment of a new intelligence agency with specific responsibilities for national assessments will enable the Government to receive high quality information on a broad range of areas of importance. Thirdly, the retention of the existing intelligence agencies and ministerial arrangements will ensure that those interests requiring special attention continue to receive it. This applies particularly to the intelligence requirements of the defence organisation.

Matters of intelligence and security are of fundamental national concern. They deserve the maximum possible informed debate and discussion, one hopes without passion and emotion. We agree with the Royal Commissioner that our agencies need to be as good as our resources allow, and that their activities need strong support and firm leadership from the Government. The decisions announced today demonstrate the Government’s determination to see that Australia has the best possible system of coordination and control of intelligence and security services and that high quality intelligence assessments on political, strategic and economic matters are available to government. The Government is most appreciative of the work done by Mr Justice Hope in the course of his inquiry. He has undertaken a thorough and painstaking study of the security and intelligence arrangements in this country and has presented a very valuable and creative report. I welcome this opportunity to thank His Honour for his service to Australia.

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

– by leave- Those who have heard the speech of the Prime Minister- (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and those who will read the abridgment of Mr Justice Hope’s report which he has tabled will realise how important and urgent it was that an inquiry should be made such as has now been concluded. I join in the : Prime Minister’s appreciation of the work that Mr Justice Hope has done, painstakingly, com- : petently, in this field, as we expected he would. I would like to take this opportunity, as I have on earlier occasions, to express my own appreci-. anon of the co-operation of the then Premier of New South Wales, Sir Robert Askin, and the Chief Justices of New South Wales during that period in making available the services of supreme court judges, not least Mr Justice Hope who served twice in conducting inquiries for my Government

You will remember, Mr Speaker, that when you were Leader of the Opposition I advised you of the proposed terms of reference, the proposed appointment of the Royal Commission and the proposed appointment of the royal com-, missioner some days before they were an- ‘nounced. I also initiated the practice of having the Leader of the Opposition fully briefed as and when he desired on all the matters covered by this report As the Prime Minister has acknowledged, I continued that practice and, as I acknowledge, he has continued it I believe that nothing but benefit can come to the nation from having alternative governments fully and responsibly apprised of matters of such great national concern.

I would not wish to speak at any length on the document and the associated documents which I have been shown. My impression might be that . I might have adhered more closely to the royal commissioner’s recommendations concerning the terms of reference of the ministerial committee or the greater cohesion of the existing agencies. But that is only an impression I have at - this first instance.

There is another very clear thrust from the report, and that is that economic and resources fields will be assessed as well as and independently of the political and strategic questions The appointment of Mr Furlonger is in every respect a proper one. I would imagine that we can say that with that appointment and other appointments which have been made- they were made after consultation with Mr Justice Hopethe security and intelligence services of our own country and the relations between those and the security and intelligence services of other countries will be conducted with enhanced benefit to our country.

page 1633

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES PAUSE

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave- I wish to inform the House of the Government’s current attitude towards the price/wage pause, particularly in the light of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission’s decision to proceed with the March quarter national wage case. The Government remains strongly of the view that the price/wage pause has the overwhelming support of the Australian community. A Morgan gallup poll conducted during the Anzac Day weekend disclosed that 75 per cent of the respondents supported the freeze. That figure included 62 per cent of people who indicated that they normally voted for the Labor Party.

Despite the inevitable difficulties and complexities Australians saw in the joint call of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Premiers a rare bipartisan gesture designed to respond to a national problem. The freeze drew rapid support from employer groups throughout Australia. Within 2 days of the freeze being announced representatives of every major employer organisation pledged their support for the freeze.

I would like at this stage to record the Government’s gratitude for the swift and generous response of a wide section of the business community so far as price restraint is concerned. I illustrate by pointing out that my Department in the past 3 weeks has been in touch with 104 companies requesting that they agree to deferrals of decisions on price applications before the Prices Justification Tribunal. In all but 2 cases agreement has been obtained.

The Government does not underestimate the very significant financial sacrifices made by some companies in agreeing to our approach. In the light of such support from the community the

Government believes its clear responsibility is to take all reasonable steps to achieve the objective so clearly envisaged by the 7 heads of government 3 weeks ago. That was a price pause matched by a wage pause.

Quite clearly the decision to be made by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in respect of the March quarter national wage case is critical to the prospects of the freeze succeeding. The Government acknowledges that unless the March national wage case decision represents substantial reciprocity on the wages side it would be unreasonable to expect business to exercise the same level of restraint as applies at the present time.

The Government was naturally disappointed that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission did not accede to its submission that the current hearing be postponed. Nevertheless the Commission has indicated that in deciding to proceed with the hearing it has in no way preempted the ultimate result of that hearing. The Government notes the Commission’s indication that if possible awards of money increases in wages should be deferred until after a decision has been given on the March quarter figure. We also note the view of the Commission that at this stage it saw no useful purpose in calling a conference, as suggested by the Victorian Government.

I now turn to the question of prices pending the Commission’s decision on the March quarter figure. The Government renews its request to companies which had received approvals for price increases from the Prices Justification Tribunal prior to 13 April last not to implement those increases pending the outcome of the current wage case. In respect of those companies which at 13 April had price applications before, or which have subsequently submitted price applications to, the Prices Justification Tribunal, I inform the House that I have today sent messages to those companies asking them to agree to extend the decision date on their price notifications to 23 May. It is the Government’s understanding that the March quarter national wage case decision will be available in sufficient time for it to have been assessed by the Government by that date. The Government expresses the hope that all companies in this category will respond to its request and that only those facing acute viability problems or those which, as a consequence of not increasing prices, are likely to retrench employees during the period before the Commission’s decision will seek to exercise their current statutory right to receive a decision from the Prices Justification Tribunal prior to the

Commission’s decision on the case currently before it.

The Prices Justification Tribunal will of course continue to examine price notifications currently before it or subsequently received so that as far as practicable decisions can proceed if it becomes apparent that there is insufficient reciprocity in respect of wages to match the level of price restraint now in force and which the Government hopes will remain in force pending the Commission’s decision. It is entirely appropriate for the Tribunal to examine price notifications currently before it whilst the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission continues to hear a current national wage case. The Government recognises that the present circumstances create special problems for companies which deal in commodities or whose goods or services are critically dependent on fluctuations in import prices. It had een the Government’s intention that if support in principle to the objective of a price-wage pause had been forthcoming from all relevant sections of the community the problems of these companies could have been amongst the areas to be examined by the special committee comprising representatives of employees, employers and the Prices Justification Tribunal which the Government had proposed establishing.

As honourable members are aware the major peak councils of the trade union movement have not been prepared to support in principle the objective of a price-wage pause. In these circumstances it would not be appropriate to establish the committee. Nevertheless the Government believes that some mechanism should be available pending the decision on the current wage case to examine special problems faced by companies which deal in commodities or whose goods or services are critically dependent on fluctuations in import prices. Such of those companies whose turnover exceeds $30m per year are already subject to the notification procedures of the Prices Justification Act, and I have already explained the attitude of the Government towards all companies covered by the notification procedures of that Act.

In respect of companies within the special category I have mentioned and which are not currently within the notification procedures of the Prices Justification Act, it is proposed that for the duration of the period of the current national wage case they accept the jurisdiction of the Prices Justification Tribunal. The basis is that if any such companies are in fact experiencing acute viability problems or face an employment situation of the type I have described above they should approach the Prices Justification Tribunal and accept the determination of that body regarding proposed price increases. I have discussed this proposal with the Acting Chairman of the Tribunal who has indicated that the Tribunal is prepared to participate in such an arrangement.

I should, however, make it clear that this arrangement is designed to cope with what the Government believes to be a limited number of cases and that no company should expect a favourable determination from the Tribunal unless it has in fact clearly established that it will, during the period between now and the Commission’s decision, experience acute viability problems or in fact as a consequence of not increasing prices actually retrench employees during that period. The request I made to the Prices Justification Tribunal on 14 April to defer decisions on price notifications before it pending agreement being reached on the pause remains subject only to what I have said earlier in this statement regarding companies experiencing acute viability or employment difficulties. The Government’s instruction to its departments and agencies regarding increases in charges will of course remain fully in force.

I should, in addition, make it clear that the pause in no way inhibits the practice of many retailers offering specials. To argue otherwise would be against the interests of consumers who benefit from the temporary price reductions involved in the practice of ‘specials’. Naturally the relevant price of an item on ‘special’ as at 13 April would be the normal price prevailing in respect of that item prior to 13 April and the subsequent return of the item from the ‘special’ to the normal price does not constitute a breach of the pause. I again express the Government’s appreciation of the support which was so readily forthcoming from such a wide spectrum of the community. I also express the hope that it will still be possible to achieve the effective implementation of the price-wage pause which the community demonstrably supports. I present the following paper:

Wages and Prices Pause- Ministerial Statement, 5 May 1977

Motion (by Mr McLeay) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-We returned to this House a little less than 3 weeks ago, in the week immediately following the announcement by the Government that Australia was to enjoy a prices and wages freeze. On the very first day that we returned to this House we sought from the Government an opportunity to question in debate the ramifications of that announcement and the way in which it would affect particularly the wage and salary earners in this country. Until today, we have been denied this right. Until today we have been denied this sort of information. The Government’s statement is short on information as to the impact of the socalled wages and prices freeze. Not only does it have ramifications within Australia but the announcement by the Government, after what appeared to be a 1 5 minute discussion at the conclusion of the Premiers Conference, has brought Australia into some sort of international ridicule among countries which observed the mammoth devaluation late last year, together with the announcement, after as I said, a 15 minute discussion, of a wages and prices freeze. This action has brought upon Australia the scorn of international financial and economic observers. I should like to refer to the Economist of 16 April. On that day the Economist stated:

Snap freeze, might not last. Only four months ago after the devaluation of the Australian dollar by 17.S per cent, the Liberal-Country party coalition this week took economic ad hockery to new heights. Emerging from a meeting with the Premiers of the six Australian states, the Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, announced on the steps of parliament in Canberra a three-month voluntary wage and price freeze. Cabinet colleagues and official advisers were stunned-

Certainly the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) who is at the table, was stunned- the idea had only been raised a few hours earlier, by the Premier of Victoria, Mr Dick Hamer, and was expected to get short shrift.

Mr Fraser’s Canberra two step is only the latest sign of uncertainty in Australia’s economic management. No sooner had the November devaluation been decided than the currency rate managers started hauling it back up to give what is now only a 12.2 per cent devaluation. This retreat was acknowledgment that the Government had devalued too much in the first place, and was worried that it would fuel inflation rather than exports. How long before Mr Fraser’s second thoughts on the freeze?

So as I have said, not only have people poured scorn and ridicule on the idea here in Australia but also internationally it has done Australia grave damage.

I want to take the House step by step through the Minister’s statement and show what has happened in Australia subsequent to the announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). I want to make the point that the 7 heads of government agreed that it was to be a voluntary wage and price freeze. The voluntary section of the price and wage freeze disappeared within about 48 hours as this Government announced that it was to be a mandatory wage freeze and a voluntary price freeze. Subsequently the Victorian Premier, the South Australian ‘ Premier, the New South Wales Premier, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and all other peak union councils withdrew from giving it any support.

The Minister told us in the opening paragraph of his statement that yesterday the submission from the national Government- a submission to put aside this national wage hearing for the March quarter-was rejected by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Yet we have this statement before the House today telling us that there is still some hope for the wage-price freeze. This seems to fly in the face of the announcement by Mr George Polites, the employers’ representative, that companies ought to get their applications before the Prices Justification Tribunal as quickly as possible. The Minister shakes his . head, which seems to be a more sensible sign - than anything contained in the document Let me put it this way: Perhaps the Minister is shaking his head because he thinks that it really does matter if one only gets one’s application before the PJT because the impact of the price increase does not matter until it takes effect But if we look at the piece of arithmetic that is now in motion in - Australia and if on the day the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission were to give its decision that an across-the-board 2.3 per cent wage increase was to take place in Australia and if the PJT were to announce all the price increases in the pipeline, then obviously the wheel would be started again. A new national wage case would be in the making immediately and there would be no 2.3 per cent in the next quarter because obviously what the Government is doing is creating an oversupply of price increases which wal hit us in one go. It may happen on 23 May, it may happen on 23 June or it may happen on 23 July, but , somewhere along the Une in the not too distant : future the Australian consumer is going to be hit with a deluge of price increases which will make prices appear as though they are skyrocketing on ‘ every commodity in A-ustralia

The Government seems to gain great comfort from the fact that a Morgan gallop POll showed that 75 per cent of the Australian people initially supported the wage-price freeze. I suspect that one could cite the ANOP poll carried out for the Australian Broadcasting Commission which showed that just as many people believed the freeze was a phoney as those who believed it might do some good. But the Australian people, having been hoaxed by the promises of this Government in November 1975, when it told them that all their economic problems would end with a change of government, are looking for some recipe which will give a hope of getting them out of the economic malaise Australia may be in. Obviously, if a question is framed in a certain way, one is going to assist the sort of response that is sought. It is a very dishonest way in which to conduct a poh.

It is not the first time the Morgan gallup poll has been responsible for this type of dishonesty. It is notorious for the last polls it took in 1972, the last of which showed that the coalition partnersthe Liberal Party and the Country Partywere going to win the election that was due to be held. Prior to the display of the figures by the Morgan gall.up poll people, Mr Morgan publicly told us that he was a great supporter of the Liberal Party, which certainly had influenced the outcome of that p911. So here again we have Mr Morgan, doing his part as a stooge for the Government, giving a result of a poll showing that 75 per cent of the people supported a priceswages freeze.

Not only does aU the evidence fly in the face of the result of that phoney pOll, but as each day passes and as consumers become increasingly aware of the price increases which are taking place throughout Australia, more and more people are becoming disillusioned with this fairyland promise of the good that a prices and wages freeze will do. There can be no doubt that a-poll taken legitimately now would show that more people are opposed to this move by the Government than are for it because, as I said, more people can see now that it was a compulsory wage freeze and a voluntary price freeze. The Minister also tells us in his statement that despite the inevitable difficulties and complexities Australians saw in the joint call, nevertheless they responded to the national problem.

One of the complaints that we have on this side of the House is that the Government has been unable to give details of the impact of this wages-prices freeze. For a month we have been asking the Government to give us some information as to what it all means. If after 15 minutes discussion the Government can announce a prices-wages freeze, one would have thought that it would have put a sufficient number of public servants to work to give us some of the finer details of this wages-prices freeze. If, as the Minister claims, Australians saw aU the complexities and difficulties associated with it, they certainly were showing a far greater perception of the problems than did the Government.

One of the extraordinary features of the announcement of the Prime Minister was that he made the announcement without any consultation with any of his colleagues, with perhaps the exception of the Treasurer (Mr Lynch). Honourable members will have noticed that the Treasurer, who likes to get up and let the blood rush to his head on many of these economic issues, for the last month has been extraordinarily silent on the wages-prices freeze. We have not seen the Treasurer representing his Department, telling us what a great economic feat a prices-wages freeze would be. Obviously his Department is opposed to it. Other Ministers have ad it imposed upon them and are not quite sure what it means. They certainly cannot explain the difficulties associated with it. The Minister said that very quickly the Government felt the response of employers was one of acceptance of what the Government was trying to do. In fact, he stated:

The freeze drew rapid support from employer groups throughout Australia.

Of course, that sentence of the Minister’s statement provides the key to the whole problem.

In most circumstances- certainly not all circumstances, as is evidenced by some other material I shall lay before the House a little later- why would not the average employer give a rapid response to such a suggestion? The suggestion was made a few weeks before the next national wage hearing was due to commence. In all cases the employers had been able to make the price increases that they required for the first quarter of the year. The wage case that was to be conducted- it started yesterday- was to catch up with the price increases that had taken place in the first quarter of this year. So we had the wage and salary earners of Australia trying to get some justice from the Conciliation and Arbitration Commision in terms of a wage increase only to catch up with the price increases in January, February and March of this year. Now, if employers had already received their price increases, why would they not agree to a wage-price freeze if the essence of what it meant was to abolish the March quarter hearing of the national wage case? That is exactly what it meant. Obviously, a lot of employers rushed in.

Then the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs tells us that a lot of industries agree with the wage-price freeze. They have been to see him. They have responded to the telexes, the telegrams and the telephone calls. But let us have a closer look at what that means. On Monday of this week, to the disgrace of this Government, we found that in discussing the wage-price freeze behind closed doors employers and manufacturers were agreeing to the freeze at a price which the whole community had to pay. There has been no denial of the stories which appeared in the newspapers on Monday of this week. Not one Minister has said that these stories are untrue. What are the stories? When the automobile manufacturers were called in to discuss with the Government the price-wage freeze a Press statement was released after their meeting which said that everything was lovely in the garden and that the Government and the automobile manufacturers of Australia had reached agreement. That was the end of the Press statement. The Government came out of the meeting beating its chest and saying that it had the support of all these major employers- General Motors-Holden’s, Ford, Chrysler, the assemblers and the importers. The Government said that they all agreed that the price-wage freeze is a good thing for Australia.

Then, a week later, out comes all the garbage. Out comes all the information about what has been going on behind closed doors. Out comes all the things that the Australian people do not know about how this Government obtained agreement. I want to quote from the newsletter Inside Canberra of 29 April. It says:

A request by the Prime Minister to the States seeking a delay in exhaust emission control standards will provoke strong resistance from consumer and environment groups. Mr Fraser last week undertook to ask the States to defer application of design rule 27E, the emission control rule, as a trade-off for support by car manufacturers of the price freeze. Mr Fraser gave the undertaking last week in Canberra at a conference of motor industry leaders and senior Ministers. He was told by the industry that the new emission control standards to come into operation.

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

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The question is that the House take note of the paper.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Bendigo.

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) proposed:

That the debate be adjourned.

Mr Hayden:

-. . . the best thing that one can say about this proposal -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr Hayden:

-. . . is that it is like asking a man with high fever to sit on a chair for 4 hours -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Oxley -

Mr Hayden:

– Well, let me finish that point.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Oxley will resume his seat or he will not be finishing anything.

Mr Hayden:

– Well, you would not -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The question is that the debate be adjourned.

Question put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 69

NOES: 30

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the adjourned debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 71

NOES: 30

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

-As a point of procedure, I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Oxley making a statement concerning the inadequate explanation of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs about the Government’s so-called wages-prices freeze, the confusion and uncertainty that the lack of detail on the operation of the freeze is causing for business and labour and the failure of the Government genuinely to encourage the development of broadly based community support for a comprehensive -

Mr Sinclair:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Oxley will remain silent. A point of order has been taken.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, this matter has just been canvassed before the House. The matter was voted upon and the Opposition was defeated. I ask that you rule that a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders to enable a debate of that character is therefore out of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– In my opinion the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders being moved by the honourable member for Oxley covers the subject that the House has just voted on in a definitive way. I also point out that the debate has only been adjourned and that the subject matter of the debate has not been taken from the notice paper. For those 2 reasons I suggest that the honourable member for Oxley ‘s motion on the procedure is not one that can be accepted.

Mr Hayden:

– I take a point of order. This is a serious situation. The House is in a hurry to adjourn on a motion about to be moved by the Government for a soiree in Kings Hall.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member for Oxley will resume his seat.

Mr Scholes:

– I take a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Corio also will resume his seat. What the honourable member for Oxley said in his point of order is not correct. At present the business before the House is the continuation of the subject matter discussed by the House prior to the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). No motion has been moved by the Government in regard to any function or any other factor relating to this House. I suggest to the honourable member for Oxley that the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders was moved on an incorrect assumption. I point out to him that when the motion for the adjournment of the debate was moved he was on his feet. He had not received the call. The call was to go to the Government side because there had been a speaker from the Government side and one from the Opposition. The Government side should, therefore, have received the call, which I gave to it. The honourable member for Oxley continued speaking even after the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier) had moved that the debate be adjourned. It was at that stage I asked the honourable member for Oxley to resume his seat. He asked whether he could finish the point he was making. If he had been allowed to finish his point he could have been considered to have spoken on the Bill. Therefore, he would have had no further chance to speak on the motion that the House take note of the statement.

page 1639

OBJECTION TO RULING

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– I move:

That the Deputy Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.

Mr Howard:

– I take a point of order. The honourable member for Oxley is deliberately preventing you from properly giving the call to this side of the House. I simply wish to table a copy of a telex sent by the Prime Minister to all Premiers.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Oxley has moved dissent from the ruling of the Chair. Does he wish to speak?

Mr HAYDEN:

– I have moved dissent from your ruling. I did so with a great deal of regret but I had no choice in the matter -

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the honourable member for Oxley be not further heard.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 66

NOES: 28

Majority……. 38

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

– I second the motion for dissent from your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the honourable member for Shortland be not further heard.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 53

NOES: 26

Majority……. 27

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Mr Yates) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Question put:

That the ruling of the Deputy Speaker be dissented from (Mr Hayden’s motion).

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 28

NOES: 50

Majority……. 22

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The sitting is suspended until 8 p.m. in order that honourable members may attend the function to mark the 30th anniversary of the opening of Parliament House, Canberra.

