House of Representatives
31 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 2 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2167

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Whaling

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

That due to the new information on whale communication, behaviour and intelligence, and to the depleted state of most of the great whale stocks and the uncertainty associated with whale population estimates, that commercial whaling is no longer acceptable to the vast majority of Australians. It is urged that immediate steps be taken to end this activity.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sinclair, Mr Dobie and Mr Hodgman.

Petitions received.

Abortions

Petition to the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth humbly showeth that the undersigned are deeply concerned:

That abortion is the destruction ofinnocent human life,

That on 10 May 1973, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly rejected the Medical Practice Clarification Bill, which sought to legalize 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 receives.

Royal Commission on Petroleum

The petition of certain members of the Service Station Association of N.S.W. Ltd, and certain members of the motoring public of N.S.W. respectfully showeth:

That the Federal Government give every consideration to implementing the findings of the Royal Commission on petroleum.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will take action to ensure that the needs of the motoring public and the retail petroleum industry are given every consideration.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

By Mr Cohen and Mr Dobie

Petitions received.

Public Libraries

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

That the public library services of New South Wales are inadequate both in quality and quantity and that the burden of provision is placed too heavily upon local government.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will ensure the implementation of the recommendations of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into public libraries as a matter of urgency.

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

Petitions received.

Union and Employer Group Elections

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully ask:

The Parliament to ensure that while respecting the rights and obligations of individual Australians:

  1. A few people in vital industries cannot, with total disregard for the vast majority of citizens, stop the proper functioning of the nation.
  2. That every member of a union or employer group be given a postal secret ballot vote for the democratic election of their office bearers.
  3. No person shall be intimidated, or discriminated against in any way, for not wishing to be a member of a union or employer group.

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

Petition received.

Preservation of Wildlife

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government:

Will substantially increase and make punitive the penalties for illegal exportation of and cruelty to Australian birds and animals.

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

Petition received.

Broadcasting and Television Programs

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 because television and radio-

  1. a ) affect our social and moral environment,
  2. are family media watched and heard by many children at all times, and
  3. present too much explicit violence and sex, they therefore need stronger control than other media and the existing standards need stricter enforcement in both national and commercial sectors.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Australian Government will amend the Broadcasting and Television Act, in relation to both national and commercial broadcasters, to legislate-

  1. for adequate and comprehensive programs in the best interests of the general public,
  2. against self-regulation by the broadcasting and television industry,
  3. for an independent consumer body to represent the best interests of the general public, and
  4. for immediate and effective penalties to be imposed for breaches of program and advertising standards.

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

Petition received.

Compulsory Retirement of Australian Government Employees

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

That Australian Government employees strenuously oppose the provisions of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill first introduced in the House of Representatives on 8 December 1976. The basis for opposition includes the following reasons:

  1. the grounds constituting ‘due cause’ for termination of services of tenured staff are expanded beyond those already available in existing legislation thereby introducing subjective discretionary powers which are inconsistent with career service expectations and entitlements;
  2. the Bill relegates to subordinate legislation or administrative direction matters affecting substantive rights of employees including the scale of compensation, the composition and powers of the appellate tribunal, and the criteria upon which services may be terminated;
  3. existing rights of reinstatement in tenured employment are abrogated by the Bill;
  4. ) agreement has not been reached on a number of matters which should have been finalised before any attempt to introduce legislation. These include: an arbitral determination on redundancy arrangements; benefits; procedures.
  5. as currently drafted the Bill overrides entitlements under Arbitration awards.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject passage of any legislation to extend powers of compulsory retirement of Australian Government employees unless and until any variation has been agreed with staff representatives.

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

Petition received.

Pensions

To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:

That, we, citizens of the Commonwealth, earnestly request our government to:

Legislate to provide for full pension rights for all Australian citizens after three years residence in this country. The present legislation on pension rights now discriminates against Australian citizens who are not from Commonwealth countries.

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

Petition received.

Post Office at Mt Gravatt East

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

We the undersigned solemnly protest that our local Post Office namely, Mt Gravatt East, and all members of its staff, as is, be neither closed, removed, upgraded nor altered in any way from the local position it now occupies, and as it is known, namely 28 Badminton Street, Mt Gravatt East, Mt Gravatt East Post Office 4 1 22.

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

Petition received.

Income Tax

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Pensions

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

That the delays between announcements of each quarterly movement in the Consumer Price Index and their application as a percentage increase in age and invalid pensions is excessive, unnecessary, discriminatory and a cause of economic distress to pensioners.

That proposals to amend the Consumer Price Index by eliminating particular items from the Index could adversely affect the value of future increases in age and invalid pensions and thus be a cause of additional economic hardship to pensioners.

The foregoing facts impel your petitioners to ask the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

  1. Require each quarterly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index to be applied to age and invalid and similar pensions as from the pension pay day nearest following the date of announcement of the CPI movement.
  2. Give an open assurance to all aged and invalid pensioners that any revision of the items comprising the Consumer Price Index will in no way result in reductions in the value of any future entitlements to pensioners.

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

Petition received.

Subsidies for Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes

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

That it is reported that the Federal Government is currently considering withdrawing its subsidy of $ 1 6.00 per day for all private hospital patients.

It is also considering withdrawing various nursing home subsidies for privatelyinsured patients.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should ensure that the current subsidy of $16.00 per day for all private hospital patients and the current nursing home subsidies should remain in force in order that they continue to alleviate the hardship to the people of Australia.

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

Petition received.

page 2169

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2169

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT: SCHOOL LEAVERS

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

Honourable members Hear, hear!

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

- Mr Speaker, I have enjoyed your goodwill in the last few weeks. The Attorney-General will remember that yesterday he told me he would look into the question of the advice given by the Government’s legal advisers to the Director-General of Social Services in the light of Mr Justice Stephen’s judgment in the Karen Green case. He said that he would see whether, in the circumstances of this case, the advice should be tabled. I therefore ask the Attorney-General: Has he decided whether this advice should be tabled? I also ask him whether the advice was given by the Solicitor-General and /or by himself? In case he does not table the advice, I ask him, as I did yesterday, whether he can assure the House that the Director-General’s determination was consistent with the advice he had been given?

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

– My difficulty is that I cannot table the advice because it was oral. The advice given in this matter was given in part by the Solicitor-General and in part, I understand, by the Crown Solicitor. I did not participate in the giving of that advice. The Solicitor-General went overseas recently and is now overseas. I have not been able to speak to him and therefore I am not able to confirm what advice he may have given. On the other hand, I can only assume that the advice he gave would have been consistent with the judgment. I have indicated already- I think I indicated it yesterday- that the purport of the judgment was not to find that Karen Green was entitled to unemployment benefits but to find that she was entitled to a declaration that the Director-General, in effect, had taken into account something which he should not have taken into account; or alternatively, that he should have taken into account matters which he had not taken into account. I think that is summed up in part of the judgment where Mr Justice Stephen said:

If, as I find to be the case, the plaintiff’s claim to unemployment benefit was not considered as section 107 contemplates that it should be, the plaintiff is, I think, entitled to some relief.

He went on to say that she was not entitled to all the relief. Under section 107 of the Social Services Act, the Director-General had to be satisfied as at 20 December last that Karen

Green had, amongst other things, taken reasonable steps to obtain work.

One of the questions that arose for the Director-General s consideration in relation to this matter after the judgment was as to the facts that he should take into account. One approach would have been to say: ‘I shall take into account such facts as I in fact knew on 20 December’. Another approach would have been to say: ‘I will take into account all facts including those that I knew at 20 December and such other facts as may have been revealed, say, in the High Court proceedings. ‘ I am told by the Crown Solicitor that the advice he gave orally recently to the Director-General was that the DirectorGeneral should take into account all the facts as known to him on 20 December, the date of the application, or which became known to him subsequently that were relevant to the question of whether, as at 20 December 1976, Karen Green had in effect taken reasonable steps to obtain such work.

I am further informed that the DirectorGeneral acted in accordance with that advice; that is to say, he gave consideration to all the facts and came to a decision based on those facts. That was the decision he published the other day. The precise decision, that is, the substance of the decision, was not something that was advised to him by the Crown Solicitor because that was a matter peculiarly for the DirectorGeneral. The Crown Solicitor only went so far as to say that if he were to give a decision which did go to the contrary, that is, that she was not entitled, it could be in the form of the document which in fact was published. One has to emphasise in relation to this matter that the decision related only to Karen Green and not to others.

page 2170

QUESTION

WHEAT INDUSTRY INQUIRY

Mr HYDE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I direct a question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Is there a need for the Industries Assistance Commission to report on the wheat industry by 14 May 1978? Have the commissioners been appointed for this inquiry? When are the hearings due to commence?