Sitting suspended from 5.25 to 8 p.m.

page 1641

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr ELLICOTT:
WentworthAttorneyGeneral · LP

-Mr Deputy Chairman, I seek leave to move amendments numbered 1 to 9 which relate to clauses 12, 17, 18 and 19.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (MrGiles)-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Clause 12.

Section 2 1 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (1 ) and substituting the following sub-sections:

  1. 1 ) Subject to sub-section ( 1a), the Tribunal shall, for the purpose of the exercise of its powers in relation to a matter, be constituted by-

    1. a presidential member and 2 non-presidential members;
    2. a presidential member alone;
    3. 3 non-presidential members of whom at least one is a senior non-presidential member; or
    4. a senior non-presidential member alone. (1a) For the purpose of the exercise of the powers of the Tribunal under sub-section 29 (4) or (6), section 31, subsection 35 (2) or 37 (2) or section 38 or 42a, the Tribunal shall be constituted-
    5. where the hearing of the relevant proceeding has not commenced-
    1. if a direction has not been given under section 20 as to the members who are to constitute the Tribunal for the purposes of that proceeding-by a presidential member,
    2. if such a direction has been given and the direction requires the Tribunal to be constituted by one member only- by that member; or

    3. if such a direction has been given and the direction requires the Tribunal to be constituted by more than one member- by the member who is to preside at the hearing of that proceeding;

    4. where the hearing of the relevant proceeding has commenced- by the members by whom the Tribunal is constituted for the purposes of that proceeding; or
    5. where the exercise of the powers is related to the institution of a proceeding before the Tribunal- by a presidential member.’.

Clause 17.

Section 28 of the Principal Act is amended-

  1. by omitting from sub-section ( 1 ) the words ‘and the reasons for the decision’ and substituting the words referring to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based and giving the reasons for the decision , and

    1. For the purposes of sub-section (1), the prescribed period is the period commencing on the day on which the decision is made and ending on the twenty-eighth day after the day on which a document setting out the terms of the decision is furnished to the applicant. ‘.

Clause 18.

Section 29 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section substituted:- 29. ( 1) An application to the Tribunal for a review of a decision-

  1. shall be in writing;
  2. may be made in accordance with the prescribed form;
  3. shall set out a statement of the reasons for the application; and

  4. shall be lodged with the Tribunal within the prescribed time.

    1. 3 ) In the case of a decision that is deemed to be made by reason of the operation of sub-section 25 (5), the prescribed time for the purposes of paragraph ( 1 ) (d) is the period commencing on the day on which the decision is deemed to be made and ending-
  5. in a case to which paragraph (b) does not apply- on the twenty-eighth day after that day; or

  6. in the case where the person whose failure to do an act or thing within a particular period is deemed by sub-section 25 (5) to constitute the making of the decision makes or purports to make, after the expiration of that period, a decision either to do or not to do that act or thing- on the twenty-eighth day after-

    1. if the decision sets out the findings on material questions of fact and the reasons for the decision-the day on which a document setting out the terms of the decision is furnished to the applicant; or
    2. if the decision does not set out those findings and reasons-the day that would be ascertained under paragraph (2) (b) if sub-section (2) were applicable in relation to the decision.

Clause 19.

Section 30 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (1) the word ‘The’ (first occurring) and substituting the words ‘Subject to paragraph 42a (2)(b), the’.

Mr ELLICOTT:
LP

-I move:

  1. In clause 12, proposed sub-section (1a), after ‘29’, insert(3a).
  2. In clause 17, before paragraph (a), insert the following paragraph:- (aa) by omitting from sub-section ( 1 ) the words “within the prescribed period”; ‘.
  3. 3 ) In clause 1 7, at end of paragraph ( a), omit’ and ‘.

  4. In clause 17, after paragraph (a), insert the following paragraph:- (ab) by inserting after sub-section ( 1 ) the following subsections: “( 1 a) A person to whom a request for a statement in relation to a decision is made under sub-section ( 1 ) may refuse to prepare and furnish the statement if-

    1. in the case of a decision the terms of which were recorded in writing and set out in a document that was furnished to the applicant- the request was not made on or before the twenty-eighth day after the day on which that document was furnished to the applicant; or
    2. b) in any other case- the request was not made within a reasonable time after the decision was made, and in any such case the person to whom the request was made shall give to the applicant, within 14 days after receiving the request, notice in writing stating that the statement will not be furnished to him and giving the reason why the statement will not be so furnished. “(1b) For the purposes of paragraph (1a) (b), a request for a statement in relation to a decision shall be deemed to have been made within a reasonable time after the decision was made if the Tribunal, on application by the person who made the request, declares that the request was made within a reasonable time after the decision was made. “; and ‘.
  5. In clause 17, omit proposed sub-section (5).
  6. In clause 18, in proposed section 29 (1) (d), before shall’, insert ‘if the terms of the decision were recorded in writing and set out in a document that was furnished to the applicant or the decision is deemed to be made by reason of the operation of sub-section 25 (5)-‘.
  7. In clause 18, in proposed section 29 (3) (b) after thing’, insert ‘, being a decision the terms of which were recorded in writing and set out in a document that was furnished to the applicant’.

  8. In clause 18, after proposed sub-section (3), insert the following sub-sections: - “(3a) Where-

    1. no time is prescribed for the lodging with the Tribunal of applications for review of a particular decision; or
    2. no time is prescribed for the lodging with the Tribunal by a particular person of an application for a review of a particular decision, and the Tribunal is of the opinion that the application was not lodged within a reasonable time after the decision was made, the Tribunal shall, subject to sub-section (3C)-
    3. in a case to which paragraph (a) applies- refuse to entertain an application for a review of the decision referred to in that paragraph; or
    4. in a case to which paragraph (b) applies- refuse to entertain an application by the person referred to in that paragraph for a review of the decision so referred to. “(3b) In forming an opinion for the purposes of subsection (3a), the Tribunal shall have regard to-
    5. the time when the applicant became aware of the making of the decision; and
    6. in a case to which paragraph (3a) (b) applies- the period or periods prescribed for the lodging by another person or other persons of an application or applications for review of the decision, and may have regard to any other matters that it considers relevant. “(3c) Notwithstanding sub-section (3b), the Tribunal may entertain an application referred to in that sub-section if it is of the opinion that there are special circumstances that justify it in doing so. ‘ ‘. ‘.

  9. 9) Omit clause 1 9, substitute the following clause:-

    1. Section 30 of the Principal Act is amended-
    1. by omitting from sub-section (1) the word “The” (first occurring) and substituting the words “Subject to paragraph 42A(2)(b), the”; and
    2. by omitting from paragraph (c) of sub-section ( 1 ) the words “any other person who was entitled to apply to the Tribunal for a review of the decision,” and substituting the words “any other person (including the Commonwealth or an authority of the Commonwealth) whose interests are affected by the decision and who”.’.

Mr Deputy Chairman, a number of these amendments are consequential upon two or three substantial amendments. But the amendments in toto are matters of procedure. Basically they arise out of the problem that sometimes reasons may be called for, reasons may not be called for or they may not be given or no notice may be given in certain circumstances of decisions. Where action is taken in relation to seeking either reasons or a review of a decision, it was felt that some amendments should be made in order to cover that type of situation. The amendment No. (4)- clause 17 of the Bill- amends section 28 ( 1 ) of the principal Act. It entitles a person to apply within a prescribed time to a decision-maker to obtain reasons for a decision. This provision does not work satisfactorily when a person who may be affected by a decision is not notified of the decision when it is made. The new sub-sections lA and lB which it is proposed to insert into section 28 have the effect that a decision-maker may refuse to give reasons if, first, a person who has been notified in writing of the decision does not apply for reasons within 28 days of being so notified and, second, a person who has not been notified in writing of the decision does not apply for reasons within a reasonable time. The Tribunal is to be empowered to determine the question whether the application for reasons has been made within a reasonable time.

The amendment numbered (6)- clause 18 of the Bill- has the effect of setting the prescribed time limit of 28 days for applying to the Tribunal for a review of the decision only where the applicant for review has received written notification of the decision or the decision-maker has failed to make the decision within the time allowed by law for the making of that decision. The other substantial amendment is that numbered (8)- clause 18 of the Bill. The new sub-sections proposed to be inserted by this amendment provide for cases where first a prescribed time within which an application must be made to the Tribunal for the review of the particular decision does not apply because no person was given written notice of the decision; and, second, the person seeking review had not himself been furnished with written notice of that decision although such a notice had been furnished to another person. In either case the application for review may be rejected by the Tribunal unless it has been made within a reasonable time after the making of the decision or the Tribunal is of the opinion that there are special circumstances that would justify it in entertaining the application for review. The purpose of the amendment numbered (9)-clause 19 of the Bill-is to permit a person in whose favour a decision has been made to intervene in proceedings before the Tribunal in which that decision is challenged by some other person. Mr Deputy Chairman, for those reasons I have moved the amendments standing in my name.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-The Opposition agrees with the amendments moved by the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) which are consequential and procedural amendments. But I raise again with the Attorney-General the matter I raised at the second reading stage. I ask him whether he recalls that I made a submission to the Treasurer (Mr Lynch). It is of some importance and I trust that this time we will understand one another on the issues involved. On 4 October I asked why determinations of the Insurance Tribunal are not made public once they have been advised to the Treasurer, the Insurance Commissioner and the company concerned. The response I received was as follows:

While an authority to carry on insurance business granted by the Insurance Tribunal is required under the Insurance Act to be notified in the Gazette -

That was the position- there is no such provision in relation to refusals of authority, and legal advice indicates that it would be impracticable for this information to be published in a similar way under existing legislation. However, the proposed amendments to the Insurance Act which I foreshadowed earlier this year would provide, among other things, for the insertion of an appropriate provision in the Act to empower the Commissioner to publish notice of a refusal in the Gazette as soon as practicable after the expiration of the appeal period. It is proposed that the amending legislation will be introduced into Parliament during the 1 977 autumn sittings.

The point I impress upon the Attorney-General is that in this case, irrespective of the amendments earlier carried in the Act, the transfer for appeal has now gone to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The point I am making is simply that while there is an appeal against rejection of an authority to underwrite, the thing that concerns me is that if the appeal is upheld by the Tribunal against a company to authorise to underwrite insurance, that ought to be made public as quickly as possible after the decision.

I am trying to convey the disastrous downstream effects which occurred over 2 years ago in Victoria where this was not undertaken. It has been mandatory on the Commissioner or the Tribunal to declare when authority has been granted but not when it has been rejected. The Attorney-General has more competence in this area than I have but I would like an assurance from him that if such an appeal is to lie in this particular case, immediate publication of its rejection is published either in a newspaper or in the Gazette.

Mr ELLICOTT:
AttorneyGeneral · Wentworth · LP

– The honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) raises a point which relates to the Life Insurance Amendment Bill and the Insurance Amendment Bill. As I indicated in my reply in the second reading debate, it is open to the Tribunal to publish its reasons for a decision in either case. However, I will have the honourable member’s question looked at and I will draw it to the attention of the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) to see whether any step can be taken in relation to it or whether there is any step which the Government thinks ought to be taken in relation to it. I will certainly have examined the problem which the honourable member raised.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I wish the matter was as simple as that. What has to be understood is that an insurance company could have untold thousands of people holding policies and the difficulty and hardship arise because, if the right to underwrite insurance is rejected, it is not granted an authority. Thousands of people could suffer hardship if they are not given the opportunity and time to make appropriate alternative arrangements. The situation in Victoria is critical and it could become more critical at any time. So I think that provision ought to be made in this particular case for it to be mandatory to make a public statement.

Mr ELLICOTT:
WentworthAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I follow precisely what the honourable member means and I merely restate the undertaking that I gave him.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr Ellicott)-by leaveread a third time.

page 1644

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 April, on motion by MrEllicott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr ELLICOTT:
WentworthAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I have 11 amendments. I seek leave to move those 1 1 amendments together. They relate to clauses 3, 9, 1 1 , 1 3 and 1 9.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Clause 3.

  1. 1 ) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears-

Court’ means the Federal Court of Australia; decision to which this Act applies’ means a decision of an administrative character made, proposed to be made, or required to be made, as the case may be (whether in the exercise of a discretion or not) under an enactment, other than a decision by the Governor-General or a decision that is included in a class of decisions that are declared by the regulations to be decisions to which this Act does not apply; duty’ includes a duty imposed on a person in his capacity as a servant of the Crown; enactment’ means-

  1. an Act;
  2. an Ordinance of a Territory; or
  3. an instrument (including rules, regulations or by-laws) made under an Act or under such an Ordinance, and includes a pan of an enactment;

Clause 9.

  1. 1 ) Notwithstanding section 39 of the Judiciary Act 1903, a court of a State does not have jurisdiction to review-

    1. a decision to which this Act applies;
    2. conduct that has been, is being, or is proposed to be, engaged in for the purpose of making a decision to which this Act applies;
    3. a failure to make a decision to which this Act applies; or
    4. any other decision given, or any order made, by an officer of the Commonwealth or any other conduct that has been, is being, or is proposed to be, engaged in by an officer of the Commonwealth, including a decision, order or conduct given, made or engaged in, as the case may be, in the exercise of judicial power.

Clause 1 1.

  1. 1 ) An application to the Court for an order of review-

    1. shall be made in such manner as is prescribed by Rules of Court;
    2. b) shall set out the grounds of the application; and
    3. shall be lodged with a Registry of the Court and, in the case of an application in relation to a decision (other than a decision by way of a report or recommendation) that has been made, including a decision that a person purported to make after the expiration of the period within which it was required to be made, shall be so lodged within the prescribed period or within such further time as the Court (whether before or after the expiration of the prescribed period) allows.

  2. The prescribed period for the purposes of paragraph (1) (c) is the period commencing on the day on which the decision is made and ending on the twenty-eighth day after-

    1. if the decision sets out the findings on material questions of fact, refers to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based and gives the reasons for the decision- the day on which a document setting out the terms of the decision is furnished to the applicant; or
    2. in a case to which paragraph (a) does not apply-
    1. if a statement in writing setting out those findings, referring to that evidence or other material and giving those reasons is furnished to the applicant otherwise than in pursuance of a request under sub-section 13 (1) not later than the twenty-eighth day after the day on which a document setting out the terms of the decision is furnished to the applicant- the day on which the statement is so furnished;
    2. if the applicant, in accordance with sub-section 13(1), requests the person who made the decision to furnish a statement as mentioned in that sub-section- the day on which the statement is furnished, the Court makes an order under subsection 13 (4) declaring that the applicant was not entitled to make the request or the applicant is notified in accordance with sub-section 14(3) that the statement will not be furnished; or
    3. in any other case-the day on which a document setting out the terms of the decision is furnished to the applicant.

Clause 13.

  1. 1 ) Where a person makes a decision to which this Act applies (other than a decision in relation to which section 28 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 applies or which includes, or is accompanied by a statement setting out, findings of facts, a reference to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based and the reasons for the decision), any person who is entitled to make an application to the Court under section 5 in relation to the decision may, by notice in writing given to the person who made the decision within the prescribed period, request him to furnish a statement in writing setting out the findings on material questions of fact, referring to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based and giving the reasons for the decision.
  2. Where such a request is made, the person who made the decision shall, subject to sub-section (3), within 14 days after receiving the request, prepare the statement and furnish it to the person who made the request.

  3. Where an application is made for an order under subsection (3), the person who made the decision is not required to furnish the statement before the Court gives its decision on that application and-

    1. if the Court makes an order declaring that the person who made the request was not entitled to make it- the person who made the decision is not required to furnish the statement; or
    2. if the Court refuses the application- the person who made the decision shall prepare the statement, and furnish it to the person who made the request, within 1 4 days after the decision of the Court.
  4. For the purposes of sub-section (1), the prescribed period is the period commencing on the day on which the decision is made and ending on the twenty-eighth day after the day on which a document setting out the terms of the decision is furnished to the person making the request.

Clause 19.

  1. 1 ) Subject to sub-section (2), the regulations may declare that this Act does not apply to decisions included in a class of decisions specified in the regulations.
Mr ELLICOTT:
LP

-I move:

  1. 1 ) In clause 3 in the definition ‘Decision to which this Act applies’, omit ‘or a decision that is included in a class of decisions that are declared by the regulations to be decisions to which this Act does not apply’.
  2. In clause 11 (1)(c), omit ‘(other than a decision by way of a report or recommendation) that has been made, including a decision’, substitute ‘that has been made and the terms of which were recorded in writing and set out in a document that was furnished to the applicant, including such a decision’.

  3. In clause 1 1, after sub-clause (3), insert the following sub-clauses: (3a) Where-

    1. no period is prescribed for the making of applications for orders of review in relation to a particular decision; or
    2. no period is prescribed for the making of an application by a particular person for an order of review in relation to a particular decision, the Court may-
    3. in a case to which paragraph (a) applies- refuse to entertain an application for an order of review in relation to the decision referred to in that paragraph; or
    4. in a case to which paragraph (b) applies- refuse to entertain an application by the person referred to in that paragraph for an order of review in relation to the decision so referred to, if the Court is of the opinion that the application was not made within a reasonable time after the decision was made. (3B) In forming an opinion for the purposes of subsection (3a), the Court shall have regard to-
    5. the time when the applicant became aware of the making of the decision; and
    6. in a case to which paragraph (3a) (b) applies- the period or periods prescribed for the making by another person or other persons of an application or applications for an order or orders of review in relation to the decision, and may have regard to such other matters as it considers relevant.’.
  4. In clause 13(1), omit ‘within the prescribed period ‘.
  5. In clause 13 (2), omitsub-section (3), substitute’this ssection’.

  6. In clause 13, after sub-clause (4), insert the following sub-clauses:- (4a) A person to whom a request for a statement in relation to a decision is made under sub-section ( 1 ) may refuse to prepare and furnish the statement if-

    1. in the case of a decision the terms of which were recorded in writing and set out in a document that was furnished to the person who made the requestthe request was not made on or before the twentyeighth day after the day on which that document was so furnished; or
    2. b ) in any other case- the request was not made within a reasonable time after the decision was made, and in any such case the person to whom the request was made shall give to the person who made the request, within 14 days after receiving the request, notice in writing stating that the statement will not be furnished to him and giving the reason why the statement will not be so furnished. (4B) For the purposes of paragraph (4a) (b), a request for a statement in relation to a decision shall be deemed to have been made within a reasonable time after the decision was made if the Court, on application by the person who made the request, declares that the request was made within a reasonable time after the decision was made. ‘.
  7. In clause 13, omit sub-clause (7).
  8. 8) In clause 1 9, omit sub-clause ( 1 ), substitute the following sub-clauses:

  9. 1 ) The regulations may declare a class or classes of decisions to be decisions that are not subject to judicial review by the Court under this Act. (1a) If a regulation is so made in relation to a class of decisions-

    1. section5 does not apply in relation to a decision included in that class;
    2. section 6 does not apply in relation to conduct that has been, is being, or is proposed to be, engaged in for the purpose of making a decision included in that class; and
    3. section 7 does not apply in relation to a failure to make a decision included in that class, but the making of the regulation does not affect the exclusion by section 9 of the jurisdiction of the courts of the States in relation to such a decision, such conduct or such a failure. ‘.
  10. In clause 3 in the definition ‘enactment’ part (a) after Act’, insert ‘other than the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970’.
  11. 10) In clause 3 in the definition ‘enactment’ part (c) before ‘ an Act ‘, insert ‘ such ‘.
  12. 1 1 ) In clause 9(1), omit ‘section 39 of the Judiciary Act 1903’, substitute ‘anything contained in any Act other than this Act’.

These are procedural amendments, some of which are consequential. I shall deal with those which are more substantial, even though they are all procedural. The Bill provides that classes of decisions may be excluded by regulation from its ambit. Decisions so excluded are therefore excluded from those decisions referred to in the Bill as ‘decisions to which this Act applies’. As the Bill stands, one result of excluding a class of decisions by regulation is that the supervisory jurisdiction of the State courts, otherwise excluded by clause 9, revives. That is because clause 9 excludes that jurisdiction only in relation to a decision to which the Act applies. The first amendment, which seeks to amend clause 3, together with the amendment I have moved to clause 19, would have the result that excluding a class of decisions by regulations does not have the effect of reviving the supervisory jurisdiction of State courts which, honourable members will recall, we are seeking to be rid of under clause 9. The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia under section 75 (v) of the Constitution would, of course, remain unaffected.

The second amendment is to clause 1 1. Clause 1 1 would require an application for review of a decision, other than a decision made by way of a report or recommendation, to be made within a prescribed period. The prescribed period is specified in sub-clause (3) of clause 11. The period of 28 days would begin to run from the day on which the person who seeks the review of the decision was notified in writing of the decision. These provisions would make no provision for the time within which application for review should be made where the person seeking review has not been notified in writing of the decision. The effect of this amendment is that the prescribed period of 28 days does not apply where the person seeking review was not notified in writing of the decision.

I now turn to amendment No. 3. The new subsections proposed to be inserted by this amendment provide for the cases where, first, the prescribed period of 28 days for applying for review of a decision does not apply because no person was given written notice of the decision, and secondly, the person seeking review had not himself been furnished with written notice of the decision, although such a notice had been given to some other person. In either case, the application for review may be rejected by the court unless it has been made within a reasonable time after the making of the decision.

I draw the attention of the Committee to amendment No. 6. The purpose of clause 13 is to give a person entitled to apply to the court for a review of a decision the right to be given written reasons for the decision. This is a most important amendment. The effect of the new sub-clauses inserted by this amendment would be that a request for reasons may be refused by the decision-maker where, firstly, the person requesting reasons had been notified in writing of the decision and had not made his request within 28 days of being so notified; and secondly, the person requesting reasons had not been notified in writing of the decision and had not made his request within a reasonable time after the decision was made. The court is to be empowered to rule on the question whether a request was made within a reasonable time or not.

The purpose of the additional amendments Nos 1 to 3 is to exclude from the ambit of the Bill decisions of State officials exercising powers under State laws applied in relation to Commonwealth places by the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr Ellicott)- by leaveread a third time.

page 1647

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 May, on motion by Mr Nixon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr JULL:
Bowman

-Last night when the debate on this Bill was interrupted I was speaking about the fact that the Joy report had been completed and submitted to the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) for consideration by him, his Department and the 2 State governments involved. We had debated the situation of railways in Australia and had decided that rail services were still most essential. But we did admit that they had to be subsidised to a very great extent. To expect them to be converted into profit making bodies by some magic stroke was beyond the realms of reality.

We must continually be looking for that much needed improvement in efficiency to provide more attractive and economic services in our railways. The Australian Railways Research Development Organisation has a very real part to play in co-ordinating State and Commonwealth operated services and in giving advice on technical and policy planning for Australian railways. Although a great deal has been achieved in recent years there is still a very great need for rationalisation and particularly the modernisation of our systems. The railways are bedevilled with aging rolling stock which contributes to present inefficiencies and high maintenance charges. There is a great need to upgrade much of the track and there can be delays because of outdated freight handling systems. It has also been estimated that there is a shortage of some 3000 freight wagons in Australia for use on the interstate systems. In the report of the Department of Transport for 1973-74 it was suggested that 20 per cent more freight wagons were required as so much of the potential rail freight had to be diverted to other forms of transport.

However, it would be unfair to say that our railways are a complete disaster. In the last 20 years significant advances have been made. It is possible now to travel between all States on a standard gauge, thanks to the Government acting on the recommendations of the Wentworth Committee. Vast sums of money have been spent in the upgrading of existing standard gauge lines. The dieselisation of all systems is complete and there have been vast improvements in the signalling and control systems within the networks of our various railways. There is, of course, a future for the railways. Rail continues to be best suited to the carriage of freight over middle and long distances and is certainly a very real force in the handling of bulk freight. As the energy crisis looms before us we are reminded that the railways do give a better return on fuel consumption compared with road transport, using less than one-third per tonne kilometre of fuel. As far as passenger traffic is concerned, walking and cycling are the only modes of transport which use less energy than do the railways. Australian National Railways is in passenger transport business as well with more than 130 000 passengers using the trans-Australia line in 1974-75. We also now have an obligation to look after the interests of passengers travelling in both South Australia and Tasmania. Tasmanian Railways, of course, now provide virtually only freight services with the Tasman Limited from Hoban to Wynyard being the exception. One wonders what can be done to improve the Tasmanian system, bearing in mind that its has narrow gauge, the short haul nature of rail traffic moved and the type of construction that was devised for the tracks. Tasmanian Railways has taken an absolute hammering from road operators during the past 10 years or so.

It is interesting to note that the Joy report indicates that the Tasmanian system is the worst in Australia and that, on the surface, there would seem to be not future for Tasmanian Railways. However, because of confidence in the timber industry and in the bulk freight lines the suggestions of the Joy report could mean that Tasmanian Railways could be with us for a long time to come. It would seem that if the Joy report is accepted the 2 passenger services operating in Tasmania would cease in the not too distant future. The South Australian situation is somewhat different with the South Australian Transport Minister, under the terms of the agreement, still having a great deal of say in the future of that system concerning the closure of lines, the reduction of services and the number of people who are employed within the South Australian system. I sympathise with the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon). It must be an extremely difficult situation at times for the Federal Minister for Transport to deal with his South Australian counterpart. It would seem that some of the accusations that come from that State are beyond the realms of reality. One of the most recent of those particular matters concerned the alleged reneging of the Commonwealth on the transfer which we are debating tonight. Another was his claim that the Commonwealth did not intend to go ahead with the Tarcoola-Alice Springs Railway. Both have proved to be completely false. One would hope that in the future there will be much closer co-operation with the South Australian Minister.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Commonwealth was ripped off in its deal with the South Australian Railways but it is now up to the Commonwealth to make the most of the situation. The fact that the Minister for Transport, even though the Commonwealth has a financial responsibility, must have the concurrence of the South Australian Transport Minister to close lines on reduced services could be a good example of just how that co-operation could work. If nothing more, the Commonwealth, not being so closely involved with the specific situation, could be in a better position to be more objective in measures that politically could be difficult for a State government to face, such as the closure of lines or the reduction of personnel. Quite often when a Une is closed it will bring howls of protest from the citizens affected, even though half a dozen people may have been using that particular service.

Obviously, there are areas in the legislation before us tonight which are of particular interest to employees of the railways in South Australia and in Tasmania. For example, it wil certainly give employees in South Australia the option to join the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. Clause 13 repeals section 54 of the Act. Section 54 set the retiring age at 65 years, with the option to retire at 60 years, with the permission of the Railways Commissioner. All employees will come under the jurisdiction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This matter has been discussed in the debate. The amendments are important to these new areas of operation of the Australian National Railways. I support these amendments and look forward to the speedy passage of this Bill.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I shall not delay the House on this legislation, but there are one or two aspects of it and of the remarks made by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) in his second reading speech to which I should like to draw attention. The first clearly is that the position of the 2 State railway systems which are being taken over is most likely not greatly different from other State railway systems. A rundown has been experienced over the last 20 years, to the extent that the finances, maintenance and general equipment of Australian raUway systems are far below the standards which ought to be accepted. I think that the House is well aware that the position of railways has changed dramatically in the last 30 years. It has been subject to and caught up with technological change. At the time when expansion took place in State railway systems and very heavy expenditures were involved, motor vehicles, which are better adapted to short-haul transport, were evolving to a stage at which they competed on very favourable terms with the railways. They had the advantage of flexibility and mobility which were not available to railways. They also had a secondary advantage in that the persons operating that type of transport were not required to build and maintain their own roads.

In the main, the railway systems of Australia have serious problems with regard to maintenance, cost cutting and, as the second reading speech of the Minister indicates, commercial operation. I should Uke to believe that commercial operation is possible, but there is no evidence that any railway system in the world is capable of commercial operation if it is to provide the levels of service which warrant continued operation, both socially and economically. Australian railway systems are now at a point at which they will have to consider rolling stock. Diesel locomotives were introduced into Australia some 24 or 25 years ago. The original diesel locomotives are still operative and are well into the multiple millions of miles of operation.

The fuel situation in the world would suggest that whilst diesel locomotives are far more economic as far as operation, installation and capital cost are concerned, electrification of main trunk railways in Australia wil have to be considered as a change of energy source, to conserve the fuel which they are currently using, namely dieselene. This will involve an extremely high capital cost, and one which certainly Will not be met by State railway systems. It is also most likely time that the Commonwealth looked at a further extension of the standard gauge system in Australia, to provide communications not only between MelbourneSydneyBrisbane, but on a wider basis. The question is whether railways have a future- I think they have- as bulk carriers and movers of large quantities of goods over long distances. There certainly is no prospect of railways operating as door-to-door carriers on their own. It is possible for them to be utilised in conjunction with private transport operations. For a number of years containerisation has been used in co-operation with transport groups on a carriage pickup basis.

I think an event which happened in Sydney not very long ago highlights the problems which all railway systems are now facing. It alarms me to read suggestions that the lowest paid section of the railway work force- the repairers, the gangers and the track supervisors- are being exposed to blame in the case of the Granville railway accident when, in fact, the major blame rests with those who provide and those who control the finances. Despite the rates of pay paid for these necessary services- traditionally they are extraordinarily low- the employees concerned are very conscientious. But they are only able to do work within the scope which they are allowed by factors of time and direction. Over a number of years cost cutting in railway systems in Australia has become a major factor and one which this House, the Minister for Transport and those responsible for railways ought to be considering. Whilst there has been one accident which highlights one set of points, anyone who takes the trouble to walk along any stretch of railway in Australia whether it be heavily used or otherwise, wil find that maintenance is below par. Many stretches of Une -

Mr Bourchier:

– Like your golf.

Mr SCHOLES:

-They are below par and they are dangerous. They are dangerous because the cost of operating railways has gone beyond the capacity of those who are responsible to meet that cost. The importance of railway services is not recognised in either this Parliament or State parliaments. They are looked on very much as being vehicles to carry someone’s goods on a subsidised basis but not to carry those goods which normally would carry a high freight rate. This is a disadvantage in the freedoms of individuals. But the other major transport systems in Australia. both road and air, are very heavily subsidised by this Government.

Despite complaints about cost recovery etc., this Government provides considerable funds for those transport systems; but the railways receive almost nothing. There are no CommonwealthState railways grants as there are road grants, yet the road grants provide a basic transport system on which goods are conveyed. Without those funds interstate highways would not carry the commercial traffic which exists. In this instance the Commonwealth is finalising the taking over of 2 of Australia’s State railway systems. If that wil mean that those railway systems will be adequately financed and will be able to provide the technical levels which should be available in this system for efficient and safe operation, that is a good thing. If it only means that the State budgets are going to be relieved of providing funds or that the Commonwealth will become Uncle Scrooge in place of a smaller Uncle

Scrooge, squeezing the systems and forcing cost cutting, it will not be a good thing. The Minister is in a position in which he has to convince the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) that the railways are worth feeding.

Mr Martyr:

– He is a good Minister, too.

Mr SCHOLES:

-That may or may not be so; I am not going to argue about that one way or the other. At the moment the airlines do not think so because he has asked them to pay for their services. The States do not think so at the moment because he wants them to pay for their roads. What I am suggesting is that he has some responsibility to make some contribution towards the cost of bringing our railway systems up to scratch and to give serious consideration to the long-term conversion of the energy source for the main trunk railway lines from the diesel fuel to electricity. There is some electrification in Australia. If major electrification took place it would enable a better use of those solid fuels which are available in Australia to generate power and would provide a saving of scarce energy resources.

As I said, I do not want to delay the House long. I think the Minister for Transport will understand my remarks. The railways systems of Australia, particularly in Victoria, the State in which I live, have been starved of adequate funds because of the high cost of operation, because of the degree of subsidised traffic which they must bear without that commitment being met from Treasury sources in the areas in which they operate and because they have been seen to be an easy way of avoiding expenditure. In Victoria for 10 years running the same amount of capital funding, in cash terms, was provided to the Victorian Railways. No business organisation could have operated on the same basis. This Parliament has a responsibily for the national transport systems. The road systems, whether or not the Minister provides the funds which the States believe he should provide, are not capable of expansion to meet our future long term transport needs. Bulk carriers are necessary and the railways provide the most efficient means of bulk carriage of goods over long distances within this continent. The railway systems must be equipped in order to deal with that problem into the future and should be so structured that they are able to conserve those energy sources in Australia which will be in short supply by using alternative energy sources which are available but which can be properly utilised only by the expenditure of substantial capital funds.

Mr MILLAR:
Wide Bay

-The Australian National Railways Amendment Bill now before the House has been introduced to finalise the transfer of the South Australian nonmetropolitan and Tasmanian railway systems to the Commonwealth. The transfer agreement which the Commonwealth, Tasmania and South Australia entered into on 1 July 1975 provides for an interim period of approximately 12 months during which detailed arrangements for the transfer of staff and operations to the Australian National Railways can be completed. The introduction of this Bill demonstrates the responsible attitude of this Government towards stable government. The agreement entered into by the Commonwealth and the 2 States has aspects which could well tempt the Government to seek to abandon the arrangement. However, it has decided, notwithstanding its misgivings as to the original propriety of the action, to honour the commitment of the former Government.

The consequence of this takeover by the Commonwealth is that South Australia and Tasmania have been relieved of a heavy financial burden relating to the perennial loss situation in which the rail services were conducted. Although States have been subjected to readjustments in funding through the Grants Commission, Loan Council programs and other financial assistance grants, the fact remains that the participant States are, as a result of the new arrangement, in a financially superior position whilst the balance of the Australian States will be required to contribute to the Commonwealth funding for the operation of these railways. It is no wonder that the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) was moved to remark that the 2 State Premiers were laughing all the way to the bank. Of course, it must be acknowledged that the previous Government invited all the States to transfer their railways to the Commonwealth. Whilst this may have constituted a passing temptation to the States, they could be excused for a high degree of apprehension as to the ultimate intention of the government of the day as State interests might be affected. Nevertheless the transfer is proceeding and it requires us to give some thought to the role of railways.

It is significant that the Australian National Railways has assumed this additional burden in a loss situation. The statement of profit and loss for the year ending 30 June 1975, the most recent report available to the Parliament, shows an operating loss for the year of $14,479,427 and a carried forward accumulated loss of $4 1.5m. This is a substantial sum of money. It is sobering to read in the Joy report on Tasmanian railways the bald statement that the Tasmanian railways, notwithstanding the adoption of any recommendations incorporated in the report will never make a profit. With the exception of a few high paying lines most prominent in Queensland- this is as a result of the wise development of the State by the Queensland Government- which carry high loadings of mineral ores to seaboard ports, most railways are now in a similar situation. Those railways will never make a profit.

This leaves us in a situation where we must contemplate a continuance of our escalating losses or assess the role of railways within Australia. It is imperative that in assessing the role of the railways we see them in an intermodal context. Of course this lends considerable substance to the insistence of the Minister for Tranport in respect of the abandonment of the Bureau of Roads that it is essential that the transport problems of Australia be considered in the whole and that the Bureau of Transport Economics is best equipped to discharge that obligation. We have the further consideration in a highly topical context at the moment of our finite fuel reserves. The world faces a critical situation in respect of oil supplies. In the end this could well affect the mobility of the transport in this nation.

On the east-west route from Perth through to Adelaide and the eastern States road transport is escalating year by year at a prodigious rate. It is impossible for the railways to compete with the present situation. Therefore it is essential for the Government to determine where the limited resources of this nation, notwithstanding the huge potential we contain, must be directed to the best purpose. I agree with the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) that no form of transport will shift freight at a lower rate per ton than the railways. It seems unbelievable that we should contemplate a situation where if the Government does not proceed with the electrification of the railways system, we could be back in the age of steam where the transport of this nation will rely heavily on steam locomotion. It does seem extraordinary but this is a very real threat to the transport of this nation.

To maintain mobility we must address ourselves to the role of the railways in the future. Unless we do so the loss situation of these railways will become an increasing burden on the taxpayer. Certainly this country has been burdened with the lack of foresight of our forebears who abandoned the prospect of standardisation of railways. As a consequence we are burdened with the cost of transferring freight at exchange points throughout the nation. Clearly, to standardise our railways over the vast length of our system is beyond the resources of this nation. We have bogie exchange points throughout the system but they are achieving less in results than was hoped; not simply because of the physical limitations of the bogie exchange techniques. In many respects, again as the honourable member for Corio pointed out, it is occurring as a consequence of less than efficient management in higher echelons. There are reports of wagons arriving at bogie exchange points for the transcontinental route which are clearly not in condition to make the long distance crossing. Therefore instead of a simple bogie exchange arrangement it is necessary to put the wagons aside and to delay freight which further discourages the users of the railways to persist in that practice. This has the effect of transferring these users to road services.

Clearly the railway systems of this country must be given their due and be recognised as an essential element of its transportation requirements, There is an unbelievable scope for containerisation and capsuling of freight for fast and cheap transport. It is tragic that over the years the railway system has been outglamourised by other forms of transport such as heavy road transport and air transport. As a consequence the whole railway system has become tired. While many members of the railway unions apply themselves conscientiously and with considerable diligence to their jobs, there is a great cloud of despair hanging over the whole system. Somehow or other we have to imbue them with a faith in their activities and a determination to rise to better efforts, to take advantage of the opportunities which month by month and year by year are increasing in number. I for one do not despair of the prospect that again the Austraiian railway systems might assume the important role that they previously played. As the honourable member for Corio pointed out, we all have a heavy responsibility to see that in the inter-modal transport systems the best advantage is taken of the resources available to Australia. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

-The Australian National Railways Amendment Bill before the House proposes a series of amendments to the Australian National Railways Act which take up the agreements that have been entered into at this point between the Australian National Railways Commission and the various trade unions with members employed by the Commission, together with a couple of other minor adjustments to the Act that probably should have been made with the 1975 amendments. The Opposition supports the Bill. We shall support the amendment that the Minister will be bringing forward at the Committee stage. That has been brought forward at our instigation, once again to fill up a loophole which, after all, the best draftsmen sometimes overlook.

Before dealing with the BUI at greater length I wish to refer to some of the amendments now proposed. One deals with contracts. In the 1975 agreements the Commissioner of Railways was required to get the Minister’s approval for contracts entered into, for both the carriage of goods and the purchase of goods or equipment. We do not oppose the amendment but I think the provision should be watched, particularly that section dealing with the Commission entering into contracts for the carriage of goods. I do not agree that the provision was omitted by an oversight. As far as I am concerned it was left in the legislation deliberately so that the Minister could have the right of overseeing, if need be, large contracts for the carriage of goods. We will not oppose the deletion of this provision but the result Will be watched with interest to see its effect.

We support the agreements that have been reached on superannuation, retirement, appeals and all these matters. I am disappointed that at present there are still 24 unions in the Australian National Railways system. I make an appeal to the trade unions to endeavour to reduce that number, to bring about amalgamations within the industry, because I believe it is to their advantage and to the advantage of the transport industry, the Australian National Railways and the railway system as a whole. There are far too many trade unions in Australia today. It took the various unions associated with what is now the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union years of agitation within those unions to bring about amalgamation. I can recall as a young man joining the Boilermakers Union before the War. Even in those days there was talk about amalgamation. It never seemed to get any closer and then all of a sudden it clicked and the amalgamation of a number of unions has taken effect. I think this is a great advantage to industry and to the unions. Every honourable member on the Government side who has spoken in this debate has made reference to the fourth paragraph of the second reading speech of the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon). He said:

But that does not mean we were happy with the arrangements made. In fact I have made it very clear that in my opinion the Whitlam Government was taken to the cleaners, whilst the 2 State Premiers laughed all the way to the bank.

We entered into an agreement with our eyes wide open. We knew what we were doing. As far as we were concerned, the agreement was one which was mutually entered into. There was no arm twisting. There were no standover tactics. It was an agreement what was mutually entered into between the then Prime Minister and other Federal Ministers and the State Premiers and their Ministers. I ask the supporters of the Government: What are the South Austraiian and Tasmanian governments? I thought they were part of Australia. I thought that the money that was paid to those State governments helped and assisted the people of those States. From time to time, I have read in the Budget Papers of sums of something like $360m going overseas to aid people there. So, why is the Government bitching about paying a little bit of money to Australian States to help them to get over their financial problems at that time- and they did have financial problems at that time? The offer of the Labor Government was not made only to South Australia and Tasmania; it was made to all of the States. As far as handouts are concerned, is the Minister for Transport losing any sleep at night over the superphosphate bounty that he collects? Is the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) handing back the $5,000 a year that it is worth to him?

Mr Martin:

– Or more.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-Or more. What about the Bill that was dealt with this week which provided for a handout of $360m on the reassessment of company stocks and the $ 1,000m that the Government has handed out by way of industrial development grants? That is all paid out to private individuals and companies.

Mr Martyr:
Mr CHARLES JONES:

-The honourable member was the chief agent of the Central Intelligence Agency in Western Australia; so he should not start to interject. The honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) dealt with him last night. The position is that the money to which I have just made reference is being paid out to private individuals and companies. All of this money went to the people of South Australia and Tasmania. Why does the Minister not tell the truth when he talks about going on with the agreement? The Fraser Government tried to undo the agreement but the agreement was well and truly sewn up by the Labor Government. The Fraser Government has not been able to undo one of the many things that we put through in relation to transport. It has not been able to upset one of them in the High Court. Everything that we did was done legally and constitutionally.

A limited amount of time is left to me and I do not want to be side-tracked about payments by the CIA to the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr). The facts of the matter are that transport is one of the major industries in this country. It represents 10 per cent of the gross national product. The expenditure on transport in 1975-76 was something like $4,500m. Transport provides employment for something like 35 000 people or 6 per cent of the total work force. So when we are talking about transport we are talking about one of the most important industries in this country. It is an industry that has a major effect upon the cost structure of other industries throughout Australia. Time and time again industries complain that they are not competitive with imports because of the freight charges within Australia. We have to do something about that. The same can be said as far as export freight rates are concerned. The Australian Shippers Council is continually complaining about freight rates. So transport does have a major effect upon the production and cost structure of this country.