Mr HOWARD:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I can confirm for the benefit of the honourable member and a number of other honourable members who are most interested in this very important reference that the Industries Assistance Commission has been asked to report on wheat stabilisation. A reference was sent to the Commission by me on 14 February 1977. The IAC is required to report by 14 May 1978. As yet, a division of the Commission has not been appointed but, as the honourable gentleman will be aware, that is a matter for the Commission itself to determine. However, the Chairman of the Commission has indicated a schedule of hearings in a circular which was sent out on 27 May. Hearings will commence in Melbourne on 1 August and conclude in Bribane on 25 August and will be held also in Adelaide, Perth and Sydney. Any witnesses and other interested persons who have not already done so should notify the Commission immediately of their interest in order that they will receive copies of circulars, etc.

I should also point out that, due to the great importance of this inquiry by the IAC, the Commission has decided to issue a discussion paper early next month- I expect within a few dayswhich will greatly assist witnesses in preparing their submissions to the inquiry. I can only add that this is an extremely important inquiry so far as the rural area of Australia is concerned and urge all honourable senators who have a particular interest in it to encourage organisations and other interested parties to participate fully.

page 2170

QUESTION

SUPPLY OF URANIUM TO INDIA

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Are recent reports that the United States of America will supply uranium to India true? Is the Acting Prime Minister aware that India is not a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and has violated the purposes of the treaty in secrectly manufacturing nuclear weapons? Finally, will the Government, in line with the safeguard proposals announced last week, refuse to supply uranium to the United States on the grounds that its government may permit the re-export of uranium to a country that is determined to continue the manufacture of nuclear weapons?

Mr ANTHONY:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

– I do not know the circumstances of this matter regarding the United States of America but I would be very surprised if the United States had made a decision to sell any enriched uranium to India unless it had on the first hand received the strongest of provisos as to what would happen to that enriched uranium. It is true that India is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty but it is the desire of the United States to try to get as many countries as possible to become signatories and to abide by the rules laid down by that international organisation. Australia will be selling uranium only to those countries which are signatories to the NPT or which at present are classified as original weapon states. Under the NPT the 5 original weapon states are not necessarily signatories but they abide by the rules of the International

Atomic Energy Agency. So there is a slight distinction between the weapon states- those which have been approved- and those which are not approved such as India which has produced a nuclear weapon in violation of the international regulations.

page 2171

QUESTION

TARIFFS

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for National Resources and Minister for Overseas Trade. Now that he and the Government accept what some of us have been saying for many years, namely, that in the long term Australia would benefit from a steady reduction in tariffs, will he now take the next step and see that the Government’s short term actions on tariffs do not inhibit the long term reduction now seen as so desirable? Is the Acting Prime Minister aware that though in a particular industry employment may benefit from emergency protection there almost certainly will be corresponding costs which will result in employment being lost in other industries, particularly export industries for which the Acting Prime Minister has a special responsibility? Finally-

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman should ask his question. He is arguing the issue.

Mr KELLY:

– It is a very important question. Is he aware that a long period of time can be broken up into a series of short periods and that many people, including the honourable member for Wakefield-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is now arguing the matter. He will resume his seat. Sufficient of the question has been asked to enable an answer to be given.

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– I would not like to distinguish between periods of time. When some people talk it can be considered a very long time. In relation to our policy on tariffs and imports there has to be a sensible balance between competing demands in a community. We do have severe unemployment problems and they must be looked at in the light of present day circumcircumstances. Our overall policy is, of course, to reduce tariffs wherever possible. In respect of certain domestic industries we have had to impose some temporary restraints on imports but far too much has been made of this action as something which has impeded imports coming into the country.

Any temporary restraints that have been imposed in recent years have permitted imports at almost the existing record levels and the total quantity of imports coming into Australia reveals that temporary restraints are being applied to only about 4’/5 per cent of imports. I certainly hope that there is not a need to impose any more import restraints but for the moment there are some severe employment problems that must be looked at. We have a responsibility to look after the social problems of the community. We will do that but hope that with the passing of time we will be able to remove these restraints and allow imports freer access to Australia.

page 2171

QUESTION

ALBURY-WODONGA GROWTH CENTRE

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development and I refer to the answer he gave me last Thursday in reply to my suggestion that money could be made available to the Albury City Council by way of grants. He will recall that he strayed from the question to berate the governments of New South Wales and Victoria. Has the Minister seen a Press statement issued by Mr Jensen, the New South Wales Acting Minister for Decentralisation and Development, last Thursday in which he said that the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development was obscuring reality with streams of abuse? The New South Wales Minister said that there should be no mistake; the original agreement was merely for the payment of loan moneys. He emphasised that they were loan moneys.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable gentleman to ask his question.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Did not the statement say that both New South Wales and Victoria were prepared to adhere to the original agreement, that it was the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development who was trying to alter it, and that New South Wales was still prepared to adhere to the original agreement but the Commonwealth Minister was not prepared to accept that arrangement? Can the Minister explain to the House why the Government wishes to change the original agreement? Is it because he wants to reduce the Government’s financial obligations?

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

-I must admit that when answering questions on this subject now I really do have to rein in my feelings. The Government has shown remarkable tolerance on the question of Albury-Wodonga. I answer the honourable member’s question by taking up the last remark he made, which is the Government’s whole point. We believe that there has to be a degree of responsibility in the way we rein in expediture on this project. I make no secret of that. The Ministers concerned in New South Wales and Victoria agree with me wholeheartedly. On the question of cost sharing, I asked the ministerial council in November last year whether it would agree to a sharing arrangement. This has nothing to do with what the original arrangements may have been. The Ministers agreed that they would look at new arrangements urgently. Therefore there is no question about what original arrangements were made by that naive economist who is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. We will continue to try to solve this problem. When the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me the other day whether I would be meeting with the Ministers I said that I would meet them as soon as I could. Hopefully I shall be able to do so on Thursday night.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Will you adhere to the original arrangements?

Mr NEWMAN:

– There is no point in adhering to the original arrangements having regard to the spirit of responsibility in which this problem of Albury-Wodonga has to be solved. The arrangements that were made before were intolerable to the 3 governments concerned. Nobody argues about that. We are trying to make responsible agreements. We will continue to try to foster those negotiations. They will have to be negotiations on a sharing arrangement.

page 2172

QUESTION

SURPLUS FUNDS OF DEPARTMENTS

Mr CONNOLLY:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the Treasurer’s attention been drawn to a report in the National Times last weekend which alleged that Federal departments are desperate to use up any surplus funds from their 1976-77 Budget allocations by such dubious stratagems as autumn cleaning and interstate travel? What action has the Government taken to monitor such expenditure? Will the Treasurer assure the House that the Government will not take lightly any evidence of unnecessary expenditure by departments and that those responsible may experience a spring cleaning of their departmental expenditure in the forthcoming Budget?

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

-I appreciate the question raised by the honourable gentleman, no doubt both in his capacity as the honourable member for Bradfield and also as Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. My attention certainly has been drawn to those reports. I assure the honourable gentleman that action is being taken to make quite sure that we prevent expenditures being made in the final part of this year for the sole purpose of utilising funds which have been appropriated under the various allocations. I have specifically directed the Department of Finance to clamp down on any practice of this type. The Department is therefore monitoring very closely expenditures towards the end of the financial year in particular. I assure the honourable gentleman that any practices of this type that come to my attention or that of my department or are brought to attention by honourable members, including the honourable member for Bradfield, will be fully investigated and appropriate action will be taken. The Government certainly does not take this matter lightly. It is a matter of serious concern. The instances alleged in the article are subject to examination. The Government will make every effort to ensure that taxpayers ‘ funds are not wasted in this fashion.

page 2172

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE FOR HANDICAPPED PERSONS

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that funds for many worthy causes financed under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act have been fully allocated until 30 June 1978? Is the Treasurer aware that many new sheltered workshops cannot be financed because he will not allocate funds for this purpose? Is he aware of the misery that this entails for handicapped children and their parents? Will he cease acting like a Scrooge and allocate sufficient funds to assist worthy causes for handicapped persons?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will not use those terms.