When the Labor Government came to office it was faced with the task in the transport field of trying to reduce freight rates right across the board throughout Australia and to have each industry accept its true responsibility. We have seen in the transport field one of the most unreasonable misallocations of resources that it would be possible to have in any one country. In the period between the end of the 1939-45 War until we became the Government, the Parliament made available for roads some $3,007m. On the other hand it made available for railways only $248m. In the main, that went into rail standardisation. Let us have a look at the effect of rail standardisation in the one short section connecting Sydney and Melbourne. I give great credit to the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) for the work he did over the years in relation to rail standardisation together with the late member for East Sydney, Eddie Ward. They were great advocates of rail standardisation in this country. In the year prior to standardisation on the Sydney-Melbourne run the total freight carried was 1.27 million tons. In 1965 it had climbed to 1.92 million tons. By 1970-71 it had grown to 2.64 million tons. The $248m for rail standardisation was spent well, not only on the Sydney-Melbourne Une but on other similar rail projects right throughout Australia. There has been a great advantage to the Australian people in more efficient transport as a result of people getting on with the job.

The honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) talked about the problems in Queensland. The marshalling yards of Brisbane are an utter disgrace to the Queensland Government. For a long period that Government has refused to do anything about them. It has refused to accept any of the reasonable offers made by the Australian Government. The Labor Government made a number of offers to the Queensland Government to take over and build a new marshalling yard so that wagons would not lie idle in the yards in Brisbane. With regard to traffic from Melbourne, on a number of occasions single voyage permits had to be issued for the carriage of Australian freight in foreign ships because the Victorian railways would not make rolling stock available to go to Brisbane as it lay up there for unreasonable times due to the inefficiencies of Mr Bjelke-Petersen’s Government and the harm he does to this country, in particular to its railways.

Mr Martyr:

– It is a banana republic.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-It is a banana republic, as the honourable member says. The Labor Government was faced with the responsibility of what was happening at that time to railways in Australia. In 1971 there was a capital investment in railways throughout Australia of approximately $2, 100m. The annual turnover was $584m. In the 5-year period to 1971-72 the railways collectively lost in the vicinity of $340m. Grants, concessions and the like cost State governments another $3 10m, so that in that 5-year period the railways of Australia were losing approximately $650m. At present Australian railways are losing that amount almost annually because of their state and the need to build them up. We were faced with that responsibility. The Labor Government pledged to do something about transport, to reduce freight rates and to make rail traffic more attractive to industry so that it could get on with the job. The then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, made an offer in his 1972 policy speech to take over all the State railway systems. The true picture is that Sir Henry Bolte had made an offer to John Gorton when he was the Prime Minister. Sir Henry said: ‘You can have our railways.’ Not to be outdone, Sir Robert Asian said: ‘You can have the New South Wales railways as well.’ When the Whitlam Labor Government put the proposition to them Sir Henry Bolte would not be in it but the New South Wales Government agreed to enter into discussions. Those discussions went on right up to early 1975, when the prize idiot of New South Wales, Tom Lewis, was elected Premier of that State. Honourable members opposite know as well as I do what the Liberal Party as a whole did to him later. It kicked him out; it stabbed him in the back during the night.

The New South Wales Minister for Transport at that time agreed in private discussions with me that the New South Wales railways should be transferred to the Australian Government. I asked him: ‘Before we sit down to enter into discussions, are we wasting our time?’ The answer was: ‘No, you are not wasting your time’. He said: ‘I am confident that Sir Robert Askin will agree to the transfer’. The same applied in Western Australia until Sir Charles Court was elected Premier. The Western Australian raU system would have been transferred to the Australian national raU system. The former Labor Government in Western Australia was prepared to go along with a transfer of State railways as was the South Australian Government in the middle of the continent, and one of the eastern States, New South Wales, under a Liberal Government, likewise would have gone on with the proposition because it could see the advantages of having one Australian system of railways like that in Europe. The best railway system in the world is in Europe. All the European Economic Community works together with Switzerland and Austria. The railways of these countries are part of what is virtually an integrated rail system. In Canada there are 2 raU systems. One system is run by the Canadian Federal Government, not by a series of provincial governments, and the other is run by a private company. These countries realise the advantages of having one rail system instead of a federal system and six State systems.

The decision of the Whitlam Government to take over State railways was one of the most progressive decisions ever made on raU transport in this country this century. If the Minister for Transport wants to improve transport he needs to do more than he is at the moment. He is only carrying on the initiatives that the Labor Government started. He has not introduced one transport initiative in the 18 months he has been Minister. He has only carried on the programs which the Labor government left him. He has even demolished a few Labor initiatives such as the Road Safety and Standards Authority. He did that at a time when $ 1,000m a year is lost to the country because people are killed and maimed in road accidents. He demolished this

Authority that was set up following a recommendation made to the Labor Government by a committee set up by a previous Liberal-Country Party Government, namely, the Expert Group on Road Safety. This committee recommended an authority which the Minister has since abolished because it was set up by the Labor Government. The Chairman of the Authority said to me on one occasion: ‘The Liberals could have done it and did not. You could have done it and you did’. That is the difference between the Labor Party in government and the Liberal Party. The Liberal Government wants to demolish everything. It does not want to enter into its responsibilities and get on with the job of providing a better rail system.

Throughout Australia today there are various government systems and various railway gauges. The gauge in Queensland is 3 feet 6 inches, while it is 5 feet 3 inches in Victoria and part of South Australia. We have the crazy situation of rail exchanges and all the rest of it. The Minister should get on with the job instead of getting Dr Joy to bring out a report on the standardisation of the line between Adelaide and Crystal Brook. The Minister is doing his damnedest to pull standardisation apart and to stop those responsible from getting on with the job. When he was a member of the Government previously he could not get an arrangement with the South Australian Government to build the Tarcoola-Alice Springs railway or to bring about the standardisation of the link line between Adelaide and Crystal Brook. We in the Labor Government were able to achieve that in a few months because we adopted a reasonable attitude and the South Australian Government did likewise. In the 18 months that the Minister has been in office he has only slowed down work on the Tarcoola-Alice Springs line to the detriment of people in Central Australia, in Alice Springs, and Darwin. Much the same can be said about the Adelaide to Crystal Brook line. That job could have been well and truly under way by now if it had not been for the bungling of the Minister.

We support the legislation because it continues to ratify the things which we did in government. It will bring about a better rail system in Australia and a more economical form of transport. The industry will be in a position to provide a more efficient and a much cheaper system of transport. This will help industry in Australia. It will help the people of this country get a better standard of living because that is what cheaper freight can do. It is a most important industry, employing many people and absorbing a great deal of capital in any one year.

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

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

-in reply-I welcome the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) back into the Parliament. In some 18 months in Opposition he has been far too silent. It seems that the Opposition is now starting to get a voice in transport matters. The whole thrust of the honourable member’s remarks was based on an assumption that the Labor Party Government when in power would achieve cheaper freight rates. That was the thrust of what the honourable member said. He said the Labor Party pledged to obtain cheaper freight rates. I remind the honourable member of one freight rate. In 18 months freight rates to Tasmania went up by 67 per cent under the guiding hand for cheaper f reight rates of the honourable member for Newcastle. I have never heard such nonsense in my time in the Parliament. I welcome the honourable member back to transport debates. At least there will be some life in them if he maintains his form.

He talked about the agreement between himself and the Ministers for Transport in South Australia and Tasmania and the Prime Minister and the Premiers of those States. He said that they agreed on these proposals. Of course they agreed. Cannot every honourable member see Premier Dunstan and Minister Virgo laughing all the way to the bank. The fact is that they took you to the cleaners, Charlie, and you know it. Why does the honourable member not admit that? Is it any wonder there was an agreement. It is like having a bad penny and selling it for 20c down the street. Good heavens above!

All the honourable member for Newcastle did was to buy out the South Australian railways with large sums of money. But did that or will that lead to cheaper freight? It will only lead to cheaper freight rates, having regard to the high recognised capital which is now put into the system, if the Australian National Railways can, by having a cold, hard look at the system, achieve more efficiency. It is no thanks to the honourable member for Newcastle if that is secured because he paid a high price for the system. As for the price he paid for the Tasmanian system, I think the less we say about that, the better. The honourable member said that he made an offer to all States. But with the other States he did not get to the dotted line on the cheque. He was over generous to his Labor confreres in South Australia knowing that they had a couple of elections coming up. He wanted to buy them out of trouble. But he did not get to the dotted line on the cheque with Victoria and New South Wales. What else did he do while he was being so generous to the railway system in South Australia? In a 3-year road program he cut support to shires in Victoria from $ 16.1m in the last year of my program to $4.7m in the third year of his program. That is how the honourable member financed his railway system.

Mr Charles Jones:

– That was the Bureau of Roads report.

Mr NIXON:

-No, it was not the Bureau of Roads report at all. I suggest that the honourable member have another look at the figures. He went far beyond the Bureau of Roads report. He complained because we reintroduced the superphosphate subsidy, totally ignoring the fact that the Industries Assistance Commission recommended its continuation. But because of some blind prejudice or blind ideological hang-up and using Dr Coombs as an axeman, the Labor Government cut out more assistance to industry, which is the fundamental starting point for the development of this country, than did any government in 30 years. That was the sorry record. All this was done so that he could give the Premiers of South Australia and Tasmania a golden handshake. I freely confess that I tried to get out of the agreements. The taxpayers were done in the eye by the golden handshake that the ex-Minister gave to those 2 States. I think the less he says about these matters the better.

One other point I should make is that the honourable member for Newcastle accused me as Minister of taking over his programs and having no initiative at aU. He ignored the fact that the national highways program was laid on his doorstep when he came into office in 1972, and all he had to do was institute it. He ignored the fact that the urban transport program was a report that was lying on my desk ready for him to pick up and implement when his Party came into power. He ignored the fact that in the road safety area I had had a study done which recommended setting up an authority, and all he did was pick it up and implement it. I cannot think of one separate initiative, apart from buying out with a golden handshake the railways in South Australia and Tasmania, that the exMinister ever took. However, I welcome him back to the debate.

Yesterday several members raised a number of questions which need answering. The honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris), who led for the Opposition, asked why we had cancelled the second rolling stock program for 800 wagons. I should tell him that the cancellation followed advice to a meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council from the raU group which had been considering the matter and believed that the order was not required at this stage. I trust that answers the honourable member’s query. He also asked why the Australian National Railways annual report for 1975-76 had not been tabled. Again, this relates to the complication of having taken over the South Australian and Tasmanian systems, which are still being operated by the States on behalf of the Australian National Railways. Their annual accounts are prepared and are then subjected to State audit. The Commonwealth AuditorGeneral has requested that composite accounts be prepared covering the total system, and there has been a problem m the valuation of assets for transferred equipment and buildings, particularly in South Australia, where the problems were magnified because of the SPlit between metropolitan and non-metropolitan railways. This work is nearly completed, and the report is close at hand. I hope that I will be able to present it to the Parliament within the month.

The honourable member raised the question of raU electrification by Sofrerail, and that matter was also raised by the honourable member for Newcastle in a question to me in the House the other day. A report has been received and distributed to State Transport Ministers and aU raUway commissioners and Will come under consideration in the normal ATAC forum.

Mr Charles Jones:

– On what date in March did your send the letter? Was it 7 March?

Mr NIXON:

-I think it was 9 March.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Yet you told me the other day that you did not know anything about it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! With the last 2 speakers I allowed some latitude with interjections. Now that the Minister is answering questions, the House would be better served if he were heard in silence

Mr NIXON:

-I have provoked him, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I apologise. The honourable member and I had a decent joust when I sat on that side of the House and he sat on this side. I think it only fair that he be given a chance to joust back. The honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis) raised the question of the increase in the Leigh Creek coal freight rate. He would know that the coal has been carried for a number of years at a loss. The freight rate negotiation has been going on for a number of years. Indeed, it may have Deen carried on through the period of my predecessor. Certainly I have been pushing as hard as possible to get a sensible freight rate. Negotiations are still going on, and only today I met with the South Australian Minister for Mines, Mr Hudson, to discuss the matter further. The honourable member also asked about the possibility of selling off houses owned by ANR in Port Augusta to the retiring employees who are occupants on retirement.

Mr Wallis:

– All employees.

Mr NIXON:

-All employees, if you like, but the answer is still the same. The ANR does subsidise its houses which are let to its employees and has indicated in the past that the provision of housing at a low rental is an inducement to securing the employees it wants there. If it lets the houses go from the stock it would have to build more and therefore is unable to agree to the proposition put forward by the honourable member. The question of ex gratia payments to the Port Augusta Council in lieu of rates was raised by the honourable member for Grey. I should point out that the ANR basis of ex gratia payments in lieu of rates is for full rates when ANR residences front council streets, and 66% per cent of full rates when residences front streets owned by and maintained at cost to the ANR. They also pay road moiety charges on top of that. In respect of properties used for functional purposes, such as workshops, stations and marshalling yards, the Australian National Railways is not required to pay rates and this is consistent with the practice in relation to other Commonwealth instrumentalities. I thank honourable members for the contributions they have made. I will have the debate combed through and if other points were raised which I have missed I will get an answer to the honourable members who raised them. I shall move at the appropriate time the amendment suggested by the Opposition.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 13- by leave- taken together.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-There are a number of points ranging over clauses 1 to 13 on which I seek some assurance from the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon). I refer firstly to clause 6. Whilst the explanatory memorandum is fairly specific in pointing out that the purpose of this amending clause is to preserve the rights of those users of South Australian rail to any advantages that they were enjoying with freights at the time of the transfer, I draw the attention of the

House to that part of the South Australian Railways Transfer Agreement which reads:

The Commission will ensure that, in general, fares, freight rates and other charges in respect of the non-metropolitan railways and services shall be maintained, on and after the commencement date, at levels not less favourable to users than those levels generally applying on the railways of States other than South Australia and where, in general, fares, freight rates and other charges at the commencement date have established a relative advantage to the users, that advantage shall not be diminished.

It seems fairly clear that that is the intent of the amending clause in the Bill.

I turn now to clause 1 1 which provides for procedures to be followed in the collection of superannuation contributions whether in respect of State funds or the Federal superannuation scheme. I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that in the complementary South Australian legislation, the Superannuation Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976 sets out that the reimbursement by the Commonwealth to the States shall be equal to:

  1. the Commonwealth liability in relation to each prescribed contributor;
  2. the excess amount payable in relation to each prescribed contributor;
  3. annual amounts agreed upon between the Treasurer of the State and the Treasurer of the Commonwealth as being the reasonable cost of administering this Act in relation to each prescribed contributor and each pension payable under this Act to or in relation to prescribed contributors.

The point I wish to make is that there do not seem to be complementary conditions in the amending clause now before the Committee, although I understand from inquiries I have made through the Minister that correspondence has been exchanged between the Australian Treasurer and the South Australian Treasurer. Perhaps at the time I discussed this matter with him it had not reached the South Australian Minister for Transport. I simply seek an assurance from the Minister that those conditions will be agreed to and that the information will go ahead in the manner which was intended in the first place.

Clause 12 of the Bill deals with the repeal of section 53 of the principal Act dealing with the qualifications of and procedures for appointment of the chairman of a Promotions Appeal Board and the chairman of a Disciplinary Appeal Board. The question that comes to mind is: Would it be possible in some circumstances for the same person to be appointed chairman of each of those boards -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I think it might be an idea if the Committee reduced the volume of sound to below that of the remarks of the honourable member speaking and allowed the honourable member to put his point of view.

Mr MORRIS:

-I thank you, Mr Chairman, for your protection from the Government Whip. The point I was just mentioning was this: Would it be possible that the same person could be appointed to the position of chairman of each of those boards? Secondly, clause 12 (2) deals with the appointment of a person with qualifications prescribed by the by-laws as the chairman of the Promotions Appeals Board. Likewise, there is a similar provision with respect to the Disciplinary Appeals Board. Because that matter is dealt with in the by-laws and the by-laws as set out in this amendment are not before the Committee, the amendment that the Minister will move later in the Committee stage will in one way provide the mechanism to enable the Parliament to inspect the by-laws before they finally come into effect.

The other matter I raise in respect to that is that the unions and the South Australian Government have not yet seen the draft by-laws. Therefore, I seek from the Minister information as to what stage the draft by-laws are at and when it is expected that they will be available for examination by the parties concerned. As he can appreciate, it is a matter that is quite important to the employees who are transferring from the 2 State railway systems to the Australian National Railways Commission.

The matter I raise in respect of clause 1 3 is that employees of the South Australian railways have as a condition of their employment the right to optional retirement at age 60 years. Section 54 of the principal Act that is being repealed provides for a retirement at age 60 years, with the permission of the Commissioner. Again, I understand that the procedures likely to be followed there are that the conditions of retirement, and whether or not there will be an optional age of retirement at age 60 years, will be covered in the common code that is to be established by the Commission. For the benefit of the transferring South Australian employees, I seek the Minister’s assurance that those employees who have that optional entitlement to retire at age 60 years will have that right preserved in the drawing up of the code in order to preserve their entitlement.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Before I call the Minister for Transport, I want to say one thing. I have been extremely disappointed at the standard of behaviour in the Parliament. I point out to honourable members that there is such a thing as good manners. It might be said that what I am about to do is like a parson preaching in a church to his congregation- I am preaching to the converted. But knowing what happens in this place, I expect that my remarks will be spread to other honourable members. I ask that honourable members give consideration to this. Members are entering the chamber and crossing in front of the member who is speaking and the Chairman. I hope they would not do this in their own homes. The level of conversation is such that sometimes honourable members who are speaking, particularly members whose voices are not very strong, cannot be heard. I regret having to say this. But I hope the Committee at the moment and the House itself when we finish dealing with the Bill in the Committee stage will take some note of my remarks that we might have an improvement in manners in the Parliament. I call the Minister for Transport.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– In respect of clause 6, I am able to give the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) the assurance that he seeks. In respect of clause 1 1, there is correspondence at the moment between the South Australian Government and ourselves on the matter raised by the honourable member. I have no doubt that agreement will be reached on the outstanding issues. I missed the point the honourable member was making in respect to clause 12 because of the noise in the chamber at the time.

Mr Morris:

– The question I raised concerned clause 12 and particularly sub-clause (2) which reads:

The Commission may appoint a person having the qualifications prescribed by the by-laws to be the Chairman of a Promotions Appeal Board.

Would it be possible for a set of circumstances to occur in which the same person could be appointed chairman of a Promotions Appeal Board and, at the same time or at another time, be appointed chairman of a Disciplinary Appeals Board? I also ask at what stage of preparation are the draft by-laws.

Mr NIXON:

– In respect of clause 12, there is no apparent reason why the same person could not be appointed, as sought by the honourable member. I suppose it would depend upon the considered capacity of the person under consideration. But there is certainly nothing against such a proposition.

Mr Morris:

– What about the draft by-laws?

Mr NIXON:

– I cannot answer the question. In respect of the draft by-laws I will have to find out exactly when they will be available for consideration. In respect of clause 13, as I understand it from the honourable member’s comment, he is seeking an assurance that the employees presently employed in the South Australian Railways, who nave an advantage in respect of retirement age, will have that position protected. Is that what the honourable member is seeking?

Mr Morris:

-They have an optional right to retire at sixty.

Mr NIXON:

-Consideration of that matter has been deferred and will be put together with general matters in respect of the common code for agreement with the unions. It is anticipated that the matter will rest finally with the Commission, and any employee can in the normal way apply to his employer, seek to be heard and succeed with an application to retire at the age provided for under the arrangements with his present employer.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-There is a considerable difference in what the Minister has stated and the conditions as they exist for South Australian Railway employees. Section 54 of the principal Act, which is being repealed, states:

Every employee shall retire from the Railway Service on attaining the age of sixty-five years, but any employee who so desires may, with the permission of the Commissioner, retire from the Railway Service at any time after he has attained the age of sixty years.

It is quite clear from looking at that section of the principal Act that the practice of the Commission has been that if the employee wished to retire at age 60 years he must have the permission of the Commissioner. In respect of the South Australian employees, as a right of employment they are entitled to exercise an option to retire at age 60 years. The 2 propositions are in direct contrast. I think it is rather important to the members of the South Australian Railways who are transferring and it is also important to the harmony of the arrangements that the Minister should give an assurance that the employees will not be disadvantaged by losing that entitlement.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– I cannot give the assurance because the matter is under discussion between the unions and the Commission at this point and I do not want to pre-empt what might come out of their discussions. But if there is concern within the unions themselves they will be able to raise the matter directly with the Commissioner during the course of the negotiations.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 14.

After Division 1 of Part III of the Principal Act the following Division is inserted:-

Division 2- Powers and Functions of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in respect of the Railway Service 54a. (1) In this Division, unless the contrary intention appears- 54b. (1) The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is empowered-

  1. to prevent or settle, by conciliation or arbitration, industrial disputes in respect of the Railway Service; and

  2. to hear and determine industrial questions in respect of the Railway Service submitted to it.

    1. In relation to an industrial question in respect of the Railway Service, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission may, where it thinks it proper to do so, make an award that, in the opinion of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, is not, or may not be, in accordance with this Pan or with any other law of Australia relating to salaries, wages, rates of pay or terms and conditions of service or employment of officers and employees of the Australian National Railways Commission, not being-
  3. the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act 1 97 1 , Long Service Leave ( Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976 or the Superannuation Act 1976; or
  4. b ) any other prescribed Act or the prescribed provisions of any other Act.
Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– I move:

In proposed new section 54b. (2) (a), omit ‘Australian’, insert ‘Commonwealth’.