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– I have never been aware that I have been acting as a Scrooge- to use the words of the honourable gentleman. In fact, if the honourable gentleman is fair and recollects what was said about handicapped children in the last Budget I think he will find- I speak heavily from recollection- that the increase in the handicapped children’s allowance was greater than that for almost any other single item in the Budget. The Government can stand fairly on that record. With regard to the question of funds in this area at present I shall consult with my colleague who has particular jurisdiction to see what are the answers to the questions raised by the honourable gentleman. I shall make sure that he receives an answer in writing within the next 24 hours.

page 2172

QUESTION

TELEVISION AND RADIO IN LEICHHARDT ELECTORATE

Mr THOMSON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

-I direct a question to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. He will be aware that I have a particular problem in my electorate. He recently advised me that a small community in my electorate can have television only if it is prepared to meet the full cost of installation-about $100,000-and the full cost of the operation of the television service thereafter. Can the Minister give any hope to isolated communities without television and radio, particularly in view of the large sums which have been spent in major cities to provide extra television channels, FM radio and community access radio services to people who already have a great deal?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I most certainly can give the honourable member some hope in this regard. As he well knows from my visits to his electorate and to the electorates of other members who represent rural areas, I have been concerned about providing television facilities for the rural parts of Australia as quickly as possible. This problem of providing facilities for probably 5 per cent of the community is not restricted to rural areas alone. There are problems in some capital cities as well. Now there is a program. The implementation of that program will be dependent upon what funds can be made available in the Budget and also upon what engineering resources are available for the implementation of the program when a decision has been reached.

As to the particular policy at the present time, if a rural community or a mining organisation wants to fund the expenditure now, the program can be accelerated. That is not to say that the Government will not be able to provide that program as we are gradually able to implement it. I say finally, because I believe there might be some misunderstanding of the Government’s policy with regard to communication services throughout Australia, that it is a conscious decision of this Government which is being implemented in my Department and in the CommissionsI am talking now of the Postal Commission and the Telecommunication Commissionto give a greater percentage of funds for the provision of improved services throughout rural Australia. Given a little bit of patience, I am quite certain that all my friends who represent rural areas will see that policy come to fruition.

page 2173

QUESTION

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EMPLOYMENT PROJECTS SCHEME

Mr RUDDOCK:
DUNDAS, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. In relation to the Community Development Employment Projects Scheme announced by him last week to provide employment for Aboriginals in particular communities, will the operation of the scheme and the provision of jobs ensure that the work test for unemployment benefit is capable of being applied in such communities?

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-The application of this Community Development Employment Projects Scheme will allow a work test to be applied in communities where it has been very difficult to apply the general unemployment benefit criteria to Aboriginals. This is simply because in many of these places work is not readily available. Aboriginals themselves made considerable representations to me against the continued payment of unemployment benefit to these communities, particularly those which still have a very strong tribal or tradition orientation. The payment of this benefit created a great deal of socially undesirable consequences. So, the scheme which was developed by me and supported by the Government is to inject into those communities funds more or less equivalent to the amount that would otherwise have gone to them by way of unemployment benefit. This will allow the communities themselves to identify work that would be of advantage to them and also allow them to choose those Aboriginals who would do the work. Thereby, those Aboriginals who were available for work and who offered themselves for work would be given it. Those who declined the work would have a work test against which their application for unemployment benefit could be considered. I think that these CDEPs as we call them, will be of tremendous benefit in these remote communities because they will provide work of a kind which the communities themselves want. The socially undesirable aspect of unemployment benefit being paid without regard to the desires of the communities themselves will be removed.

page 2173

QUESTION

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES

Mr UREN:

-I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister for Construction, by reminding him that yesterday, in response to a question, the Minister, when referring to the state of the non-residential sector of the building industry, said:

Even more significant is the fact that the private sector is now dominant vis-a-vis the government sector.

It is not a fact that traditionally the Government sector provides $2 of investment for every dollar provided by the private sector in the nonresidential building sector? Therefore I ask: Even with a private sector recovery, does this not mean that overall activity in the industry will decline next year in real terms because of the Government’s misguided budgetary strategy?

Mr McLEAY:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is anticipating what will be in the next Budget and I am not prepared to comment on that. If we look at the approvals figures- I did not want to bore the House with them yesterday and I hope not to bore the House with them today- and take the average for the 3 months January, February and March, the latest figures available, and we compare those figures with the figures for those months in 1975, which was, I remind the House, a year of Labor administration, we see that the private non-residential approvals figure for that quarter in 1975 was $5 lm out of a total of $ 163m. In the first year that we were in office this figure was increased to $75m out of a total of $ 130m. In the first 3 months of this year non-residential private approvals averaged $89m out of a total of $167m. I can assure the honourable gentleman that that is a very significant increase.

page 2174

QUESTION

TELEVISION SERVICES

Mr COTTER:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-The Minister for Post and Telecommunications would recall that in February he ordered a feasibility study into the possibility of providing television services to the towns of Exmouth and Onslow. Can he now indicate the results of that study? If not, can he indicate when the results will be available?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The question of providing television viewing facilities in areas, including areas within the honourable member’s electorate, is continually being studied. I cannot be specific as to the actual time but I can indicate to the honourable member that there is an acceleration in deciding on the son of program that is necessary to provide the earliest possible solution to problems in rural and outback Australia. I know that in the honourable member’s electorate there are significant problems in more than one district. This is a matter which is presently having the attention of the Department and myself. It is an electorate in which I believe and hope that there will be government action before too long.

page 2174

QUESTION

CATTLE SALES

Mr FRY:

– Did the Minister for Primary Industry tell Queensland cattle producers at Rockhampton recently that their action in withholding cattle from the Gracemere sale yards was shortsighted, foolish and not conductive to any long term improvements in the beef producers’ position? Were not the producers who were withholding their cattle simply acting on his Leader’s advice of 8 March when he suggested to producers that they withhold cattle from market to force exporters to pay higher prices? Is he contradicting his Leader? If not, what is he doing?

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

– The answer to the first part of the honourable gentleman’s question is yes. The answer to the second part is no. The answer to the third part is no. The answer to the fourth part is that I am endeavouring to ensure that cattle producers throughout Australia achieve a fair return for their product.

page 2174

QUESTION

HOUSE BUILDING APPROVALS

Mr CADMAN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Does the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development expect the implications of the rise in April approvals for house building to be sustained in the industry generally?

Mr NEWMAN:
LP

– It is a little difficult to make any prognosis on just one month’s figures but when taken in relation to the last quarter’s figures it is instructive to examine them. I think the figures of the Australia Bureau of Statistics show that there has been on seasonally adjusted figures a rise of about 19 per cent in approvals for the dwelling industry. A particularly pleasing part of that approval rate was that a strong part of it was related to private dwelling approvals. But, taken together with the commencement and approval figures for the March quarter, it would appear probable that we will have a slight decline for the rest of this financial year. As my colleague the Minister for Construction has said in this House on a number of occasions over the last couple of weeks, the matter has to be put into perspective; that is, that this financial year’s total activity in the building industry probably will be the best on record for the last 2 years. So that is a pretty good thing. Taking the overall view for the rest of this year I think, particularly because of the build-up of stocks and because of the high level in the last half of 1976, we could see some decline in the general activity in the building industry in 1 977.

page 2174

QUESTION

URANIUM

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Did the Acting Prime Minister tell a conference of the Country-Liberal Party in Alice Springs last weekend that the Government would decide to authorise the Ranger Uranium mining and export project? Is that the policy of the Government? If so, what then is the purpose of the debate on the 2 Fox reports that the Prime Minister has indicated will take place during the forthcoming Budget session of the Parliament and prior to any Government decisions on uranium mining and export?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

-There is no foundation whatsoever in the report that I said that the Ranger project would be going ahead.

page 2175

QUESTION

VISAS FOR SOUTH AFRICAN CRICKETERS

Mr BIRNEY:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I refer to the proposed world cricket series that is currently being organised by Mr Kerry Packer and to the fact that several South African cricketers have been enlisted to take pan and to play in Australia. I ask: If the Minister is satisfied that those cricketers would be coming here purely to play as individuals, not as cricketing representatives of South Africa and only as members of a world team, would visas be forthcoming?

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have seen reports of a team allegedly selected by Mr Kerry Packer. The reports included statements that various cricketers from South Africa would be invited to take part. The Government’s attitude towards sporting contact with South Africa is extremely well known and has been stated recently in this House by the Prime Minister. I have not had any applications for entry for South African cricketers to enable them to take part in the series, but I make it very clear to anybody associated with this enterprise that I would have to be satisfied that the entry of such sportsmen would strictly comply with the Government’s frequently stated policy in relation to sporting contacts with South Africa.

page 2175

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT: SCHOOL LEAVERS

Mr INNES:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. I preface it by reminding him that there is a long-standing tradition in this Parliament of ultimate ministerial responsibility for government policies and their implementation by the Public Service. I ask: Is it true that it was Government policy that school leavers should not be paid unemployment benefit in the last long vacation and that this blanket policy was found to be illegal by the High Court? Does the Government accept that this judgment, which was not appealed by the Crown, places a direct responsibility on the relevant Minister to see that the 35 000 young people who were denied unemployment benefit by this illegal policy have their cases reviewed? Can the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that this review will be undertaken?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– It is correct that there was a Government decision that school leavers would not be entitled to unemployment benefits during the first 6 weeks after they left school. There has been a High Court decision that referred partly to this matter, but the High Court decision did not rule against that measure. Indeed, when the

Government made this decision it left a degree of discretion in the hands of the Director-General of Social Services to make judgments as to whether payments should or should not be made. However, the whole question relating to this case will be thoroughly examined by the Government.

page 2175

QUESTION

CLOSURE OF MEATWORKS

Mr MacKENZIE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware that the general manager of Consolidated Meat Holdings Ltd at Wodonga has stated that the works will close indefinitely as a result of industrial action taken by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union? Is the Minister also aware that the AMIEU President has threatened retaliatory action against Consolidated Meat Holdings through industrial action at that company’s Shepparton plant? Is this not yet another example of how unreasonable union action can not only close works, creating serious local unemployment and possible permanent destruction of jobs, but also further erode our international trading competitiveness in meat and livestock products?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is not entitled to suggest the answer.

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

– There have been inordinate difficulties in industrial relations in the meat industry, particularly in Victoria. Repeated stoppages have quite disrupted the normal auction system of selling livestock. Works have been uncertain about the degree to which they would be able to kill livestock already purchased and the result has certainly been, as the honourable gentleman suggested, to the detriment of Australia’s international reputation and certainly to price returns to sorely affected producers.

The predicament, of course, is not peculiar to Victoria. It is true that in many States there have been quite severe industrial troubles which have seriously prejudiced the recovery of the meat industry. If one looks at the extent to which there has been new investment in the whole of the livestock sector one can see that enormous sums were spent in abattoirs, upgrading the facilities generally to meet the standards required and the specifications laid down for the export of Australian meat. Much of this money has been spent in improving the general operating conditions within the works. For all that, the general performance of the labour force within the works does not seem to have improved at all. In fact the volume of work and the hours spent in work if anything have deteriorated. Therefore the overall performance is certainly not assisting to overcome the overall economic plight of the cattle industry.

As regards the closure of works, a number of abattoirs have intimated that under present circumstances they find it extremely difficult to continue operating and I believe it to be true, as the honourable gentleman suggested, that one abattoir at least at Wodonga has intimated that all men will be dismissed and the plant closed down. Were this to happen it obviously would not assist those who are currently working within the plant. It is but another indication of how radical left wing trade union leaders seem intent on destroying job opportunities for those whom they purport to represent. While that sort of direction is pursued within the trade union movement I am afraid there is little chance for the prosperity of that sector.

The difficulty in this sector is and has been to some degree a matter of communication. One of the purposes of setting up a conference system under the meat and livestock legislation currently before the Parliament is to try to ensure that there will be an opportunity for all involved in the trade to meet and to discuss industrial problems and such other problems that affect all parties within the meat industry. Similarly, it may be possible within the tripartite council for which my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is responsible to set up again some forum within which there may be meaningful discussion. In these discussions I only hope that the rank and file of meatworkers will be able to have their voices heard because often I suspect that they have an attitude to industrial disputations which is entirely different from that of those who for the time being at least are their industrial leaders.

page 2176

QUESTION

HEALTH: TOMOGRAPHY

Dr CASS:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

-Will the Minister for Health confirm reports that the Federal Government has decided to approve health insurance benefits ranging from $128 to $245 per diagnosis for tomography, a new X-ray technique? If so, does this not open the door for massive over use of the new computerised X-ray equipment unless strict conditions on the use of tomography are laid down? Without strict conditions is there not a lucrative temptation to unscrupulous doctors to over-utilisation as proved to be the case in pathology testing with the advent of computerised technology? Does the Minister agree that this will mean skyrocketing health costs to the community in the long run as private entrepreneurs attempt to cash in on the massive profits from this area of radiology?

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

– I thank the honourable member for Maribyrnong for the question. Computerised axial tomography, or CAT scanning, is an innovation in the area of diagnostic services extended by the medical profession. I understand that substantial orders have been placed for CAT scanners. As a consequence, to try to overcome some of the likelihood of excessive scanning of patients which could also cause some excessive radiation, I have asked my Department to prepare for me a report on terms of reference for a working party to inquire into this activity in Australia. Neither the Government, the community nor I would like to see, the degree of abuse take place in this part of diagnostic medicine in Australia which we have seen in pathology.

page 2176

QUESTION

STEALING OF GOVERNMENT CHEQUES

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. I refer to allegations made by me last February, which led to me being investigated by the Commissioner for Community Relations in which I said, simply for identification purposes, that an organised group of Brisbane Aboriginals had been stealing Government originated cheques in Brisbane. Have Commonwealth Police investigated the claims? Has evidence been forthcoming to bear witness to the truth of my assertions and hence get that other person off my back once and for all?

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

-The Minister for Administrative Services has supplied me with the following information in answer to the honourable gentleman’s question: Since January 1977, Commonwealth Police in Brisbane have been investigating information received by them that a group of Aborigines had been committing crimes by stealing Government cheques from letter boxes and forging and uttering. On 6 April 1977, 5 Aborigines in the Brisbane area were arrested by Police for the stealing, forging and uttering of stolen cheques. I am informed that 5 persons are on remand awaiting trial. Since 6 April 1977, 4 other persons, consisting of 3 Aboriginals and a postman, have been arrested by Commonwealth Police on similar charges. The postman and one Aboriginal have been convicted since, relative to those charges.

page 2177

QUESTION

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX: MEDIBANK

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that in the national wage case, arising out of the December quarter consumer price index increase, all calculations submitted by the Government to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission relating to tax indexation were based on the assumption that there would be no discount for Medibank or devaluation? Does this not compound the misrepresentation made to the Commission in the September quarter case, to which I referred yesterday? Is it also a fact that the consumer price index increase figure on which the 1976-77 tax indexation calculation was based was reduced by health insurance charges being eliminated when Medibank was introduced? Why is tax indexation being affected adversely by health charges this year when taxpayers did not benefit last year?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

-I will deal with the honourable gentleman gently today for reasons of which the House will be aware. The fact is that the recent Bill introduced by the Government and passed by this House represented an adjustment to the figures on which tax indexation was based. I made perfectly clear why those adjustments were made. When the Commonwealth’s submission was put in the case before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to which the honourable gentleman referred, the policy which has just been announced was not then the policy of the Government. The adjustments followed the recent decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which, as I mentioned to the House earlier this week, allowed an adjustment factor of 0.39 per cent, rounded to 0.4 per cent, for devaluation. The Commonwealth in fact is pursuing the logic and common sense which the Commission itself adopted on that occasion.

page 2177

QUESTION

DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH SOUTH AFRICA

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the continued provocative statements made by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and other Ministers of this country against the Republic of South Africa, a country with whom we have ties going back over many years, with whom we have considerable trade connections, and with whom we have diplomatic relations and exchange ambassadors, is the Government contemplating breaking diplomatic relations with South Africa? How else does he explain the actions of the various Ministers? Is the Government simply currying to the communist and Afro-Arab bloc in the United Nations?

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

– On many occasions in this Parliament the Prime Minister and members of the Government have expressed concern about the policy of apartheid as it is followed by the present Administration within the Republic of South Africa. Statements which have been made have related only to that policy. The good relations which have existed between our countries have been fostered at both a commercial and a political level in every other sense. However, the general attitude of our Government remains firm. We believe that the policy of apartheid as applied in South Africa is one which is not capable of being supported in the light of our attitude towards democracy and the equality of people within the general concepts applied by the United Nations. For that reason, I can assure the honourable gentleman that there is no suggestion of our severing diplomatic ties with the Republic, but there is a hope that as a result of calmness and reason it might see fit to change its racial policy. In other respects, we also hope that commercial and other contacts between our countries will be furthered.

page 2177

FISHING INDUSTRY RESEARCH COMMITTEE

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

– Pursuant to section 19 of the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969, I present the seventh annual report of the Fishing Industry Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 2177

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Mr SINCLAIR:
Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs · New England · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Foreign Affairs annual report for the year 1976.

page 2177

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY ENDOWMENT FUND

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · Flinders · LP

– Pursuant to section 10 of the Science and Industry Endowment Act 1926, 1 present the audit of accounts of the Science and Industry Endowment Fund for the year ended 30 June 1 976.

page 2177

COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 25 of the Commonwealth Grants

Commission Act 1973, I present the Commonwealth Grants Commission Special Report (1977) on financial assistance for local government. The report has been referred to the Premiers for their consideration.

page 2178

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

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

– For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on high voltage switchgear from India (antidumping).

page 2178

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO CHIROPRACTIC, OSTEOPATHY, HOMOEOPATHY, AND NATUROPATHY

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

For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Chiropractic, Osteopathy, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy, April 1977.

page 2178

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · Warringah · LP

- Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr MacKELLAR:

– Yes. In today’s Sun newspaper there is a report of a statement issued by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) which reads:

Government spokesmen, particularly the Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Minister, Mr MacKellar, take every opportunity to point out alleged dire consequences if we do not boost immigration intakes to unrealisticafly high levels.