Mr Morris:

– Would the Minister give us some explanation for the change from the word ‘Australian ‘ to the word ‘Commonwealth ‘?

Mr NIXON:

– The honourable member will recall that back in 1975, on re-election, the Government considered the use of the word Commonwealth’ in appropriate places and the use of the word ‘Australian’ in appropriate places. In this context the word ‘Commonwealth’ is more appropriate.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

– I ask the Minister for Transport why the notice paper shows that the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill is before the Parliament. It does not have the prefix ‘Commonwealth’. I must say that I admire the Government’s choice of the word ‘Commonwealth’- since ‘commonwealth’ is a very old and well-established socialist word -in preference to the word ‘ Australian’, but I fail to see the reason for the fine distinction.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– I appreciate that the honourable member for Shortland recognises the importance of the word. I think it has other fundamental meanings that are more important to the people of Australia than the fact that it has any connection at all -

Mr Morris:

– In its origin.

Mr NIXON:

– Even in origin, with the socialist world.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 15 to 17- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 18.

Section 88 of the Principal Act is amended-

  1. by inserting in sub-section ( 1 ), after the words ‘not inconsistent with this Act’, the words ‘or with the regulations’; and
  2. by inserting after sub-section (I) the following section:- (lA) The by-laws may prescribe any of the matters referred to in sub-section ( 1 ) by applying, adopting or incorporating, subject to such modifications or adaptations (if any) as are prescribed by the by-laws, the provisions of any Act of the State of South Australia or of the State of Tasmania that relates to the Railways in that State or of any regulations, rules or by-laws made under such an Act. ‘.
Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– I move:

After paragraph (b) add the following paragraph:

by omitting sub-section (4) and substituting the following sub-section:- “(4) Sections 48 and 49 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply to by-laws in like manner as they apply to regulations.”.’.

The amendment is one which the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) and the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) sought and is one to which the Government has agreed. In moving this amendment to allow the application of the Acts Interpretation Act with respect to by-laws, I point out to the House that it is now normal for by-laws as well as regulations to be subject to the disallowance provisions contained in sections 48 and 49 of the Acts Interpretation Act. The Australian National Railways Act, since its inception in 1917, has not given the Parliament the power to disallow bylaws. This amendment will correct that position to bring the Act into line with both the Australian Coastal Shipping Act and the Australian National Airlines Act. The Government supports the amendment.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-The Opposition welcomes the amendment. As the Minister pointed out, the amendment provides for the insertion in the Bill of the provisions contained in sections 48 and 49 of the Acts Interpretation Act to replace the old section 4 of the principal Act. That section provides that all by-laws should be laid before both Houses of the Parliament within 30 days after the making thereof. Under that provision there is no opportunity for the Parliament to reject or to disallow the by-laws. The amendment provides an opportunity for points of difference to be discussed or raised before the by-laws come into operation. It gives the Parliament an opportunity to examine them and it provides that very important right of the Parliament to disallow them if the Parliament is so disposed. The Opposition welcomes and supports the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Remainder of Bill-by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1659

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Insurance Amendment Bill 1977.

Life Insurance Amendment Bill 1977.

States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Amendment Bill 1977.

New Zealand Re-exports (Repeal) Bill 1977.

page 1659

HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 May, on motion by Mr Newman:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Government by reducing the present and future capital available to the Corporation has ignored the opportunities available to it to influence the policies of lending institutions in the housing and land fields’.

The purpose of this Bill is two-fold. First, it proposes to cause the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation to be treated under all laws relating to rates, taxes and charges of the Commonwealth, States and Territories in the same manner as its private enterprise competitors. Secondly, the Bill proposes to provide the Corporation with greater flexibility in regard to the scope of the insurance offered, in other words, to remove arbitrary restrictions originally placed on insurable loans and approved securities.

The issue of paramount importance to this Government is, of course, the proposal to remove the so-called unfair advantage the Corporation is supposed to have over its competitors. Originally the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation had no private enterprise competitors when it was introduced in 1964 and, therefore, it was not necessary to take this action.

Mr Baillieu:

-It was 1 965. You are a year out.

Mr UREN:

-The situation is that, over the years, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation has in fact gained over half of the insurance field. In fact it controls something like 60 per cent of the market. The Mortgage Guarantee and Insurance Corporation of America, which is basically a foreign owned competitor, controls approximately 25 per cent of the market. We are asked to pay rates and taxes in order to allow foreign competitors and foreign shareholders to compete on more favourable terms. The Australian Mortgage Insurance Corporation controls about 15 percent.

This Government hates to see a successful service being offered by a government authority. We just have to recall the Medibank fiasco to appreciate the Government’s attitude to government authorities. I said that the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation was introduced in 1964. My colleague opposite interjected and argued that it was 1965. From 1964-65 to the present the Corporation has accrued reserves of something like $ 12.7m. Now, of course, the Corporation intends to hand back to Treasury, because of back taxes, an amount of $4.5m.

Mr Newman:

– That is right.

Mr UREN:

– The Minister says that is right. But I believe that is a very foolish thing to do. The fact is that at this stage the money should be kept within the housing industry. This money should not go to Consolidated Revenue. This money which is needed by the housing industry in fact can be held in reserve. I hope that Hansard is not recording the attempts of the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman) to interject in a prattling manner. The fact is that, even under this Bill, the Corporation will be able to invest funds in certain other instrumentalities not only in the housing field but also in other areas, particularly local government. So, do not let us prattle on about what the Corporation can do with its money. We know what it can do with its money. It is not just enough to require the Corporation to begin to pay rates, taxes and charges. The Government has to take responsibility for a large slice of the operating surplus. As I said, the Government is to take this year $4.5m of the Corporation’s available capital.

The other purpose of the Bill is to provide the Corporation with greater flexibility in regard to the scope of the insurance offered and the manner in which the future surpluses can be utilised. These aspects of the Bill are worthy of support. We have been arguing for this type of change for many years now. It appears to me that this Government has at long last taken one step towards recognising the nature of the problems facing the potential home owners in Australia today. Ad hoc measures to patch up particularly politically contentious failures in segments of the housing market or to meet the demands of the best organised pressure groups must not continue. In coming to grips with the housing problems in Australia and in developing a comprehensive housing policy, it is essential that fair and equitable objectives be identified. Labor’s objectives, simply stated, are that we believe that each household is entitled to adequate and conveniently located shelter at a price which does not impose too great a strain on its resources. With this in mind, the first objective of the housing policy must be to stabilise the availability of home purchase finance for all groups within the community and to encourage the development of various means of increasing access to home ownership where this is prejudiced by terms on which the home purchase finance is available. There is a variety of means to increase such access which do not require any subsidy. I stress that point.

I know of many cases both today and in the past in which people within certain fields have faced an extremely difficult problem in trying to obtain finance. We know that people who earn up to 95 per cent of the average weekly earnings receive subsidies. We know that the Government, through its Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, makes money available to the States so that they, in turn, can make finance available to people who earn up to 85 per cent of the average weekly earnings. A great deal of money is advanced through the Home Builders Account. Some 30 per cent of the money that is made available each year is forwarded through terminating building societies. Home seekers receive favourable terms from terminating building societies so long as they do not earn in excess of 95 per cent of the average weekly earnings. I have stressed in the past and I stress it again that those people who earn up to 135 per cent of the average weekly earnings find it extremely difficult to meet the repayment gap- it is a repayment gap situation- particularly single income families. Regrettably, the situation will get worse. I believe that interest rates will rise in the coming year. In fact, interest rates now are being pressed upwards. We know that this is the current situation. We know that the February loan failed and we know that the May loan will fail. We know that the Government is not getting inflation under control and that is a sad situation. I am not trying to make political capital out of this. It is a fact of life.

The problems facing Australia are difficult. Obviously, in the broader field, there are a lot of drains on the Commonwealth Treasury which is not an unlimited Pandora’s box. Therefore I am not advocating that unlimited subsidies be extended. I do not think that we can solve our problems in that way. I will suggest programs later in my comments. The development of a more flexible approach to mortgage finance is important.

The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation can now play an important part in improving this access. The Corporation, if it adopts a flexible and imaginative approach, can go some of the way towards overcoming one of the major problems confronting housing in Australia- the problem of the income threshold or the repayment gap. As I said earlier, that difficulty is faced by people with incomes up to 135 per cent of the average weekly earnings, particularly those households with a single income. One major problem facing the people seeking to be home owners and many existing home owners today is access to finance. It is a great problem for them to get their feet on the rung of the ladder. Once they can get their feet on the rung of the ladder, the problem is not so difficult.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think that the Minister probably agrees with that.

Mr UREN:

– Well, I see him nodding his head and I think that means that he agrees. It is his problem now. It certainly was the problem of the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) when he was Minister for Housing and it certainly was my problem when I inherited responsibility for the Australian Housing Corporation from the honourable member for Hughes. I think this will be a problem of the community as a whole. But when we were in government, we initiated a great number of schemes.

The Minister should table the Housing Corporation’s first annual report, which he has had for many months. A lot of intelligent work and suggestions went into that report. The fact is that the Government refuses to table that report. It abolished the Housing Corporation. The Government will not put that report on the table of the House so that the people of Australia can see the suggestions of some of the finest brains in the housing field in this country; for instance, men like Alec Ramsay who is the chairman of the Housing Trust of South Australia, Hugh Stretton, who has one of the finest rational minds on housing, and Pat Troy, who was the Deputy Chairman of the Housing Corporation and who, on the question of land, has made a more revolutionary contribution to housing and land than any other person in government during our time. I might add that he is still a member of the South Australian Housing Trust. It is because of his driving force that in South Australia land is so much cheaper than it is in any other capital city in Australia. Because of the finance made available by our Government to the Dunstan Labor Government, the South Australian Housing Trust is the major land developer in South Australia, particularly in the outer Adelaide region. In that region land prices are not skyrocketing to the same extent as they are in other areas of Australia.

The proposals that I am putting forward can be earned out by the conservative and traditional lending institutions. Lending institutions are properly concerned with the security of people ‘s personal savings. Naturally they tend to lend to >w risk borrowers- borrowers who fall within the 25 per cent to 35 per cent repayment rule. Without guarantees, they are unlikely, as a whole, to grant flexible mortgages such as short repayment mortgages, mortgages carried to a constant proportion of income, capital indexed mortgages, deferred repayment mortgages, short term mortgages based on household income and which are capable of being extended in term if the household income is reduced, and government guaranteed second mortgages. All these matters were examined when we were in government. They were also examined in the first annual report of the Housing Corporation. But, of course, the Minister does not want to deal with these problems.

The lending institutions cannot be criticised for their caution in granting mortgage loans because of the problems of finance. There are legitimate concerns about cash flows and such institutions prefer the most secure loans. Of course, the wealthy always get the first priority; it is the battlers who really need assistance. The battlers, as I say, consist of that group up to the middle income earners who receive up to 135 per cent of average weekly earnings. This Government, which is supposed to be a liberal government, which is supposed to represent that middle group of people, is not representing that group. If the middle ground people have been sold out by anybody it is by this Government.

If we look at income tax indexation we see which group of people are being attacked most. The middle income earners are being attacked, because of this Government. In every submission it makes to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission it attacks the middle income earners. They are the ones who are being affected because the very wealthy- the people on high incomes- can look after themselves. The middle income earners are being affected not only in the taxation field but also in housing because this Government has not brought forward any housing policy in the 18 months it has been in office.

The home ownership income threshold cannot be crossed by a significant proportion of the community unless the degree of nsk seen in them by lending institutions can be eliminated. A national housing policy must be heavily concerned with influencing both the total volume and the distribution of private sector funds for housing. It must do this because the majority of Australians have to depend on those funds for the satisfaction of their housing needs. One means of coming to grips with the problem would be for the Commonwealth to underwrite the risk taken by lending institutions. If the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation is imaginative and aggressive it should solve only the insurance aspect- one of the first objectives of housing policy. The stabilisation of the availability of home purchase finance and access to home ownership will remain low until the Government realises that its primary role in housing is to develop policy which is aimed at directing and influencing the supply of money and the terms upon which it is available to meet housing needs.

Whilst the importance of the housing sector of policies of overall economic management is recognised and whilst we recognise that housing should not be used as a primary tool of economic management and that it cannot be wholly insulated from the varying impact of national economic policies, we feel some measures can and should be taken to secure a stable flow of funds to specific areas of need. I have developed this thesis at length elsewhere and shall quickly summarise it now. We on this side of the House argue that the extent to which the Government intervenes in the housing market should be such as would assist those in particular need. To achieve this it is our intention, on our return to government, to establish an Australian housing corporation. Its main aim will be to secure the levels of finance needed to maintain the production and the sale of housing at levels consistent with need and to maintain prices within the means of home seekers. The corporation will be directed towards marshalling resources and directing them through the existing institutionsI stress this point- to those in need of housing. It will not be designed to compete with existing institutions, nor will its policies be designed to do so.

Unlike the Government, we recognise the need to secure an adequate level of finance. The fact that the Government does not recognise this need is demonstrated in several ways. The Government has missed several opportunities to channel funds to building societies and other lending institutions for lending via flexible mortgage conditions to people confronted by the income threshold. The Government abolished the original Housing Corporation and took back into Consolidated Revenue the substantial funds available to that Corporation. In doing this the Government ignored the recommendations in the first annual report of the Housing Corporation. I stress again that contrary to statutory requirements, this Government has refused to table that report. Apparently these recommendations supported the concept of an institution of the type just described- an institution which secures funds and lends them to existing institutions, which lends them to people in need, that is, to people below the income threshold. I stress again that people in need these days are not just people who receive less than average weekly earnings. They include people earning as much as 135 per cent of average weekly earnings. My view is that this will go even higher in the coming year.

In the Bill before the House the Government has missed another opportunity. One of the pleasing aspects of the Bill, if I can say something nice about the Bill, is that it gives the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation the right to invest funds in building societies and elsewhere. Of course, the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman) kept jabbering earlier about what the Government will do with the funds. It is already set out in the Bill in which areas the funds can be used. Quite frankly, I think this is an intelligent approach. The only- if I might use the wordstupid approach to this issue is for the Government to drain $4.5m from these funds and divert it back into Consolidated Revenue. There is an intelligent way in which these funds can be invested in the interest of the housing sector or related instrumentalities. That is what I argue. But the Government, in its wisdom, saw fit to confiscate $4.5m of the funds available to the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, funds which should have been channelled into building societies which were prepared to offer flexible mortgage schemes or, if not to the building societies, to the land commissions. The land commissions of New South Wales would love to see this finance flowing to them. It could have been provided to sewerage authorities or to local government authorities, which this amendment provides.

The Government saw fit not to do this. It saw fit to abolish the original Housing Corporation. It saw fit to ignore the real problems of housing. It saw fit to turn its back on that significant proportion of the community which cannot cross the income threshold. It has aggravated the problems in housing by these and other closely associated issues. This Government’s ad hoc monetary policies are the best examples of its failure to examine the need to secure an adequate level of finance for housing needs. These policies have had an erratic effect on the availability of finance. It demonstrates further that this Government has not faced up to the housing issue and has failed to use the mechanisms available to it to influence the policies of lending institutions. It is for those reasons that I believe that while there are positive aspects within this legislation, there are also several negative aspects. Therefore, I ask the House to support the amendment I have moved.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak later in the debate.

Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned.

page 1663

QUESTION

LEAVE TO MAKE STATEMENT

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister for the Capital Territory making a statement in this House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the Leader of the House wish to speak to his motion?

Mr Sinclair:

– No.

Mr Uren:

– In opposition to the -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The motion has been moved. The mover or the seconder has the first chance to speak.

Mr Uren:

– He declined to speak.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The question is: That the motion be agreed to.’ All those in favour say aye, to the contrary no.

Mr Uren:

– No. The noes have it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is a division required?

Mr Uren:

– Yes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Ring the bells.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Why not have regard to a bit of fundamental courtesy?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Before we get on to the matter of courtesy, was there more than one voice that requested a division? Is a division required?

Mr Uren:

– That is right.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I was under the impression -

Mr Bourchier:

– There was only one voice of dissention. Under the Standing Orders there has to be more than one.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Has the honourable member for Bendigo a point of order?

Mr Bourchier:

– Yes. There was only one dissenting voice. Therefore under the Standing Orders the ayes have it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I am sorry. The Chair did not see it that way. The point of order is no doubt a valid one. A division is required.

Mr Uren:

-That is right.

Mr Bourchier:

– No division is required if there is only one dissenting voice.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I did not see it that way.

Mr Bourchier:

– Would you ask the Opposition to answer honestly whether there was only one dissenting voice? There was only one.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I took the view that there were 2 dissenting voices.

Mr Bourchier:

-There was only one.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I may have been wrong. I rechecked and discovered that there were 2 voices. The Chair has no option at this stage other than to ring the bells for a division, if that is the request.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 69

NOES: 20

Majority……. 49

In division:

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1664

ALLEGED AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION RAID

Ministerial Statement

Mr STALEY:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Chisholm · LP

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat.

Mr Bourchier:

– I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I was unable to hear what you said when you announced the number of Opposition votes. What was the number?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– No point of order is involved.

Mr Katter:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your guidance. Would that be the lowest vote ever recorded by an Opposition in this Chamber?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr STALEY:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, firstly I seek to table the police report -

Mr Scholes:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the Government wishes to conduct the business of this House properly it should stop its supporters from acting like fools. It has more supporters away than we do, but its supporters continue to make insulting remarks. The Government has more supporters absent than the Opposition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr Scholes:

– I realise that; nor were the others. I suggest that you take action against such points of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Corio will resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr Scholes:

– We are prepared to listen to the Minister but not to galahs.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr Hayden:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I think as a matter of common decency that the ‘Seaview surliness’ which is being displayed from the back benches of the Government should be cut short.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr STALEY:

– I table a police report relating to allegations of Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and Government interference -

Mr Charles Jones:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Charles Jones:

– Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask: Is it a fact that there are 24 Government supporters absent and 15 Opposition -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr STALEY:

– I refer to certain allegations being made in this country today. I instance the Daily Mirror of today’s date, which is headed Gough ‘s files raided by ASIO ‘. In that report the President of the Australian Labor Party said:

The politics of this country have reached a pathetic stage when the Prime Minister has to resort to the use of an internal security organisation to try to undermine his political opponents.

He went on to say:

It is not only pathetic but extremely dangerous.

It shows the depths to which this Government has sunk.

Mr David Combe, who is of course the National Secretary of the Australian Labor Party, is also quoted in the Daily Mirror of today ‘s date as saying that the ASIO link did not surprise him. He said:

Nor would it have surprised me if you had put it to me in January, 1976.

They are talking about what they allege is Australia’s Watergate. That is an allegation that ASIO broke into the Labor Party headquarters in January 1976. They make these allegations without any evidence whatsoever. It so happens that we have a little bit of evidence relating to this break-in. I have already tabled a document which shows the only hard evidence which has so far come before this House.

Mr Uren:

– I take a point of order. It is late at night. This statement is being made in unusual circumstances. Two hours notice of intention to make the statement was not given. No written statement was prepared. Charges are being made about people making allegations. The Minister in making his statement has not observed the necessary courtesies. He should not make the allegation that we on this side are making allegations. We have made no allegations. He is referring to a newspaper article in the Daily Mirror. It is one of the newspapers of the Murdoch Press which is a strong supporter of the Fraser Government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

-The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no point of order. The business of the House is in the hands of the Government. The suspension of Standing Orders was agreed to by the required majority vote. The points made by the honourable member relate to the debate in this House. They can be made at a later stage.

Mr STALEY:

-As I said, allegations have been made in today’s Press that ASIO broke into the Australian Labor Party headquarters. Those are very serious allegations at any time.

Mr Uren:

– Who made them?

Mr STALEY:

-They are made in today’s Press by people such as the President of the Australian Labor Party and, I might add, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. They are made also by the National Secretary of the Australian Labor Party. They are made carefully and completely. The Government has in its possession a little bit of hard evidence. It is the only evidence which has so far come to light with respect to this so-called break-in, this so-called Watergate. The evidence to which the Government has access suggests that the Labor Party broke into ASIO, not that ASIO broke into the Labor Party. I have tabled a report by Richard Thomas Ninness, Detective Senior Constable of the Australian Capital Territory Police. This report relates to investigations which he carried out in January 1976. It is a report of 2 separate series of interviews. It becomes quite clear when the facts in this document are studied that there is much doubt about the circumstances surrounding this matter. I think there is early evidence in this document to suggest that far from ASIO breaking into the Labor Party headquarters, the Labor Party broke into its own headquarters.

I am not suggesting a motive but there could have been a motive in the stories around the country at the time about Iraqi breakfasts and involvements of senior members of the Labor Party. As I go into the facts which arise out of the report by the police I think this will become clear. First of all, let us consider this charge that there has been a break-in. That was not how the matter was put to the police at the time by the Secretary of the Labor Party, Mr Combe. Today he and the President of the Labor Party are suggesting a break-in by ASIO. There was not even a suggestion of a break-in at the time the events were alleged to have occurred. I draw attention to the report of Richard Thomas Ninness.