Firstly, I point out that I have never outlined a figure which the immigration level should reach. Secondly, the same article states:

The Government’s argument is based on questionable assertions made in the recent ‘green paper’ on immigration policies and Australia’s population, which was prepared by the Minister’s own department on his instruction.

I point out to the House that the Green Paper was prepared by the Australian Population and Immigration Council of which the President of the honourable member’s own party, the Australian Labor Party, is a member and he was in agreement with that Green Paper.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Yes. On the first page of the Financial Review today reference is made to my tabling yesterday a paper from the Treasury regarding a restructuring of accounts. It implies quite clearly that it was a current paper. As a matter of fact, it was not a current paper. It was a paper prepared for a previous Ministry which had been recirculated by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) recently. I want to make it quite clear, because there is quite a considerable and important misrepresentation flowing from what is in the Financial Review.

page 2178

PRIMARY SCHOOL AT KATHERINE SOUTH, NOTHERN TERRITORY

Report of Public Works Committee

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

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

Primary school at Katherine South, Northern Territory.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2178

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STANDING COMMITTEE ON ROAD SAFETY

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

-On behalf of the Standing Committee on Road Safety, I bring up the report of the Committee on heavy vehicle safety.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr KATTER:

-by leave-I feel sure the Parliament can appreciate the responsibility that this Committee bears in attempting to find solutions to the very high road accident casualty figures in this country. Current statistics indicate that an average of 10 deaths occur per day on Australian roads. Committee members and staff of this Committee could be forgiven for regarding this Committee as the most important in the Parliament in terms of its constant dealings with human tragedy. As the activities of the Committee proceed, it is becoming more and more apparent that the final authority on road safety matters, whether it be statutory or otherwise, must have independence, must have muscle and must be able to demand the respect and cooperation of the States. We feel that any petty objections by some of the States which feel that their authority is being threatened should be put to one side. Surely in this matter it should be realised that the paramount objective must be to cut down the slaughter on our roads.

The heavy vehicle safety report which has just been tabled is the second report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road

Safety established in the Thirtieth Parliament. The report is also the second in a series of reports that the Committee is preparing on safety aspects of vehicles using public roads. The first report related to passenger motor vehicle safety and was tabled on 2 June 1976. The next report which we will commence work on very shortly shall concern motorcycle and bicycle safety.

During the course of the heavy vehicle inquiry, the Committee held 10 public hearings and inspected truck and bus shows in Sydney. The Committee also held informal discussions with drivers of heavy vehicles. Seventy-four submissions were received during the course of the inquiry.

There are 28 major recommendations in this report covering a wide range of matters. They include recommendations calling for safety related improvements in the important areas of heavy vehicle braking, steering and handling, tyre standards and the use of retreads, structural strength of truck cabins and bus frames, loading practice, vehicle inspections, modifications and component failures as a source of accidents. A number of recommendations also have been made in areas related to the heavy vehicle driver’s field of vision, his comfort and the use of seat belts.

In relation to other road users, the report makes what I believe are extremely important recommendations. Having regard to the frequency and the severity of rear-end accidents involving cars and other light vehicles crashing into the rear of heavy vehicles, the Committee has recommended that States and Territories make mandatory requirements for rear-end markings and under-run barriers on heavy vehicles. The Committee received many diverse opinions on the desirability of having mandatory requirements in this area of heavy vehicle safety.

The Committee concentrated its attention in the report on determining the nature and extent of problems related to heavy vehicle safety and on the range of measures by which heavy vehicle safety could be improved. I must say that I was pleased to find that many significant areas for improvement have been identified and that regulatory authorities are giving increasing attention to the need for further regulation over heavy vehicles. The Committee was also impressed with the evidence given by a number of heavy vehicle manufacturers demonstrating their continuing concern to improve the safety of vehicles produced.

The lack of adequate accident statistics is a basic problem faced by both vehicle manufacturers and regulatory authorities in attempting to make rational decisions on the effectiveness of various safety measures. Extensive comment was made on this problem in the Committee’s previous report on passenger motor vehicle safety. In the case of heavy vehicle accidents, the Committee is aware that extensive investigations of such accidents are currently being conducted. However these studies will only partly meet the need for more data and the Committee remains deeply concerned with the lack of uniformity in the collection of accident data. It might interest honourable members to know that even in the elementary matter of ordinary police accident reports, no 2 States use the same form. There is an urgent need to implement a uniform accident report form throughout Australia and this report urges relevant data collecting authorities to cooperate in a complete rationalisation of accident data collection. We feel that comprehensive data collected on a uniform basis will enable authorities more accurately to assess the benefits of safety measures introduced, and determine areas requiring priority attention in the future.

I would like to pay tribute to the staff associated with the inquiry and the preparation of this report. Since this Committee commenced its inquiries in 1972, we have been most fortunate in having the assistance of staff who obviously appreciate the very serious nature of our work and who have ably assisted the Committee in its inquiries. I would also like to express my thanks to the witnesses and experts who have contributed to this inquiry. I would like to thank both the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) and officers of his Department who have so willingly assisted the Committee. Finally I would like especially to commend the Road Trauma Committee of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons for the superb manner in which it organised and conducted the recent International Conference of the Association for Accident and Traffic Medicine. I look to the Road Trauma Committee to assist our Parliamentary Committee in the future to the same great extent as it has in the past.

I commend the report to the House.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

-by leave- I join with the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) in expressing my thanks and appreciation to the staff of the Standing Committee on Road Safety for their support. I likewise join with him in expressing my appreciation to the witnesses, some of whom came from overseas, for bringing to the Committee their experience and informing the Committee of their objectives in endeavouring to improve the safety of heavy vehicles. This is an area in which there is a great and urgent need to do something. Once again we have an all-party committee bringing down unanimous recommendations. The recommendations in this report were unanimous. Some members of the Committee, because of other committee commitments, were unable to be present when the recommendations were being formulated but their views which had been conveyed by them to the Committee were taken into consideration when preparing the final draft of the report.

Among the recommendations was one relating to heavy vehicle braking. It astounded me to find out that although there was a considerable amount of knowledge flowing to the manufacturing industry from the aircraft industry which, as honourable members would realise, has the latest technology in braking systems, this knowledge is not passed on to the road vehicle industry. Heavy braking is an area on which a great deal more study can and should be done by the industry itself so as to improve the vehicle that is on the road. Other areas in which there is need for improvement are in relation to steering and handling, tyre standards and the use of retreads, the strength of cabin and bus frames, loading practices, and modifications. Once someone buys a vehicle very little regard is had for the subsequent condition of that vehicle and for the way in which the owner can either add to it, subtract from it, add wheels and do all sorts of things when in so many cases he does not have a clue what the overall result of the modifications that he has carried out will be. This criticism applies particularly to one-man businesses and to one truck or two truck operators. They are more concerned with the economics of their industry, and with how they can cut costs and remain more competitive than the other fellow and do not have sufficient regard for the safety of the vehicle they are driving or for their own well-being following modifications which they have made to the vehicle with so very little technical advice and assistance.

Other areas of concern are component failures and vehicle inspection. Not nearly enough heavy vehicle inspection is carried out. Before we as drivers of passenger vehicles can re-register our vehicles, they have to be submitted for close examination by registered inspectors. There is a great need for much more of this type of inspection of heavy vehicles, not so much on an annual basis as on a quarterly basis, as these vehicles are so heavily used and knocked around. Another recommendation related to rear end accidents and the fitting of under-run barriers of which the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock) is a great advocate. So there is any amount of work to be done to improve the safety of heavy vehicles.

One of the things which concerns me is the failure of governments to implement the recommendations of parliamentary committees. We had a committee comprising an expert group bring down its report entitled Road Accident Situation in Australia in September 1972. The former Labor Government accepted the recommendations of that Committee. It was not a Committee appointed by the Labor Government. It was one of the previous Government’s committees which had been appointed, I think, by the present Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon). As I have said, all the Committee’s recommendations were adopted and put into effect to the extent of setting up the Road Safety and Standards Authority. Unfortunately, it was disbanded in February 1976. There is no reduction in the number of accidents occurring or the number of people being killed on the roads today. Statistics show that in 1973, 3679 people were killed on the roads. In 1974, 3572 people were killed on the roads. In 1975, 3694 people were killed on the roads. In 1976, 3584 people were killed on the roads. In 1975, 89 499 people were injured in motor vehicle accidents. There is a need to take greater note of the recommendations of these non-political committees.

I emphasise, as I did earlier, that the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Road Safety are unanimous. They are not the recommendations of the National Country Party, the Liberal Party or the Labor Party. The Committee members were in complete agreement on the recommendations. For this reason alone I believe that there is a need for the Government to pay greater heed to the decisions that have been taken. For example, the Chairman of the Committee in his closing remarks referred to the need for a collection of accident data. That was a recommendation in a report on the road accident situation. It would have been brought about by the Road Safety and Standards Authority which would have been functioning well and truly by this date.

To save a lousy $ 10m when there is no reduction in the accident rate and the cost of road accidents is about $ 1000m a year was, in my opinion, a paltry action and not in the interests of the people of this country. If the Road Safety and Standards Authority could have saved one life it would have achieved something. I believe it would have done much more than that. The decision to establish the Authority was not a political one. It was a decision arrived at by a Committee set up by this Government in 1971-72. Once again, I hope that the Minister for Transport will take note of the recommendations of this report which were made on a non-political basis and move hastily to bring about their implementation.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

-by leave-My purpose in rising to speak is to address myself to only 2 principal recommendations contained in the report of the Standing Committee on Road Safety. They are the recommendations seeking to compel the provision of under-run barriers on large vehicles which have an overhanging tray and rear marking plates on heavy vehicles. However, I cannot avoid directing some attention to the remarks of my colleague who spoke before me on this subject, the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones). I should like to think that the problem of achieving standardisation or uniform collection of data could be solved simply by allocating a sum of money to establish a Commonwealth authority such as the Road Safety and Standards Authority. Regrettably, it is not as simple as that. Data can be collected on a uniform basis only when those parties who are responsible for collecting the information are prepared to forgo some of their powers to set the terms upon which they now collect information. No number of authorities established by the Commonwealth, when they lack constitutional competence, can overcome the right of each State to set its own method of collecting information. Each police force, each transport authority and so on has its own method. It is not a matter in which one can introduce a political note and say that something has been lost because some savings were made in a Budget context.

In this report we are seeking State cooperation in providing for under-run barriers on heavy vehicles. We are compelling manufacturers to make all motor sedan vehicles crash worthy so that the front or back of a vehicle will concertina if it hits a heavy object and protect the passengers inside the passenger compartment. The development of crash worthiness in motor vehicles has cost a lot of money. We have on our roads other vehicles which immediately undo that crash worthy capacity in the motor car. They have wheels and a tray and when a collision with a car takes place what happens? The bonnet goes underneath the tray, the tray goes into the front of the car passenger compartment and its occupant is injured. If there were a substantial barrier at the end of the vehicle or if the vehicle tyres were set well back with barriers in between the crash worthiness effect of the car would play its role and the occupants would be protected.

People talk about a cost benefit analysis. A cost benefit analysis may be carried out on how much extra it costs to run a vehicle which has a crash barrier. We could say that it is a very expensive item. We should put that up against a person whose life is lost because the capacity of a vehicle to save his life was nullified because another vehicle on the road was totally incompatible with it. If it was a matter of having telegraph poles down the middle of the highway we would not hesitate to get them off the road. Trucks, of course, cannot be taken off the road but they can be made safer. This step is one method by which it can be done. Coupled with that is the provision of adequate rear marking. Quite obviously if we can stop cars hitting trucks because people can see a vehicle ahead, so much the better. These recommendations are important. I see them as being the crux of this report. I believe that all honourable members ought to give this report their utmost consideration.

page 2181

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR SCHOOL LEAVERS

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The Government’s defiance of the law and disregard for the young people in the payment of unemployment benefits to school leavers.

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

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

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Karen Green case will go down in history as part of the present Government’s record of hostility towards anybody who has a meritorious claim for social benefits. The Government has used that case to say that it will not grant unemployment benefits in those circumstances because it will mean that so much more money will have to be paid. In answer to questions asked in the House today the Government said that Karen Green is to be treated as a person and not the subject of a uniform policy. Is that the true position? Is it not a fact that if the

Government was to listen to what the High Court said and to the claims of Karen Green she could well meet the criteria of 35 000 other school leavers who have been denied unemployment benefits? Taking the 35 000 school leavers claiming unemployment benefits, it means that the Government is trying to opt out of a liability of $10m to $12m. It is erroneous, improper and unfair to say that anybody else might succeed but Karen Green cannot succeed because of some peculiar difficulties with her case, her submissions or application. His Honour, Mr Justice Stephen, in the High Court on 15 April found:

If, as I find to be the case, the plaintiffs claim -

That is Karen Green ‘s claim- to unemployment benefit was not considered as s. 107 contemplates that it should be - the Government still tries to say that Karen Green lost the case-

  1. . the plaintiff is, I think, entitled to some relief.

His Honour said: ‘I cannot give that relief myself. The Act provides that the relief is to be given to her’. I repeat that His Honour said: ‘I find that the plaintiff’s case was not considered as the section contemplates and the plaintiff is, I think, entitled to some relief. What happened as a result of that determination? The case was referred back to the Director-General who has the responsibility to determine Karen Green’s application. On 27 May last, the Director-General, Mr Daniels, said:

I am not satisfied that … she had taken reasonable steps to obtain work suitable to be undertaken by her.

What the Opposition is saying is that it would not matter what Karen Green did or what efforts she made to find employment; she was going to be denied justice by this Government, on the basis that if the Government were to give ground in the Karen Green case, the Government said: We would have to give ground in 35 000 other cases and we are not going to do so’. Is that not an indictment of the Government? How can a government defy a law which this Parliament passed? It should not place the blame on the public servant who has to abide by policy directives. It should not blame Mr Daniels as it is now being suggested that he is to blame by saying that this was not an inflexible rule. It was a very inflexible decision by the Government that the Director-General was not to give ground in any circumstance in 1976 to give school leavers the benefit of unemployment benefit.

Certainly the Government might have been able to find circumstances in regard to one or two school leavers which it might have said entitled the Director-General to refuse to give those school leavers unemployment relief. But would this apply in Karen Green’s case? What better case could we find? Karen Green is a young lady, 16 years of age, who had completed a school year and her secondary schooling. She had even had discussions with a guidance officer in November as to what she would do. She immediately registered for employment with the Commonwealth Employment Service. She sought job after job in December. The record clearly shows that. But where did this young lady fail to meet the criteria? As I say, she had no chance. She was prejudged. It was an issue of economic policy of this Government. The Government was going to do 2 things: Keep the unemployment statistics down and keep its financial liability down. What sort of a policy is it that it applies only to school leavers? As His Honour said in the course of the judgment, it was a policy aimed directly at school leavers. Anybody else who applied for benefit prior to the school leaving period commencing would of course have obtained the benefit. This is the point. His Honour said:

There remains in question her eligibility before that date; should the Director-General, in conformity with my declaration, undertake a re-examination of the plaintiff’s position and conclude that, on the facts then existing, she was in fact qualified as from some earlier date she will, no doubt, receive payment accordingly . . .

In this House, we have had answers to questions which state that the young lady was being dealt with on the merits of the case, and that there were found to be no merits involved. Therefore, what the Director-General has now found to be the situation means that she never had any entitlement to unemployment benefit.

Let us look at the facts of what the Government did. As I said, it issued a policy directive for this last school leaving year which clearly stated that in the case of school leavers no unemployment benefit was to be paid until 22 February. It must astound the people of Australia that what is deemed to be the Director-General’s discretion now is that, from 22 February, Karen Green qualified in meeting the criteria. Section 107 of the Social Services Act makes it very clear that where a person is unemployed and has taken reasonable steps to obtain such work- and that is the position of Karen Green- unemployment benefit should be payable. The benefit would be payable as it would be payable to anybody who left school during 1976 or other than what is called the 1976 school leaving period. What the Government has to face up to is the fact that it issued a policy directive, which set out in terms which it itself issued to the Director-General, that he was not to pay unemployment benefit to people leaving school in 1976 until 22 February 1977. And when Karen Green herself lodged the application for unemployment benefit as she did back in the December period, the officer taking the form immediately noted on the top the date 22 February 1977’.

How can it be then that we have an Act of Parliament which says that the Director-General shall use his discretion and a High Court determination which finds that the Director-General did not use his discretion correctly and finds in favour of the plaintiff that she has a case if the Director-General will only look at it? As His Honour himself says, if the Director-General finds that this young lady genuinely sought employment after she had ended her school career, was seeking a place in the work force and had taken reasonable steps to obtain suitable employment, she virtually must qualify. In other words, His Honour clearly said to the Government: ‘You cannot direct Daniels, the DirectorGeneral, to deny this child her unemployment benefit because you have laid down an economic policy that says that nobody is to get unemployment benefit’. The laws of this land say that everybody is entitled to unemployment benefit if they are unemployed and have taken reasonable steps to obtain work.