I have to report that on Wednesday, 14 January, 1976, Acting Assistant Commissioner Kennedy, received a telephone call from Mr David Combe who is National Secretary of the Australian Labor Party. He stated that during the Christmas break two inner doors leading to the Conference Room, Third Floor, John Curtin Building, which are normally locked were found unlocked by one of his staff.

There is no question of a break-in; doors are simply found unlocked, in the then words of the National Secretary of the Labor Party, Mr David Combe. The report goes on:

On further investigation by the staff member it was found that a steel cabinet, which was situated in the Conference Room, was lying on its side and a quantity of personal papers belonging to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Whitlam, were found to be missing, possibly stolen.

It is interesting to note that many conflicting explanations are given by Mr Combe and members of the Labor Party’s staff as to why documents might or might not have been removed. We start with this explanation in the interview by Detective Ninness:

  1. . Mrs Marks discovered that the door leading to the section of the building which is occupied by the office of Mr Combe and other members of his staff . . . was found to be closed and unlocked. It was also discovered that a filing cabinet in the Conference Room was found lying on its side and the bottom drawer had been pulled out and the contents of this drawer had been removed. Mr Combe stated that Mrs Marks reported this incident to him on the S January 1 976.

That was about 2 weeks before the matter was reported to police. The report continues:

She stated that the reason for the delay in reporting the matter to him was that she assumed that the subject filing cabinet had been laid on its side and the papers removed from it by a member of the Labor Party ‘s staff.

So, Mr Combe’s colleague, Mrs Marks, assumes not that ASIO had taken the papers but that a Labor Party staffer had taken them. That is one explanation in the police report as to who took the papers, who raided the Labor Party headquarters. The first explanation is that a Labor Party staff member raided Labor Party headquarters. Another suggestion in the report is:

Mr Combe informed me that the subject filing cabinet was used by Lorraine Dwyer, personal secretary of the former Prime Minister Mr Whitlam and had been removed from Parliament House and stored in the Conference Room in John Curtin House on 1 1 December 197S, whilst waiting for office space at Parliament House. It has been stored in the Conference Room with approximately six other filing cabinets of similar design and a large quantity of cardboard boxes -

There was a large quantity of cardboard boxes. What was the number? Was it sixty?

Mr Newman:

– Ninety.

Mr STALEY:

-Ninety. The report goes on: a large quantity of cardboard boxes, all of which contained papers relevant to the Labor Party. This particular filing cabinet contained personal papers of Mr Whitlam ‘s which were in the bottom drawer. He went on further to say -

Mr Combe did:

  1. . that these papers were of a highly confidential nature pertaining to Mr Whitlam ‘s political career.

I repeat those words. They were of a highly confidential nature pertaining to Mr Whitlam ‘s political career’. One is led to ask: Did these papers relate to Iraqi breakfasts, loans or other such matters? It having been suggested by Mr Combe in this interview that these papers were of a highly confidential nature pertaining to Mr Whitlam ‘s political career, we read on and find, later in the interview, as reported by the detective that Mr Combe said that the papers were of no significance or no importance. He seems to have changed his mind. The report continues:

After Mr Combe had indicated to me the position where the cabinet was found, we then returned to his office where a further conversation was carried out in relation to the subject matter. When asked if he could be more explicit as to the nature of the papers which were stolen, he then stated that at this stage, he could not answer that because he did not know if, in fact any papers had been stolen or mislaid at all. When asked if it would be possible to ascertain what papers had in fact been taken, he stated that he would be unable to say at this time. He went on to say that if any papers had been stolen from this cabinet, they would be of little value, if any at all, to the person or persons responsible for taking them. Further conversation was had in relation to what papers had been stolen and also their value relating to political matters, but Mr Combe could not give any definite answer. Mr Combe was asked why the matter was not reported to the police as soon as he became aware of the alleged offence and he stated that he didn’t think it important enough to report. He stated further that he reported it after conferring with his colleagues.

So in one breath Mr Combe is saying that the matter is of a highly confidential and important nature. In another breath he is saying that the matters are of small moment and not sufficiently important to have been reported to the police. Further, he said that he had only reported the matter after he had conferred with his colleagues. We find that Mr Whitlam ‘s secretary, Mrs Dwyer, goes still further at another point in this document. Page 3 of this police report states: . . Mrs Dwyer stated that if it had been correspondence belonging to her, it would have been possibly papers relating to policy matters, or of a light nature and definitely not personal data relating to Mr Whitlam.

So Mr Whitlam ‘s secretary is now saying in that part of the report that the papers were definitely not personal data relating to Mr Whitlam. So we have the situation where the matter was not reported to the police. It appears on the evidence of the police report that this was not even a break-in; but a door was found open. We have, on the evidence of the document, Australian Labor Party staff members, including the most senior members of the organisation, giving entirely different explanations as to both the importance of the papers and whether or not they related to Mr Whitlam. It is quite clear that the situation was not reported for some time. On the evidence there was no report until after the offending cabinet had been repaired. At point after point we find that the statements which have been made in the Press today are entirely without foundation.

Another vital point relates to the suggestion about the role of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. It is a most serious charge to suggest that ASIO has been acting in the interests of a political party or at the direction of any political force in this country. It is not without interest and relevance to this subject matter to note that today the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) supported the new security arrangements which were announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in his major statement on this matter today. It is utterly inconceivable that either Mr Mahoney who, at the relevant time, was head of the security intelligence organisation or Mr Justice Woodward, would do anything improper. I think that all the remarks made today by the Leader of the Opposition would support that proposition. It is quite incredible that these charges have been made by senior Labor Party spokesmen on the very day on which the Leader of the Opposition agreed with these new arrangements. I point out to the House that we have spoken to Mr Mahoney, the Director-General in charge of ASIO at the time. I remind honourable members that Mr Mahoney was appointed by Mr Whitlam and he has said that the organisation knew nothing about it.

Debate interrupted.

page 1667

ADJOURNMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 10 March 1977I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Sinclair:

– I require the motion to be put forthwith without debate.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 1667

QUESTION

ALLEGED AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION RAID

Ministerial Statement

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– In the first place, Mr Speaker, might I set out the sequence of events tonight. The Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) came into the chamber tonight and sought leave for the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) to make a statement. The Leader of the House gave no information about the contents of the statement. I asked him whether he had spoken to the Manager of Opposition Business about the matter and he said he had not, although he had sought to locate him. I asked whether 2 hours notice had been given and the Leader of the House said that it had not. Then I asked whether there was a written statement and he said there was not. That is what happened on such a serious matter at this late hour; at a time when the Parliament is going into recess for at least 2 weeks.

False allegations have been made by the Minister for the Capital Territory. I take it, and I say this in all seriousness, that the Minister had a clearance from the Cabinet to make a statement on security at this time, something which normally the Government of the day refuses to do. Do I take it that because the Leader of the House, the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party, came into the House and gave a clearance for this junior Minister to make a statement on security that we can expect the Government, at any time when serious allegations have been made, to make a statement about security? Do I also take it that when people give evidence to the police, and particularly the police in the Australian Capital Territory, that evidence might be quoted accurately, or in some cases falsely, in the House by a Minister of the Fraser Government? To what level will the Government stoop to use such information, slurs and innuendos?

Let me examine how this whole matter came about. The headline in today’s Daily Mirror reads: ‘Australia’s Watergate’, ‘Gough’s files raided by ASIO’. It is well known that Mr Murdoch, the publisher of the Daily Mirror, is a close personal friend of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). We know that the same. Mr Murdoch is a strong supporter of the Government. In every way possible he has maligned and slurred the Labor Party. He has misused and twisted and turned the Party’s policies, completely distorting them in every way. Let me read what the Daily Mirror states under the byline of

Trevor Kavanagh, the head of the bureau of the Daily Mirror here in Canberra. After ‘Australia ‘s Watergate’, ‘Gough’s files raided by ASIO’, the article states:

Break-in to photograph documents.

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation has been blamed for a Watergate-style break-in at the Labor Party ‘s national headquarters in Canberra just after the 1 975 election.

Security sources in Canberra say ASIO agents entered the premises at night and forced open a filing cabinet crammed with documents from the office of the former Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam.

They then photographed the documents and replaced them.

It is understood that because of this the Government was able to threaten this week to table a list of allegedly stolen documents in Federal Parliament.

Now let us put this matter in perspective. The Minister alleged that the Labor Party had done this. That was dishonest of the Minister. The allegations are published in an anti-Labor newspaper- and the allegations are made by the Murdoch Press. The Minister tried to draw on what Mr Hawke is reported in the Daily Mirror as saying. I do not know exactly what Mr Hawke said. I do not know what Mr Combe said. It was only while the Minister was speaking that this newspaper was handed to me and I can only refer to what is stated in it. In part this is what it says:

When told of the allegations today, the President of the ALP, Mr Hawke, said: ‘I believe what you are saying is true’.

That is what Mr Hawke is quoted as saying. Mr David Combe, the Australian Labor Party national secretary, is reported as having said ‘the ASIO link did not surprise him’. I assume that both men were informed by the correspondent of what was published in this newspaper and were just concurring with it. It is their belief and the belief of a lot of people in Australia that ASIO is involved in political affairs. Speaking on behalf of honourable members on this side of the House there have been no allegations by the leadership of this Party that ASIO should be used by governments in political matters, particularly against other political parties. I know that individual honourable members can make allegations against governments, against ASIO and against other security forces operating in Australia but never has the Labor Party used this subject in the way that the Government is using it now.

What really concerns me is that a Minister, even of the lowly level of the Minister for the Capital Territory can come in here with the full authority of the leadership of his Party and suspend Standing Orders so that this statement could be made. It was not a prepared or written statement. The Minister spoke off the top of his head and I want to know as the Deputy Leader of the Party on this side of the House whether he is speaking for the Cabinet or the Government. From now on will security matters be allowed to be used in politics? Will Ministers be able to use these matters as they have been used tonight? It is an utter disgrace. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

So that we can get the matter clear I ask that this article published on the front page of the Daily Mirror be incorporated in Hansard.

MrStaley-Tableit.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has sought leave to incorporate the document in Hansard. Is leave granted?

Mr Sinclair:

– Leave is refused but the document may be tabled.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

Mr UREN:

– I am asking that this article be incorporated in Hansard because the Minister for the Capital Territory has misquoted and has misconstrued the article. I ask again that it be incorporated in Hansard. If leave is not granted, I will read the contents of the newspaper article into Hansard. Honourable members will just have to wait -

Mr Sinclair:

– You may table it in the same manner as the police report was tabled.

Mr UREN:

– I am asking the Leader of the House -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked for leave, and it has been refused.

Mr UREN:

-All right, Mr Speaker. I will read every word of the newspaper article. I will read the total article that appears on the front page of the final extra edition of the Daily Mirror of today’s date. The headline states:

Australia’s Watergate ‘-Gough’s Files Raided by ASIO!

There is a photograph of Mr Whitlam, with the caption ‘office file cabinet forced’. There is also a photograph of David Combe, with the caption not surprised’. The newspaper article carried the sub-heading: ‘Break-in to photograph documents’. It reads as follows:

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation has been blamed for a Watergate-style break-in at the Labor Party’s national headquarters in Canberra just after the 1 975 election.

Security sources in Canberra say ASIO agents entered the premises at night and forced a filing cabinet crammed with documents from the office of the former Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam.

They then photographed the documents and replaced them.

It is understood that because of this the Government was able to threaten this week to table a list of allegedly stolen documents in Federal Parliament.

Investigated

The papers had been under armed guard until the breakin in January. 1976.

The guard was removed after the ALP decided it was too expensive, and apparently unnecessary, to maintain it

Canberra police investigated the break-in but after making fingerprint checks announced no break-in had taken place.

In background briefings to the press, senior police officers said it appeared to have been an internal ALP ‘bungle. ‘

When told of the allegations today, the President of the ALP, Mr Hawke, said:I believe what you are saying is true.

It was widely believed at the time that this was what might have happened.

The politics of this country have reached a pathetic stage when the Prime Minister has to resort to the use of an internal security organisation to try to undermine his political opponents.

It is not only pathetic but extremely dangerous.

It shows the depths to which this Government has sunk.’

Mr David Combe, the ALP national secretary, said the ASIO link did not surprise him.

Nor would it have surprised me if you had put it to me in January, 1976, ‘he said.

That is the total newspaper article. I have no further comment to make on it. It speaks for itself. The Minister for the Capital Territory distorted completely the statement made earlier tonight. I hope that all journalists in this nation, and the Parliament and the Government examine very seriously the statements made by this very foolish Minister. I hope that these people also take note of the actions of the not so bright Leader of the House who allowed the Minister to make the statement.

Debate (on motion by Mr Bourchier) adjourned.

page 1669

ADJOURNMENT

Central Intelligence Agency Operations in Australia- Macarthur Growth Centre- Aircraft Accident in Queensland- Television Reception in the Hunter River Area

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-On 18 May 1974 Senator Bill Brown warned that the then United States Ambassador, Marshall Greene, was in Australia to protect American financial interests and to ensure the maintenance of that country’s military installations in Australia. He was condemned and repudiated by one member of his Party for daring to question the motives of Mr Greene. However, I had a very good reason for taking his warning seriously. Mr Greene called at my Canberra office in July 1973, accompanied by the United States Labour Attache, Mr Ed McHale. I asked Mr Greene: ‘What would your country do if Australia were to take over the subsidiaries of multi-national corporations in Australia?’. I guess that the question was unexpected, but his instant reply was: ‘We would move in’. ‘Bring in the marines, like?’, I challenged. ‘Oh, no’, he answered me: ‘The days of marine diplomacy are over’. I asked: ‘Well, what do you mean by “move in”?’. He mentioned trade, but when I reminded him that that would be his loss more than ours he remarked that there were other things that his country could do. What did he mean? Was he threatening to destabilise our economy, as was done in Chile, Greece and Guatemala, or was he threatening to arrange for the Central Intelligence Agency to organise a coup of some kind as it had done after the completion of destabilisation of Greece, Chile, the Congo, Iran and other countries?

Subsequently I repeated this conversation in the presence of Mr McHale and his successor in the Lobby Restaurant just before Mr McHale returned to the United States, and he did not correct a single point of my recital of that conversation. So here we had the Ambassador of the United States threatening a Minister of State of a friendly country with interference in its internal affairs should its democratically elected government ever receive a mandate to take over the investments of American private corporations. Can anyone imagine any Australian Government feeling obligated to take such action in the event of some Australian investor losing his assets in another country?

I raise this matter in the Parliament of Australia because I want the United States Ambassador to see that President Carter is informed of our apprehension about CIA activities in our country. I want President Carter to know that there is a genuine bond of friendship between our 2 countries which is unparalleled perhaps in any other countries in the world. I watched and admired Governor Carter throughout his presidential campaign and I told Mr Cyrus Vance in the Australian Ambassador’s New York residence of my fervent hope that he would win that election. I believe that President Carter will emerge as the greatest American President in history, even greater than Abraham Lincoln. He will be great because he will give America clean government and thus restore to the American people a pride and self-respect that slowly has been slipping from their grasp. He will be great because he will keep the CLA out of the internal affairs of other countries, especially allies like Australia. In this way he will not only win the respect of all Americans but also he will gain the deep admiration and respect of the people of all other countries of good will. I conclude by wishing the new President every possible success in the earnest endeavours that I know he is making to clean up the system of CIA interference in other countries, especially countries like ours that have a friendly relationship with his country.

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

– I want to draw the attention of the House to a local newspaper in my electorate, the Campbelltown district Star which, in its latest issue, points out that the growth of Campbelltown and the activities of the Macarthur Development Board could be halted. The newspaper reveals that a New South Wales State Government report could spell the end of the residential and industrial growth of Campbelltown. I believe that this very significant matter ought to be drawn to the attention of the House because the implications of this report on the environment and on the future of the Macarthur Growth Centre as seen by observers, according to the newspaper, are tremendously frightening. Briefly, the report says that a large part of that development should not go ahead. This is development which to a considerable degree was financed by the previous Federal Administration. Many millions of dollars have been poured into industrial development in particular in this beautiful area, and this was a sensible decision in the light of providing jobs for people who move out there. Many .millions of dollars have been poured into this area which is now shown by this New South Wales State Government official report to be an area in which dangerous pollution will follow as a result of such development. The newspaper points out that on the one hand the State Government is pouring millions of dollars into the development of the area and, on the other hand, a department of that Government comes to the conclusion after a long, detailed and, no doubt, expensive study, that it is all happening in the wrong place. I have a copy of the relevant sections of that report, along with the statement made by Mr Paul Landa, MLC, the New South Wales Minister for Planning and Environment. He says that the report sets out clearly and cogently the vital need to relate Sydney’s urban development to the capacity of its waterways to cope with urban wastes. His statement goes on to say that as far as practicable future urban and industrial growth should be concentrated where sewage could be channelled into ocean outfalls and at the same time acceptable alternatives to ocean outfalls should be examined.

According to the local newspaper, the essence of the matter is that the gravest blow to Campbelltown ‘s continued development came from the suggestion that industrial development should be diverted to other areas. It states that industrial and commercial development which produced toxic effluents, high volume discharges of high strength or coloured wastes should be discouraged in areas likely to drain to inland treatment works and inland streams. In particular, it pointed to the dangers, the risks, that would emerge to the Georges River system as a result of industrial development of that nature in Campbelltown and also to excessive suburban growth in that area.

Yet the previous Federal Government, without making such a study and without concerning itself with the implications and the consequences to the environment of such development, poured multimillions of dollars of taxpayers’ money into such development. I think it is an indictment of the former Minister for Urban and Regional Development, the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) that he should spend multimillions of dollars on such development which may well rove to be disastrous, according to this New South Wales Government report. I urge the New South Wales Government to decide whether or not it intends to implement the recommendations of that report. Multimillions of dollars of further development are involved. As a consequence, the Federal Government is still committed. It is an absurd situation when a State Government report recommends so strongly against development in an area in which multimillions of dollars of Federal funds are involved.

It was claimed this afternoon that I had not paid my full debt to Patrick Partners. I have here a letter from the trustee of Patrick Partners stating that the amount owing has been paid in full.

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

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– I raised during an adjournment debate in this place some time ago the matter of the accident that occurred adjacent to the Cairns Airport on 23 October 1975 when a Heron aircraft DH1 14 2E/A1 crashed on approach to that airport. I called on the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) at that time to hold a full board of inquiry into the circumstances associated with the accident. I do not propose to repeat what I have said on 3 previous occasions in this place about the circumstances associated with the accident. I raised the matter again just recently and the Minister asked me to confer with him on the circumstances associated with the accident. I did that. After conferring briefly he suggested that I should meet some of the officers of his Department, including the First Assistant Secretary of the Accident Investigation Branch. I had that meeting with those people today. It lasted for almost 2 hours, being interrupted at one stage by the calling of a division in this place. Having discussed the matter with them in detail, I regret to say that I cannot accept the Minister’s decision that a full board of inquiry should not be held.

A coroner’s inquest was conducted into the accident. Let me indicate to the House the interest taken by the relatives of the 3 crew members and 8 passengers who lost their lives. All the relatives of the people who lost their lives, with the exception of one, attended the inquest which extended over a period of 4 to 5 days. A great amount of evidence was taken and a great amount of argument was advanced. Clearly the relatives of the people who lost their lives were concerned about the circumstances of the accident in which so many people were killed. The Minister’s assertion that there is no real concern is not borne out by these facts which are available to him in his Department.

Officers of the Minister’s Department tried to explain to me why it was not necessary to hold an inquiry. There is obviously a blank spot in respect of what happened at the time of the accident. A minute before the accident the aircraft should have been flying at about 640 feet. Evidence was given by eye-witnesses, two of whom have a particularly keen interest in aviation. One is a lady who sits on her verandah and watches through a pair of binoculars aircraft approach.

Mr Cotter:

– Where was this?

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-In Cairns. Another chap listens to conservations between pilots and the tower on his VHF set. These are the type of people who gave evidence.

Mr McLean:

– Sticky-beaks.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-I would not say they are sticky-beaks. They are people who are interested in aviation. They were first-class witnesses who were able to give opinions to the investigators. They stood by their points of view. It is clear to me that in that last minute the pilot just did not know where he was. He was not operating in conformity with the regulations under which he had been taught to operate. Having that in mind and having in mind the evidence that was given by people who attended the coroner’s inquiry, I once again appeal to the Minister to have this matter resolved by a full board of inquiry so as to ensure that not only is justice done but also that it is seen to be done.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

-Several weeks ago in this House I raised the question of television reception from the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s Channel 5a in the Newcastle and Hunter River area. No improvement in television viewing has been recorded since that date in the Hunter. Last Friday week an engineer, who was supposed to have done technical work in regard to the changeover to Channel 5a appeared on an ABC talk-back station in Newcastle and endeavoured to explain to the people of the Hunter Valley how to overcome their reception problems in respect of Channel 5A. All that he did was to inform the residents of the Valley that they should purchase antennas and have them properly directed to the ABC channel.

The current situation is most unsatisfactory. I know that your constituents, Mr Deputy Speaker, who live in the electorate adjoining the electorate of Paterson, are experiencing exactly the same trouble with Channel 5a. All that the people of the Hunter Valley are asking is that the quality of reception they received prior to the changeover be restored. The installation of new antennas is not the answer to the problem. I was in a home on a hillside in Bolwarra Heights last Sunday night and I can tell honourable members that the ABC reception was very poor. The quality of the reception in this area is a disgrace.