The Director-General’s discretion was completely removed. It was removed by a policy document issued by the Fraser Government. The Cabinet determined that there would be no discretion for the Director-General as far as school leavers were concerned. These young people were to be denied the monetary benefits that would be payable to anybody else. The Government was telling Mr Daniels that that was how he would interpret this policy. It was a most inflexible policy, as was clearly said by His Honour in making the decision. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) is quite wrong again when he stands up in this House and says that the policy was not really an inflexible one: It was a flexible policy. We cannot find any school leaver who qualified for unemployment benefit before 22 February 1977 because the issue was pre-determined by the Cabinet and the executive government of this country, completely contrary to the law.

I find it incredible to think that Mr Daniels has now added that Karen Green could not obtain work suitable ‘for her’. What evidence was there of what work was suitable for her? A child, 16 years of age, went to the guidance officer at school and sought guidance as to what employment she should be seeking. She was tola that she should try to engage in the trade of apprentice cook because it does not require an enormous amount of skills at that stage. The question would be whether the aptitude was there. The youngster applied for 3 positions and registered with 2 employment agencies. She complied with every aspect of the regulations. By the same token, let us not forget that she has no father; her mother is a widow. There is no suggestion of trying to exploit the situation. The terms of the Social Services Act clearly spell out what the Director-General is going to do. He has failed to do those things. The High Court determination says: ‘I find for the plaintiff, but I cannot find in monetary terms. I merely ask the DirectorGeneral to satisfy himself as to whether the girl had genuinely left school, whether she had genuinely sought employment and whether she was in fact employed ‘. That young lady, Karen Green, succeeds on every one of those 3 counts. On the face of it, the person who has failed is the Director-General. He has abdicated his responsibilities because he was instructed so to do. So, here we have the Government today and even the Director-General saying that this was a case for Karen Green only. Does the Government really think that it can fool the Australian people that way? Does the Government not realise that even the Director-General has had to say: ‘I have had discussions following a High Court judgment’- and by the way, that was back on 15 April-‘ and I have had a number of discussions with officers of the Attorney-General’s Department and I am taking the benefit of thenadvice on the legal aspects . The legal aspects were non-existent from the point of view of what the Director-General had to do. The judgment states that the Director-General had to take advice as to what were the facts on which he could exercise a discretion. No law can form the discretion. A law merely says whether the DirectorGeneral has exercised his discretion properly on a criterion which commonsense would indicate should apply in this case. But that was not done. The facts, as found by His Honour, Mr Justice Stephen, were as follows:

I find . . . that by the end of . . . 1976 the plaintiff had determined to leave school and to seek employment at the end of the school year in November 1976; that she abided by this decision and to the best of her ability sought employment, without success, from the month of December 1976 onwards; that her lack of success was not due to any want of trying but rather to her relatively poor qualifications combined with the depressed employment conditions then being experienced in Hobart.

How is it that this callous Government can then say: ‘We are dealing only with Karen Green’s case and all those other 34 999 school leavers may apply’? Why does the Government not face up to the fact that it issued a policy directive to the Department of Social Security stating that it should not pay any school leavers the unemployment benefit until 22 February 1977? How is it that Karen Green’s application, when lodged in December, was marked with that February date? What a fortuitous situation! When she applied in December the clerk who took the application was able to put on it the date that subsequently became the date determined at the Director-General’s discretion as to when she qualified for the benefit. The clerk was able to forecast 2 months beforehand what the DirectorGeneral was going to say- that eligibility for unemployment benefit would date from 22 February 1977. Is it any wonder his honour rejected the Government’s claim that the Director-General had acted properly?

We say that this case is an example of what this Government will do. It will stop at nothing to deny people their rights and will bend the law and give instructions to public servants who are frightened to disobey. Why should the public servants take the risk when the Government has this policy and $ 10m or $ 12m is involved? Let us have a look at that judgment. Let us apply it and then give justice to Karen Green. She is entitled to the unemployment benefit from 20 December when she first applied. The Government has taken a weak kneed approach and stated that the judgment applied only in relation to her case, knowing full well that if she is successful every other youngster who applied will be able to receive that benefit.

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

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

– The Opposition has sought to make the Karen Green case a major political issue, so far without any real success. Notwithstanding the High Court’s decision and the determination made by the Director-General of Social Security in his own right, the Opposition has failed to make a credible case. I hope to prove the basis for that statement. In spite of a series of questions in the other chamber and several in the House of Representatives and the discussion of this matter as a matter of public importance in both chambers, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) and members of the Opposition persist in their attempts to make the matter an emotive political issue. If it were an Opposition other than the present Opposition involved there may have been some sense in pursuing this course for political motives. But the Opposition has failed because of the Whitlam Government’s record in regard to employment. It was so appalling. Nobody really believes what the Opposition says. Indeed, the Whitlam Government’s irresponsible attitude to the payment of the unemployment benefit was to its public discredit. Once again the House has to be reminded of the Whitlam Government’s unemployment record. Inheriting an unemployment rate of 2.4 per cent of the work force m December 1972, that rate had reached 5.4 per cent of the work force in December 1975.

Mr Innes:

– Get on with the matter you are supposed to be talking about.

Mr HUNT:

– The honourable member for Melbourne does not like the truth. Unemployment trebled under the Labor Government; it has not trebled under our government. The number of unemployed persons under 21 years of age doubled. What a record! The Labor Government’s shocking record during its term of office leaves the Opposition in no position to seek to capitalise on Karen Green’s unemployment She had not taken appropriate steps to be eligible for benefits.

Let us get the issue into perspective. Refusing the unemployment benefit automatically to school leavers was a matter of policy. We do not retract from that policy. That was announced by the Government last year following the release of a working committee’s report on the unemployment benefit. That working party was set up while the Opposition was in government because it was concerned about many matters associated with eligibility for the unemployment benefit. Many Ministers of the former Government publicly stressed their concern about the meeting of the eligibility requirements by those who were at that time being paid the unemployment benefit. The present Government addressed itself to the need to postpone the payment of the unemployment benefit in cases where a person voluntarily left his job. It also addressed itself to the matter of whether the unemployment benefit should be automatically payable to a person immediately on leaving school or whether, in terms of the Social Services Act, reasonable steps should have to have been taken by that person to obtain employment before becoming eligible for the unemployment benefit.

The policy of the Government with regard to school leavers was announced early last year- in fact on 23 March last year. It was stated at that time that in the past many school leaver claimants who said they were not going back to school had been paid the unemployment benefit and for one reason or another they had returned to school. Of course some claimed the benefit without any intention of being dishonest and had later gone back to school. It is apparent, however, that there were others who merely sought the benefit for the holiday period knowing that they would be returning to their studies. This meant that they were receiving a benefit to which they would not otherwise have been entitled. It was said then in relation to school leavers that if the applicant demonstrated hardship as a result of non-payment of the unemployment benefit during the periods mentioned sympathetic consideration would be given to the case and the payment of a special benefit would be made in appropriate cases.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– That is not an unemployment benefit.

Mr HUNT:

– It was said that a special benefit would be paid in cases where need was demonstrated. That is the difference between this Government and the Government that was in office previously. We turn our attention to people who have a demonstrated need. We attempt to assist the needy sections of the community. It was said that we would definitely use the special benefit in appropriate cases. Under section 124 of the Social Services Act the Director-General of Social Security has a discretion to make a special benefit payment where because of age, physical or mental disability, or domestic circumstances, or for any other reason a person is unable to earn sufficient livelihood for himself or his dependants, if any. The rate of the special benefit is equivalent to the rate of the unemployment benefit.

Mr Justice Stephen made 2 draft declarations on the day on which he made the draft declarations final. In response to submissions as to the form of his declaration on 22 April 1977 Mr Justice Stephen said in court, more or less: ‘It is not for me, in the declaration, to tell the DirectorGeneral what he might have regard to. The Director-General should have responded to the claim by making all such investigations, if any, as he then might have thought necessary. Whether he should have inquired of her more than she disclosed is a matter for the Director-General. It is then up to the Director-General to investigate as he thinks fit and I will not define what he thinks. I cannot go any further. He should be entirely at large and I regard the Act as conferring jurisdiction upon him to make such investigations as he thinks fit. It seems to be, if there is one vital factor, such as making of efforts to obtain employment by the plaintiff, as to which the plaintiff may notify to the Director-General, as that might be regarded by the Director-General as vital, the Director-General would regard that as something appropriate for investigations to the extent of asking the claimant: “Have you made any employment applications?” I am inclined to the view that that is something he might think fit’. In view of that legal point I really cannot understand why the Opposition should initiate a discussion on the Government’s defiance of the law. Where is the defiance of the law?

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– It found for the plaintiff in that decision.

Mr HUNT:

– His Honour handed down a judgment recognising that the Director-General has the right under the Act- it is to be found in section 107 of the Act- to make a determination in respect to specific cases for the application of unemployment benefit. So nobody can claim for one minute that the Government has acted ultra vires the Act or ultra vires the judgment. I would like to take the opportunity of having incorporated in Hansard, with the leave of the Opposition, the declaration of Mr Justice Stephen at that time.

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

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

The document read as follows-

Declare that upon receipt of the plaintiff’s claim for unemployment benefits dated the 20th day of December 1976, the Director-General should have considered all the circumstances of the plaintiff’s claim, making such investigations as he determines, and in the light thereof, should have decided whether the plaintiff answered the descriptions contained in paragraph (a) and (b) of s. 107 of the Social Services Act 1 947 and whether she had also satisfied him as to the several matters referred to in paragraph (c) thereof and should by that means have determined whether the plaintiff was qualified to receive an unemployment benefit.

Declare further that in his consideration of the plaintiff’s claim, the Director-General might have regard to the fact that it was made during the period of school holidays and at a time shortly after the plaintiff had left school at the end of the year but should not treat that fact as of itself decisive in determining whether the plaintiff had satisfied him of any one of the several matters referred to in paragraph (c) of s. 107.

Mr HUNT:

– I make the point that there has been a great deal of loose talk within recent weeks- indeed, months- to the effect that the Director-General of the Department of Social Security has illegally deprived school leavers of benefits. Although Senator Guilfoyle has tabled in the Senate the actual judgment of Mr Justice Stephen on the action taken out in the name of Karen Green it might be instructive if I refer somewhat more specifically to what has actually occurred up to date. The persons representing Karen Green sought an order from the High Court in December 1976 to the effect that Karen

Green was entitled to unemployment benefit throughout the period from 27 December 1976 to 22 February 1977, that unemployment benefit had been wrongfully denied to her and that she was entitled to an order from the Court accordingly. In his judgment, Mr Justice Stephen restated the provisions of section 107 of the Social Services Act in relation to which the plaintiff’s claim was lodged. His Honour pointed out that the section provides that a person’s qualification to receive unemployment benefit depends on his satisfying the Director-General in relation to a number of matters, particularly that he is capable of undertaking and is willing to undertake suitable work and has taken reasonable steps to obtain such work. After canvassing the argument that had been put to him regarding the case, Mr Justice Stephen said in his judgment:

For the plaintiff it was urged that I should form my own conclusions as to the plaintiff’s compliance with the requirements of section 107: That these should be in the plaintiff’s favour, that I should then impute to the DirectorGeneral -

This is what the plaintiff put to His Honour- my own state of satisfaction under section 107, and should accordingly declare the plaintiff to have been qualified to receive unemployment benefit from 27 December 1976.

Mr Justice Stephen went on to say:

Even were I minded to find the necessary facts inher favour, as to which I say nothing, the course suggested is not, I think, one which is open to me. It is the Director-General or his delegates that the legislation assigns the task of attaining satisfaction and the Court should not seek to usurp that function.

Honourable members will appreciate that the people representing Karen Green did not secure from the Court the order that they sought. What the Court did was to issue 2 declarations on 22 April 1977, the substance of which was that the Director-General should in his consideration of the claim have considered all the circumstances of the claim, making such investigations as he determined, and in the light of this decided whether the plaintiff satisfied him on all the matters set out in section 107 of the Act. The Court further declared that the Director-General might have regard to the fact that the claim was made during the period of school holidays shortly after the plaintiff had left school but should not treat that fact as of itself decisive in determining the claim. Those declarations, as I have said, were issued by the Court on 22 April. A stay of 2 1 days was allowed in which either party had an opportunity to appeal. The 2 1 days elapsed on 1 3 May without any appeal being lodged.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

-It went back to the Director-General.

Mr HUNT:

– It went back to the DirectorGeneral. Obviously the plaintiff was prepared to accept the verdict of the Court.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– That is the law.

Mr HUNT:

– The Government has not acted outside the law. To conclude the case that I have put I would like, with the leave of the Opposition, to have incorporated in Hansard the terms of reference of the Review of the Commonwealth Employment Service, which is known as the Norgard Inquiry, and the Inquiry into Unemployment Benefit Policy and Administration, which is known as the Myers Inquiry.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

The document read as follows-

INQUIRY INTO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Terms of Reference

The inquiry should make a fundamental examination of Unemployment Benefit policy and administration. In this process it should examine all aspects of the present Unemployment Benefit system and assess to what extent Government policy and administrative arrangements need to be changed to meet present-day requirements. In particular the inquiry should:

. Examine the underlying concept and philosophy of the present system and assess how appropriate these continue to be.

Against the Government’s basic policy of directing assistance to those most in need, examine and recommend on a system of income support for unemployed persons having regard to:

the level of benefits the community should provide to those unable to find work, including new entrants to the work force;

the extent to which the applicant’s previous income and any other income the person or their family are currently receiving should limit the level of income support during a period of unemployment;

whether arrangements should be made to adjust benefits and, if so, on what basis;

the effect of income support measures on the incentive of unemployed persons to actively seek employment;

what limits, if any, should be set to levels and duration of payments;

f ) the conditions which should be met by individuals before they they become eligible for income support.

Examine, in the light of any recommended policy changes, the present administrative arrangements and procedures and assess the extent to which these arrangements may need to be changed or modified to ensure effective administration of both the national employment service and the provision of income support to unemployed persons, having in mind the need to provide for

service to clients, including prompt payment to those who qualify to receive benefit;

prevention of abuses and protection of public expenditure;

the most economic and effective deployment of Government staffing and facilities.

Take account of the material submitted to, and the conclusions reached by, the Review of the Commonwealth Employment Service on the question of the administration of Unemployment Benefit.

The inquiry should be expected to complete its task within three months.

REVIEW OF THE COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

Terms of Reference

1 ) The Review should address itself to an examination of the objectives and functions of the CES (including its role vis a vis unemployment benefit) in the light of the significantly changed environment in which it now nas to operate and the current and prospective demands for its services.

With regard to the objectives as determined by the Review, it should then proceed, as a matter of priority, to investigate the primary function of the Service which is the placement of unemployed persons and others seeking improved employment in suitable jobs and the rinding of suitable people for job vacancies notified by employers, including the finding of labour for special needs and projects.

3 ) The Re view should include an investigation of the provision of special employment assistance to particular groups who need additional help to find suitable employment, for example, physically, mentally and social handicapped persons, young people without previous job experience, persons emerging from rehabilitation programmes, persons experiencing long periods of unemployment, migrants, Aborginals, ex-prisoners, etc.

The Review should extend to an examination of the provision of occupational information and counselling as to occupation/vocation and as to how best to facilitate placement in suitable employment.

Without involving an examination of manpower policies and programmes, the Review should examine the role of the Service as a delivery system for those policies and programmes.

The role of the CES in the collection of information on the labour market which may be used for economic policy purposes and the development and modification of manpower policies and programmes, as well as to meet operational requirements of the CES, should be investigated by the Review. In this, regard should be had to the limitations inherent in the data provided by the Service as indentified by the Report of the Advisory Committee on Commonwealth Employment Service Statistics.

The Review should include an examination of the organisational framework in which the functions of the Service might be performed and the location of officers, as well as the nature of the resources required, the training of staff, the accommodation needs, and the equipment and system requirements (including data processing and electronic techniques).

The Review should take account of the services provided by other agencies including relevant services provided by governments and commercial and private agencies and report on the scope for interchange of information and coordination and, where appropriate, rationalisation.

The Review should utilise, as far as possible, the experience of overseas countries which have reviewed their national employment service in recent years.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– We are getting a lot of evidence which is irrelevant.

Mr HUNT:

– It is not irrelevant. I have had those documents incorporated because I want to indicate to the honourable member that the Government is well aware of some of the anomalies that have occurred, some of the things that have gone on and some of the rip-offs that have taken place in the unemployment benefit area and that as soon as the reports of those inquiries come to hand the Government will be making decisions on some of the matters to which the honourable member has referred in his speech. But, as the Act and the law now stand, the Director-General has acted in accordance with section 107 of the Social Services Act. He has the power to determine whether those who make application for unemployment benefit in these circumstances should be eligible to receive such benefit. It is quite wrong and foolish for the Opposition to pursue an argument that tries to make out that the Director-General and the Government have acted ultra vires the Act because that is not the truth. It is quite untrue and the Opposition knows it, but the Opposition is more concerned about trying to whip up a great swell of emotionalism around this issue. The Government made its policy clear early last year and made no secret about it.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– I rise to support this matter of public importance. I was glad to hear the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) accept the fact that this is a very serious problem. It is a serious problem. It is also a serious matter for the 30 000 children who should have been entitled to unemployment benefit. The Minister for Health is now departing from the scene.

Mr Hunt:

– I am still here with you.