I have received many telegrams from shire councils and local government bodies as well as constituents in the Hunter Valley area asking for action to be taken. I know that the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson), who is responsible for Telecom, has received hundreds of telegrams and letters. This matter has also been drawn to the attention of Mr Schmidt who is in charge of Telecom in New South Wales.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 1 1 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until Tuesday 24 May at 2. 1 5 p.m. unless Mr Speaker shall by telegram or letter addressed to each member of the House fix an alternative day or hour of meeting.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 1673

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Natural Disaster Insurance (Question No. 19)

Mr McVeigh:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What stage has been reached by the Government in establishing a national disaster insurance scheme for Australia.
  2. What has been the result of the invitation extended by the Government to State Governments, the insurance industry and interested community organisations and individuals to make their views known to the Federal Government following the tabling in the Federal Parliament in 1976 of the discussion paper prepared by a working party inquiring into a natural disaster insurance scheme for Australia.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In accordance with the arrangements outlined on 8 December 1976 by my colleague, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and Minister Assisting the Treasurer, a technical committee has been established to undertake necessary technical work associated with detailed examination of the scheme outlined in the Discussion Paper issued on 8 December 1976. The committee is examining such matters as the collection of relevant statistics and methods for the determination of premiums. Meanwhile, comments on the proposals outlined in the Discussion Paper are being received and examined.
  2. Several of the States have submitted comments on the proposals; the insurance industry has formally responded on a number of aspects and is currently preparing further material on other aspects; and numerous comments have been received from individual members of the community. The working party established by the Government is currently assessing these comments, which have provided valuable information and which should greatly assist the Government in the further development of a scheme.

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation: Sales to Indonesia (Question No. 28)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. Did the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation provide approximately $20m to finance the sale of Australian goods to Indonesia last year, as reported in the Canberra Times of 25 June 1976.
  2. Did the Managing Director of the Corporation describe the line of credit as the largest single line of project credit ever arranged by the Corporation for the export of Australian capital goods and services.
  3. Which were the main Australian companies that sold goods financed by the loan.
  4. Can he say whether the United States Export-Import Bank requires disclaimers that bribes have not been paid by contractors before loans are extended.
  5. Does the Corporation require disclaimers that bribes have not been paid by contractors before loans are extended.
  6. Does the Corporation know of (a) any bribes or similar irregularities that were paid or carried out or (b) allegations of bribes or similar irregularities that were paid or carried out, in connection with the $20m loan to finance the sale of Australian goods to Indonesia last year.
  7. What other loans, and to which companies, has the Corporation made to finance the sale of Australian goods to Indonesia.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) As reported, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation arranged a $20m loan in conjunction with the Bank of New South Wales to P. T. International Nickel Indonesia. The loan which was provided under EFIC’s export finance facility was funded by EFIC, $8m and the Bank of New South Wales, $12m, with the Bank’s share guaranteed by EFIC.
  2. Yes.
  3. The principal suppliers under the loan were:

B.H.P.

Atco Structures Pty Ltd

Standard Telephones and Cables Pty Ltd

Tyree Industries Ltd

James Hardie and Co. Pty Ltd

Vickers Ruwolt.

In all over 100 Australian companies were involved.

  1. I am advised that the United States Export-Import Bank requires, prior to disbursement of loans, a supplier certificate which certifies that the supplier did not give any discount, allowances, rebates, fees, payments or any other consideration to obtain the contract.
  2. No. To date, EFIC has not sought disclaimers from contractors in relation to the payment of bribes prior to loans being made. However, the Government and EFIC are currently studying international developments in relation to illicit payments in connection with trade transactions with a view to determining future policy in this area.
  3. No. The Corporation is not aware of any bribes or irregularities in connection with the loan in question or of any allegations to that effect.
  4. Subsequent to the loan referred to at (1), a further loan of $25m to P. T. International Nickel Indonesia has been negotiated. The only other loan to finance the sale of Australian goods to Indonesia was of $1.1 8m to Production Equipment Ltd (PROK).

Australian Capital Territory Health Centres (Question No. 38)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Are there residential restrictions imposed on attendance at Australian Capital Territory Health Centres.
  2. If so, does this result in some residents of the Australian Capital Territory being prevented from attending any of the Health Centres; if so, what is the justification for this.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Residential restrictions on the use of health centres in the Australian Capital Territory are imposed by some health centre committees but only in relation to continuing family medicine type practice. This involves after hours and night calls and it is not possible to provide services to patients beyond the local area.
  2. All health centres treat emergency cases without reference to area of residence. In addition the City Health Centre accepts people from any residential area on a drop in basis. Where a ‘drop in’ patient is diagnosed as having some ailment requiring continuing care the person is advised that it is in this own interest to obtain a family doctor in his own area. Phillip Health Centre takes patients for continuing family medical care from all areas except those served by another health centre but there is no after hours service available from this Centre.

Medibank Private: Banker (Question No. 42)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

Who are the bankers for Medibank Private?

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The Bank of New South Wales. Statutory authorities ‘of a business nature’ are required to use the normal banking system in the same way as other private business concerns with which they compete; Reserve Bank policy does not permit them to bank with the Reserve Bank. Medibank Private clearly has a business function and was informed by the Reserve Bank of its policy when the Government announced its decision to establish Medibank Private.

In selecting its banker the Health Insurance Commission followed normal business practice.

Deceased Members of Parliament: Payments to Widows (Question No. 57)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What are the names of members of the Australian Parliament who have died while in office.
  2. What are the names of the widows of senators and members who have died in office and who have received an ex gratia payment on top of their Parliamentary Retiring Allowances entitlements.
  3. Will the precedent set by the payment of an ex gratia payment to the widow of the former Minister for Environment now apply to all senators and members whose work contributes to their death.
  4. Did the widow of the late Senator Milliner receive any ex gratia payment; if not, why not.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The names of members of the Australian Parliament who died while in office since 1 90 1 are:

Senate- Adamson, John; Andrew, David; Ashley, Hon. William Patrick; Bakhap, Thomas Jerome Kingston; Barker, Stephen; Carroll, William; Chamberlain, John Hartley; Chapman, John Hedley; Cohen, Samuel Herbert; Courtenay, Lionel Thomas; Cunningham, Hon. James; Devlin, John Joseph; Elliott, Harold Edward; Givens, Thomas; Grant, John; Greenwood, Hon. Ivor John; Guthrie, Robert Storrie; Hannaford, Douglas Clive; Johnston,

Edward Bertram; Keane, Hon. Richard Valentine; Kingsmill, Sir Walter; Laught, Keith Alexander; MacDonald, John Valentine; McDougall, Allan; McHugh, Charles Stephen; McKellar, Gerald Colin; McLeay, George; Millen, Edward David; Milliner, Bertie Richard; Nash, Richard Harry; Newlands, Hon. Sir John; Ogden, James Ernest; O’Loghlin, James Vincent; Ormonde, James Patrick; Partridge, Hon. Sir Shane Dunne; Pearson, Rex Whiting; Piesse, Edmund Stephen Roper; Poulter, Maxwell William; Power, John Maurice; Reid, Hon. Albert David; Russell, Edward John; Russell, William; Sandford, Charles Walter; Sargood, Hon. Sir Frederick Thomas; Seward, Hon. Harrie Stephen; Sherrington, Robert Duncan; Vincent, Victor Seddon; Wade, Hon. Harrie Walter.

House of Representatives- Anthony, Hon. Hubert Lawrence; Arthur, John Andrew; Baker, Francis Matthew John; Batchelor, Egerton Lee; Beard, Henry Elisha; Bird, Alan Charles; Braddon, Rt Hon. Sir Edward Nicholas Covertry; Brown, Geoffrey William; Bruce, Hon. Henry Adam; Cameron, Hon. Archie Galbraith; Chapman, Hon. Sir Austin; Chifley, Rt Hon. Joseph Benedict; Clarey, Hon. Percy James; Clasby, John Joseph; Cockle, John Simon; Corser, Edward Bernard Cresset; Curtin, Rt Hon. John; Davies, William; Edwards, George Bertrand; Eggins, Edlred James; Fairbairn, Hon. James Valentine; Forrest, Lord; Fraser, James Reay; Frazer, Charles Edward; Gray, George Henry; Green, Hon. Albert Ernest; Gregory, Hon. Henry; Groom, Hon. Sir Littleton Ernest; Groom, William Henry; Gullett, Hon. Sir Henry Somer; Hawker, Hon. Charles Allan Seymour; Holder, Hon. Sir Frederick William; Holman, William Arthur; Holt, Rt Hon. Harold Edward; Howe, Robert; Howroyd, Charles Richard; Hughes, Rt Hon. William Morris; Hutchison, James; Jolley, Edward Francis George; Kent-Hughes, Hon. Sir Wilfrid Selwyn; Kingston, Charles Cameron; Lambert, William Henry; Lazzarini, Hon. Hubert Peter; Lyons, Rt Hon. Joseph Aloysius; McDonald, Allan McKenzie; McDonald, Charles; McGrath, David Charles; McWilliams, William James; Manifold, James Chester; Maxwell, George Arnot; Mulcahy, Daniel; Page, James; Palmer, Albert Clayton; Piesse, Frederick William; Pratten, Herbert Edward; Price, John Lloyd; Riorden, David; Roberts, Ernest Alfred; Rosevear, Hon. John Solomon; Russell, Edgar Hughes Deg; Ryan, Rupert Sumner; Ryan, Thomas Joseph; Salmon, Charles Carry; Shaw, George William; Sheehan, Thomas; Stewart, Percy Gerald; Street, Geoffrey Austin; Timson, Thomas Frank; Townley, Hon. Athol Gordon; Treloar, Thomas John; Tudor, Frank Gwynne; Ward, Hon. Edward John; Watkins, David; West, John Edward.

  1. Of the widows of senators and members who died in office since the introduction of the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act 1948, Mrs Greenwood is the only widow who received compensation on an ex gratia basis, in respect of her husband’s death, in addition to Parliamentary Retiring Allowances entitlements.
  2. Since 1968 all members of Parliament have had ex gratia cover equivalent to that provided for death or injury under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act. The compensation payment to Mrs Greenwood was made on this basis.
  3. A claim by Mrs Milliner for payment of compensation on an ex gratia basis, under the policy referred to in (3) above, is under consideration.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Question No. 78)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

What progress has he made in seeking to resolve the issues involved in the implementation of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

On 26 December, I announced that the Government proposed to establish a Human Rights Commission that would examine laws and practices and report on whether they were inconsistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government is developing these proposals in consultation with the State governments.

Departments of Treasury and Finance: First and Second Division Officers (Question No. 116)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

How many First and Second Division officers are employed in (a) the Department of the Treaury and (b) the Department of Finance.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

The numbers of First and Second Division positions in (a) the Department of the Treasury and (b) the Department of Finance are as follows:

a ) Department of the Treasury: 1 First Division. 27 Second Division ( 1 ) (2).

1 ) Includes 3 positions currently unfilled.

Excludes 2 statutory offices. The holder of one of these also currently occupies one of the 27 Second Division positions.

Department of Finance:

Central Office. 1 First Division. 23 Second Division ( 1 ).

Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office: 2 Second Division (2 ).

Office of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust: 1 Second Division (2).

Royal Australian Mint: 2 Second Division.

  1. 1 ) Includes 2 positions currently unfilled.
  2. Excludes one statutory office-holder in each case.

Tyre Industry (Question No. 137)

Mr Stewart:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has he received the final report of the Industries Assistance Commission on tyres.
  2. 2 ) Can he say whether the tyre industry is most concerned that the final report of the IAC will not grant sufficient protection to allow it to remain viable.
  3. Will the Government take into account, before reaching a decision on the level of protection to be granted, the importance of the industry to (a) the work force, (b) the supplying industries, (c) the consumer and (d) the economy generally.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Australian Tyre Manufacturers’ Association expressed its views on the recommendations contained in the Industries Assistance Commission’s draft report at the public hearings held to consider that report on 23 and 24 November 1976. The IAC’s final report on tyres has not been publicly released.
  3. (a) Yes; (b) Yes; (c) Yes; (d) Yes.

Natural Disaster Insurance (Question No. 145)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. Who are the members of (a) the working party on natural disaster insurance and (b) the technical committee which is providing advice to the working party, and which companies, organisations or Government departments do they represent.
  2. Have consultations with State Ministers regarding disaster mitigation taken place, as was recommended in the discussion paper on natural disaster insurance.
  3. When will the mitigation committee be established.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1) (a) The working party, established to formulate proposals for a natural disaster insurance scheme in consultation with the insurance industry, is chaired by a representative of the Department of the Treasury and includes representatives of the Insurance Commissioner, the Australian Government Actuary, the Departments of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Finance, Environment, Housing and Community Development and Primary Industry.

    1. The technical committee, established to work on technical aspects of the matter under guidance from the working party, is chaired by the Australian Government Actuary and includes representatives of the Insurance Commissioner, the Departments of the Treasury and Environment, Housing and Community Development, the Insurance Council of Australia- a widely representative body of the general insurance industry- and the State Government Insurance Office, Queensland.
  2. No specific consultations have been held with the States on the matter of disaster mitigation. However, the States were invited by the Prime Minister to comment on the discussion paper as a whole and comments that have been received from this and other sources are currently being examined. The question of disaster mitigation obviously involves a number of complex issues and careful planning and research is necessary to identify the expertise required from within government and elsewhere to provide advice on this subject in so far as it is of relevance to the development of a natural disaster insurance scheme.
  3. I am unable to give any firm indication at this stage on the timing for establishment of a mitigation committee as the arrangements for establishment of the committee are largely dependent upon completion of the preliminary work mentioned in (2) above.

Alexander Barton Group of Companies (Question No. 159)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 17 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) When will the joint report of Messrs F. G. Brennan, Q.C, and M. W. Burke of the Corporate Affairs Commission of New South Wales on the Alexander Barton group of companies be tabled in the Parliament.
  2. Can he say whether the joint report reveals any breaches of any laws of the Commonwealth or Territories of the Commonwealth.
  3. If so, what action does the Government propose to take in respect of any breaches.
  4. Is it proposed to introduce legislation to amend sections 67 of the Companies Ordinances of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory to prevent socalled round robin transactions such as those revealed in the fourth report of the Corporate Affairs Commission of New South Wales on the Barton group of companies.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. to (3) The Commonwealth Crown Solicitor has advised me that there is insufficient evidence disclosed in the joint report to support proceedings, civil or criminal, being brought in the Australian Capital Territory. However, the question of proceedings in New South Wales is, I understand, still being considered by the New South Wales Government. In the circumstances, and because of limitations imposed by section 169 of the A.C.T. Companies Ordinance on my power to publish part only of the report, I have decided not to table the joint report in the Parliament.
  2. This matter is being considered in the context of the proposals for joint Commonwealth/State legislative and administrative action in relation to companies and the securities industry.

Motor Vehicles: Sales Tax on Large Engines (Question No. 162)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 24 February 1977:

  1. How many passenger motor vehicles fitted with 8- cylinder engines were sold in Australia in each year from 1960 to date.
  2. How many 8-cylinder engines were made in Australia in each of those years, and what was the rate of import duty on imported V8 engines.
  3. Has there been any increase since July 1976 in sales of vehicles with 8-cylinder engines which might be attributable to new emission control laws, as was suggested in an article by Peter Burden in the National Times of 31 January- 5 February 1977.
  4. Has the Government considered action to implement practical programs to discourage the use of vehicles with large engines and vehicle components which require the avoidable use of transportation fuel as was recommended by the Royal Commission on Petroleum in its 4th Report.
  5. In particular, does the Government plan to levy higher sales tax on large sized engines.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No official separate statistics are available on the sale of passenger motor vehicles fitted with eight cylinder engines.

  2. (a) Production of 8-cylinder engines is not separately recorded by the Commonwealth Statistician.

    1. Engines are not separately classified in the Customs Tariff according to number of cylinders or conformation.

At the commencement of 1960 the rates of duty applicable to engines for passenger motor vehicles were- 35 per cent-General Tariff 27.5 per cent- Preferential Tariff

On 1 9 July 1 973 the rates of duty were reduced to- 26.25 per cent-General Tariff 20.62 per cent-Preferential Tariff 1 8.75 per cent-Canada Preferential Tariff being the effect of the ‘across the board’ 25 per cent cut in Tariffs

With effect from 1 July 1974 the above rates were rounded’ to become- 26 per cent-General Tariff 2 1 per cent-Preferential Tariff 19 per cent-Canada Preferential Tariff

On 21 January 1975, after the IAC report on Passenger Motor Vehicles had been considered, engines for passenger motor vehicles became classified according to whether they are used as original equipment or as replacement equipment. Original equipment engines admitted under by-law dutiable at rates of- 25 per cent-General Tariff 25 per cent-Preferential Tariff 1 7.5 per cent-Canada Preferential Tariff

Otherwise dutiable at rates of 35 per cent- General Tariff 35 per cent-Preferential Tariff 27.5 per cent- Canada Preferential Tariff

Replacement equipment engines are dutiable at rates of- 25 per cent-General Tariff 25 per cent-Preferential Tariff 1 7.5 per cent- Canada Preferential Tariff.

  1. No separate official statistics are available for the sale of passenger motor vehicles fitted with eight cylinder engines. Production statistics of locally produced finished motor vehicles with an engine capacity of 4000cc or over (which includes both six and 8-cylinder engines) indicate that there has been no significant increase of production in this category since July 1 976.
  2. The Government is considering the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Petroleum in its 4th Report.
  3. See(4)above.

Australian Atomic Energy Commission: New Reactor (Question No. 172)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has the Atomic Energy Commission decided to build a new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights.
  2. If so, what is the estimated cost of the new reactor.
  3. When will building commence, and what is the estimated date of completion.
  4. What will be the capacity of the new reactor.
  5. What plans does the Atomic Energy Commission propose for disposal of additional waste generated by the new plant.
  6. Has the Commission consulted the Government of New South Wales, local government officials of surrounding districts and local residents about the new plans; if so, what were their reactions; if not, why not.
  7. Has his Department prepared an environmental impact statement under the provisions of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974; if so, when will the statement be made public; if not, why not.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian Atomic Energy Commission has not decided to build a new reactor at Lucas Heights. As was stated by Senator Withers on 17 August 1976 in response to a question without notice by Senator Keeffe (Senate Hansard, page 38), the Commission has been making a detailed study of the Australian requirements for research reactor irradiation facilities to the end of this century. The study is taking account of the reactor needs within the community for both scientific research and radioisotope production for medical and industrial purposes.
  2. , (3), (4) and (3) The first phase of the study has been completed, but no further action has yet been taken. Consequently cost estimates, schedules, capacity or discharge are not as yet known.
  3. In his letter of 2 1 March 1977 to the honourable member, the Minister for National Resources advised him of correspondence between the Sutherland Shire Council and the Commission on this matter.
  4. The study has not yet reached the stage where an environmental impact statement is appropriate.

Crime: Compensation to Persons Helping Police (Question No. 240)

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

am asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

What steps have been taken to provide compensation in the Territories, as it is now provided under State Acts in Tasmania and Queensland, to the innocent volunteer who is injured through intervening in the commission of a crime.

Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

Statutory Rules 1971 No. 112, the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Regulations, provide, in substance, that benefits of the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act 1 97 1 are to extend to persons rendering assistance to a prescribed Commonwealth officer in the performance of his duty at the request of that officer or in the honest and reasonable belief that the assistance was necessary for the performance by the officer of his duty’.

For this purpose the term ‘prescribed Commonwealth officer’ includes a Commonwealth Police Officer, members of the Police Force of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, sheriffs and sheriffs’ officers of those two Territories and officers of Customs.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1976 (Tasmania) provides for payment of compensation, and the Queensland Criminal Code Amendment Act 1968 for ex gratia payments, in similar circumstances.

High Court Building: Works of Art (Question No. 287)

Mr Morris:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

What are the nature and cost of the works of art for the High Court building on which Messrs Mollison, Cobden and Shannon are advising the Chief Justice (Hansard, 19 October 1976. page 2005 and 9 December 1976, pages 3702 and 3730).

Mr Ellicott:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 1 am informed that decisions on the nature of art works have not yet been made. Seven Australian artists are currently working on proposals for works of art for the building in the following categories: wall art: The large walls of Courts Two and Three facing into the Public Hall will be the location for the principal work of art. The form that this will take has not been determined but there is scope for selecting from a wide range of items including paintings, tapestries and works in ceramics, glass, metal or other media. court room doors: The two pairs of doors for entering each Court offer the potential to be works of art. carpet emblem: An emblem could be woven into the carpeted area which extends from the Ceremonial Court into the Public Hall.

The estimated cost of the works of art is $ 100,000.

OECD Economic Survey of Australia (Question No. 292)

Mr Hurford:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that the OECD Report on Australia was written before devaluation with only a postcript after 28 November 1976.
  2. Is it also a fact that the postscript, rather than endorsing the Government’s policies, suggests that these policies, particularly monetary policy, will have to be adapted to the changed situation.
  3. If the position is as stated, does he continue to claim OECD endorsement for his Government’s present policies; if so, why.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The postscript to the OECD Economic Survey of Australia stated:

After this examination had been completed the Australian Government announced a 171/2 per cent devaluation of the Australian dollar. The devaluation was accompanied by a change in the exchange rate arrangements involving the adoption of a flexibly administered rate and an indication that this would involve more frequent and smaller shifts in the relationship of the Australian dollar to a trade weighted basket of currencies. While the devaluation has not been taken into account in the body of the Survey, it will clearly change the outlook over the coming year as discussed in pages 40 to 44. Very broadly its main effects would seem to be in the direction of putting upward pressure on the price level, providing some stimulus to demand and improving the current and capital accounts of the balance of payments. Much will also depend on the future stance of policies, particularly monetary policy, which will have to be adapted to the changed situation’.

Following the devaluation of the dollar on 28 November 1 976 the Government took a number of measures, including monetary measures, directed at preserving the gains for the economy flowing from devaluation. These measures were aimed at sustaining the Government’s basic strategy for economic recovery: a major pre-requisite for the success of this strategy is, of course, the control of inflation. The full range of measures taken and how they fit into the Government’s economic strategy were outlined in my statement in the House on 1 5 February.

  1. The Government’s basic economic strategy has not changed as a result of devaluation. Moreover, it is fully consistent with the medium-term economic strategy adopted by Member countries at the OECD Ministerial Council meeting in Paris last June. This strategy gave top priority to combatting inflation through the pursuit of cautious demand management policies. It is also consistent with the basic thrust of the OECD Survey of the Australian economy of which several elements remain relevant: indeed the Survey drew attention to the consistency of our policies with the OECD medium-term economic strategy. The Survey noted in particular that it was essential that the adjustment of wages to increases in the cost of living should be only partial and that partial indexation would make the transition to a lower rate of inflation both speedier and smoother and would allow a restoration of private sector profit margins which have been seriously eroded in recent years.

Bankruptcy, Liquidation and Receiverships (Question No. 306)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Can he say whether the United Kingdom Government has appointed an Insolvency Law Review Committee (a) to review the law and practice relating to insolvency, bankruptcy, liquidation and receiverships in England and Wales and to consider what reforms are necessary or desirable and (b) to examine the possibility of formulating a comprehensive insolvency system and the extent to which existing procedures might, with advantage, be harmonised and integrated.
  2. If so, and in view of the recent events in Australia concerning failure of stockbroking firms and their related corporations, will he consider the establishment of a committee with similar terms of reference to review the law relating to bankruptcy, liquidation and receiverships.
  3. Will the Law Reform Commission be holding discussions with the United Kingdom Committee in connection with its reference on consumer debtors.
  4. Are recent amendments to the bankruptcy laws of the United States of America being studied with a view to their implementation in Australia.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1) (a) and (b) Yes, such a committee under the chairmanship of Mr K. R. Cork, FCA, FICM, has been set up by the Secretary for Trade, Mr Edmund Dell. In addition to the functions referred to in the question the committee is required-

    1. to suggest possible less formal procedures as alternatives to bankruptcy and company winding up proceedings in appropriate circumstances; and
    2. to make recommendations.
  2. The Government is currently considering a number of proposals for the amendment of the Bankruptcy Act but it has not yet made any decision on these proposals. When the Government receives the report by the Law Reform Commission on the question of ‘consumers in debt’, that report will also be given full consideration in relation to any recommendations for the amendment of the Bankruptcy Act. In addition, I have recently reached agreement with the State Ministers responsible for companies and securities on a general framework for a co-operative Commonwealth/State scheme for legislation and administration in the fields of company law and the regulation of the securities industry. The details of this scheme are now being worked out. Having regard to these developments, I do not consider that it would be appropriate, at this stage, to establish a committee with similar terms of reference to that of the United Kingdom Insolvency Law Reform Committee. However, I am keeping this whole area under review and I have instructed my Department to monitor the work of the United Kingdom Committee.
  3. The Australian Law Reform Commission will very shortly be making its report on the reference on ‘consumers in debt ‘ whereas the United Kingdom committee is just commencing what is expected to be a two to three year programme. In any case, the procedures it uses in conducting its enquiries into matters referred to it are a matter for the Law Reform Commission itself.
  4. Apart from an amendment of their provisions in relation to the debts of municipalities, which are not subject to the bankruptcy laws in Australia, there have, as far as I am aware, been no recent amendments to the bankruptcy laws of the United States of America. However, proposed amendments to such laws, including a bill presented to the House of Representatives on 4 January 1977, are being continuously monitored by my Department.

National Health Act: Breaches (Question No. 348)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many doctors in each State were convicted of breaches of the National Health Act during 1976.
  2. What penalties were imposed in each case.
  3. Has the AMA taken any action against convicted doctors; if so, what action.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. During 1976, 2 doctors were convicted for offences against Section 103(5) (a) of the National Health Act 1953.
  2. One doctor from New South Wales was convicted of 2 offences and fined $200 on each offence, in default 1 19 days imprisonment with hard labour on the first count and 92 days imprisonment with hard labour on the second count. The Court also awarded $250 professional costs on each count and $239 witness expenses.

The second doctor also from New South Wales was convicted of 4 offences. On each of three of the 4 convictions he was fined $200 with court costs of $6 and professional costs of $ 1 5, in default 45 days imprisonment with hard labour.

On the other charge he was fined $100 with court costs of $6, and professional costs of $15, in default imprisonment for 25 days with hard labour.

  1. My Department is unaware of whether the doctors concerned were members of the Australian Medical Association or not and if so whether the Association has or could take any action.

Ministerial Staffs (Question No. 373)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many persons is a Minister entitled to employ on his personal staff.
  2. What are the various categories of these staff and their rates of pay.
  3. How, and at what rates are the salaries, travelling allowances and overtime calculated for each of these categories.
  4. Do all ministerial staff have similar conditions in respect of overtime and travel allowance; if not, how do they vary.
  5. Do any categories of ministerial staff vary in entitlements from staff of the same category employed by backbenchers.
  6. If so, how do they vary, and what is the reason for this variation.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The personal staff establishments for Ministers, and the classification and salary range of each position, are set out below.

Each Minister, in his capacity as a Senator or Member, is also entitled to appoint an Electorate Assistant. This position is not included in a Minister’s personal staff establishment.

  1. and (4) Rates of salary, travelling allowance and overtime payments are as determined from time to time by the Public Service Board.

Salary rates are shown in the table above.

Travelling allowance, which is payable for overnight absence from headquarters on official duty, is paid at the following rates:

Ministerial Officers, Grade5 and 4: $41.00 a day (capital cities) $30.50 a day (country)

Other Staff: $29.40 a day (capital cities) $23.35 a day (country)

In accordance with the Public Service Regulation 75a (3), payment of travelling allowance is reviewed after 2 1 days continuous residence in one locality. A revised allowance based on actual living costs is then paid.

Ministerial Officers and Clerks, Class 9 are paid Ministerial Staff Allowance, currently $4187 per annum, in lieu of overtime. Press Secretaries may, at their option, receive either the Ministerial Staff Allowance or overtime in accordance with their award (Determination No. 85 of 1952). The Press Secretary to the Prime Minister and one of the Journalists, Grade Al on the Prime Minister’s staff receive Ministerial Staff Allowance of $8,374 per annum, without the option of overtime. The other Journalist, Grade Al on the Prime Minister’s staff receives Ministerial Staff Allowance of $4, 1 87. Other Ministerial staff receive overtime payments for duty outside normal working hours in accordance with the relevant Public Service determinations.

  1. and (6) It has been the practice Tor the electorate secretary to a Minister to occupy a position on the Minister’s personal staff establishment and for similar entitlements to be extended to all Ministerial staff. Consequently an electorate secretary to a Minister has entitlements with respect to travel and overtime similar to those of other members of Ministerial staff. As the honourable member is aware, an Electorate Secretary to a private Senator or Member has no entitlement to overtime or travelling allowance. However, the Remuneration Tribunal, in its Determination Number 1976/6 of 2 1 June 1976, determined that up to, but no more than, two of the return visits to Canberra to which the spouse or nominee of a Senator or Member is entitled may be used by the staff of a Senator or Member.

In addition to the above, an Electorate Assistant to a Minister may travel at the Minister’s direction between the electorate and Canberra and is entitled to payment of fares, travelling allowance and the provision of ground transport for this purpose. An Electorate Assistant to a private Senator or Member has the travel entitlement determined by the Remuneration Tribunal as described above.

Venereal Disease (Question No. 491)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 23 March 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Is there an Act corresponding to the New South Wales Venereal Diseases Act in force in (a) the Australian Capital Territory and (b) the Northern Territory.
  2. Is there any provision forcing doctors to inform parents, in case of infection of children below a certain age; if so, what is the age.
  3. Has his attention been drawn to legislation before the N.S.W. Parliament reducing the age to 16 years and removing the absolute obligation on doctors.
  4. If so, and if appropriate, will he introduce similar amendments in the Territories.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The corresponding legislation is:

    1. the Venereal Diseases Ordinance 1956.
    2. the Venereal Diseases Ordinance 1 923.
  2. There is no provision requiring medical practitioners to inform parents in the A.C.T. In the Northern Territory, Section 15 of the Ordinance requires a medical practitioner to give to parents of a child under the age of 1 6 years such directions as may be prescribed by the Chief Medical Officer.
  3. Yes.
  4. Amendment of Northern Territory legislation is a matter for the Legislative Assembly in that Territory. I understand that the relevant Ordinance is currently under review.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Question No. 493)

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

am asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government yet had discussions with the States on the implementation of the obligations which come within their jurisdiction under the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which entered into force on 23 March 1976 (Hansard, 8 December 1976, page 3560).
  2. When does he expect that Australia will be able to honour its obligations under this covenant to which Canada, a federal State, adhered on 19 May 1976 and to which the United States, another federal State, will, as announced by President Carter to the United Nations on 18 March 1977, also soon adhere.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Preliminary discussions have been held with the States but discussions on the matter have not yet been concluded.
  2. The Government is discussing with the States its proposal to establish a Human Rights Commission that would examine laws and practices and report on whether they are inconsistent with the Covenant. The Government will give further consideration to the proposal that Australia ratify the Covenant when the discussions with the States have been concluded.

Harsh and Unconscionable Contracts (Question No. 526)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 24 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Further to Question No. 1064 (Hansard, 2 November 1976, page 2251), has the Special Committee of the Australian Government and State Offices been set up to consider legislation to regulate harsh and unconscionable contracts.
  2. If so, what are the names of the members of this committee, and what Department do they represent.
  3. When has this committee met.
  4. Can he say whether Professor Peden has completed his report to the New South Wales Government on harsh and unconscionable contracts.
  5. 5 ) If so, is it being considered by the Joint Committee and when will it be tabled in the Parliament.
  6. Is the Joint Committee considering the legislation proposed by Attorney-General Enderby to regulate these contracts in the Australian Capital Territory.
  7. If so, what differences are proposed in the new uniform legislation.
  8. Can he say whether the New South Wales and South Australian Governments propose to introduce legislation based on the Peden Report regardless of the intentions of the other States or the Australian Government.
  9. If so, what legislation is to be introduced by the Australian Government and when will it be introduced.
  10. 10) Can he say whether Professor Peden ‘s Report conflicts with the recommendations of the Swanson Committee; if so, in what way.
  11. What laws of the Australian States and Territories at present regulate harsh or unconscionable contracts.
  12. Can he say what laws of the United Kingdom at present regulate harsh and unconscionable contracts.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The representatives were from the Victorian Law Department; Depanment of Consumer Affairs, N.S.W.; Consumer Affairs Bureau, W.A.; Attorney-General’s Depanment, Tasmania; Depanment of Justice, Queensland; Depanment of the Capital Territory, Canberra; AttorneyGeneral’s Depanment, Canberra and Depanment of Business and Consumer Affairs, Canberra.
  3. On 8 February 1977 and 24 March 1977.
  4. The report has been completed and circulated by the N.S.W. Government for comment by interested persons.
  5. The Committee had access to this report. Tabling of the report is a matter for the New South Wales Government.
  6. That proposed legislation was before the Committee.
  7. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the Committee’s recommendations at this stage.
  8. No.
  9. 9) No decision has been made on this matter.
  10. The Swanson Committee recommendations dealt with unconscionable conduct. The Peden report deals with a law for harsh and unconscionable contracts.
  11. All States and Territories have hire purchase and money lenders legislation which have certain provisions relating to harsh and unconscionable contracts. In addition, in New South Wales there is the Industrial Arbitration Act 1940 (section 88F) and in South Australia the Consumer Credit Act 1972 (section 46).
  12. On the information available at present the United Kingdom does not appear to have any general statutory law regulating ‘harsh and unconscionable’ contracts. The question of the application of the common law is a matter upon which conflicting opinions have been expressed.

Patrick Partners: Deeds of Arrangement (Question No. 528)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 24 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to an interview with Mr Rick Dowling, broadcast on The Week in Business on the Australian Broadcasting Commission on Saturday, 19 March 1977.
  2. If so, are all the comments made by Mr Dowling accurate especially insofar as they relate to the application of the Bankruptcy Act to his affairs.
  3. Are there any grounds for saying that the trustee for Patrick Partners misled or otherwise did not fully inform the creditors of the firm of the effect of the Deeds of Arrangements under part 10 of the Bankruptcy Act.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. 2 ) A full answer to this part of the question would involve the giving of legal advice which it is not appropriate for me to do.
  3. No person has complained to me of being misled by the trustee for Patrick Partners. The Bankruptcy Act does not require a controlling trustee or a trustee to advise creditors of the effect of a deed of arrangement. Indeed, if it did it would place an intolerable burden on the controlling trustee or the trustee.

Weisscredit Australia Pty Ltd: Exchange Control (Question No. 553)

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

am asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to an article in Nation Review of 24-30 March 1977 concerning current assets of

Weisscredit Australia Pty Ltd including unsecured loans amounting to $2,034,820.

  1. Has the Reserve Bank given approval to the remission of funds held in trust by an overseas corporation specifically for the purpose of discharging one of these loans.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Reserve Bank of Australia is precluded by its statutory responsibilities from publicly releasing information about any individual exchange control application obtained through the administration of exchange control.

Weisscredit Australia Pty Ltd: Mr Renzo di Piramo (Question No. 562)

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

am asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 30 March 1977:

Have any authorities for which he is ministerially responsible had inquiries (a) from Switzerland or (b) from any other country about (i) the operations of Weisscredit in Australia or (ii) the whereabouts of Mr Renzo di Piramo.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

Companies and Securities Legislation: Reference of Power (Question No. 570)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 31 March 1977:

In relation to the matter of the proposed companies and securities legislation, did he, prior to the recent accord reached with all State Ministers, request a reference of power from the States.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

No. The Commonwealth decided that the responsible course of action was to seek the agreement of the States to an effective co-operative scheme. An important element of this approach is that it does not involve a formal reference of power by the States to the Commonwealth.

Superannuation Benefits: Remarriage of Widows (Question No. 601)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 April 1977:

  1. Are the widows of deceased (a) public servants and (b) employees of Commonwealth bodies or statutory authorities entitled to retain their superannuation benefits derived from the contributions of their former husbands, in the event of their re-marriage.
  2. If not, are there any circumstances under which benefits would be retained.
  3. Is it a fact that loss of superannuation benefits by widows who marry another retired person can make such a marriage impractical because of the financial penalty involved.
  4. Has the Government considered any modification to the existing arrangements.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) Since 1 July 1976, a widow of a deceased Commonwealth employee in receipt of a widow’s pension under either the Superannuation Act 1 922 or the Superannuation Act 1976 would not have had her pension terminated on her remarriage. Where a widow remarried before 1 July 1976, her pension was terminated. She may, however, apply for a pension and, if the Commissioner for Superannuation is satisfied that the widow is in necessitous circumstances or that the payment of a pension is otherwise warranted, he may direct that a pension be paid.

  1. No.

Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (Question No. 602)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 April 1977:

  1. Do the conditions of payment of Defence Force Retirement Benefit pensions to widows differ from those applying to widows under the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund.
  2. Do widows in receipt of DFRB pensions lose their entitlement on re-marriage.
  3. If the conditions applying to widows in receipt of DFRB entitlements are less advantageous than those applying to widows receiving benefits from the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund, will he take urgent action to remedy the position.
Mr Killen:
Minister for Defence · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. to (3) As I announced on 19 April 1977, the Government has authorised me to proceed with modifications to the reversionary benefits’ arrangements to bring them into line with the more beneficial provisions of the new Public Service superannuation scheme. The main proposals are: No cancellation of a widow’s pension if she remarried; restoration where appropriate of pensions previously cancelled for this reason; and extension of pension benefits in some cases to widows and children previously excluded because the marriage took place after retirement. The amending legislation will be introduced in Parliament as soon as possible.

Telecommunications Commission: Teleprinter Equipment (Question No. 603)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 19 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) What are the conditions for local content associated with the recently let tenders for teleprinter equipment for the Telecommunications Commission.
  2. Is the Commission satisfied that the Australian firm named as the manufacturer of the proposed local content of the equipment is capable of meeting the quantity and quality called for in the tender.
  3. What penalties exist if, at the end of the build-up period, the local content component is not achieved.
  4. What other tenders were received and how did they compare in (a) price, (b) local content and (c) delivery.
  5. Have unsuccessful tenderers been given an assurance that they will be successful in tenders for the supply of exchange equipment currently being considered.
  6. What is the estimate of the numbers of jobs which will be lost during (a) the build-up and (b) the total period of the contract.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. SAGEM have indicated that 43 per cent local content could be achieved by the end of 3 years and SS per cent by the end of 5 years. The 3-year figure compares favourably with the level of local content with the existing model teleprinter.
  2. Yes.
  3. The level of future orders under the agreement would be dependent upon the company meeting all conditions including a satisfactory level of local content
  4. Fourteen tenders were received of which eight were considered to be technically unacceptable. The prices submitted by other tenderers were higher than the price of the tender accepted.

All six of the tenderers considered acceptable offered either local content as part of their tender or a proposal to investigate with Telecom Australia the setting up of local manufacture.

Three aspects of delivery were considered in examining tenders: (i) commencement of delivery, (ii) rate of delivery, (iti) total quantity within the tender period. The six short list tenderers offered a wide range of variation within these three requirements. SAGEM offered acceptable delivery. Overall the SAGEM tender offered the best combination of technology, price, local content and delivery time.

  1. No.
  2. Actual labour content involved in manufacturing of modern teleprinters is significantly less than with the current model teleprinter. Although the Australian content in latter years will be higher than achieved by the previous manufacturer, the total number of people employed in the manufacture of teleprinters will be reduced. On a national basis the loss of job opportunity would be very minor.

Importation of Macabre Fun Parlour Games (Question No. 607)

Mr Hamer:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 19 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to Press reports of macabre ‘fun parlour’ games that are said to be sweeping America.
  2. If so, can he say whether one of these games is a pedestrian-killer game, where a driver takes the wheel of a simulated car and attempts to knock down pedestrians and, if he succeeds, he is rewarded with an electronic scream and the appearance of a tombstone.
  3. Are violent games such as these possibly psychologically damaging to the players.
  4. Has he any power to prevent the importation of these games.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. Yes, I have seen one such report. Additionally, I received representations some months ago as a result of this type of game being mentioned in a current affairs radio program.
  2. This is the particular game referred to in the report I have seen.
  3. I am not aware of the psychological effect such games may have on players.
  4. Whilst the concept of a ‘game’ based on injury or killing people is repugnant, this in itself is not grounds for imposing an import prohibition.

Furthermore, unless the machines are intrinsically dangerous, for example through being unsafe electrically, there is no provision in the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations which would empower me to prevent their importation.

However, I believe the good sense and good taste of the Australian community will prove the effective counter to any move to introduce such unsavoury games into this country.

Mr Vincent Teresa (Question No. 657)

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

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:

When was the attention of the Commonwealth Police drawn to the article in the National Times of 27 December 1976-1 January 1977 which stated in effect that Mr Vincent Teresa, the former Boston mafioso, would be brought to Sydney by Mr Jim McCrudden, the Sydney solicitor, and that February was the likely date.

Mr Street:
LP

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

The Commonwealth Police observed the item referring to Vinnie Teresa’ and Mr McCrudden in the Overflow Column in the National Times at publication time- 27 December 1976-1 January 1977.

Hospital and Medical Benefits Funds: Membership (Question No. 671)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:

  1. Have the private hospital and medical benefits funds yet provided the information on the number of privately insured persons, as he expected on 9 December 1976 (Hansard, page 3680).
  2. If so, can he now say what is the present membership of the private funds.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) My Department does not yet have comprehensive data on the membership of health insurance organisations under the new arrangements. Present indications are that it will be at least June before complete details are available. The reasons for the delay are that a number of organisations are having difficulty introducing new program systems or are still striving to overcome backlogs in processing.

Mr Douglas Charles Campbell: Contacts with Minister for Primary Industry (Question No. 810)

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

am asked the Minister for Pri mary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

What have been the dates, nature and purpose of his contacts with Mr Douglas Charles Campbell since July 1974.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

As with many of my constituents I meet Mr Douglas Charles Campbell regularly in the course of my normal representative duties. He remains a long time professional and personal friend.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 5 May 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1977/19770505_reps_30_hor105/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant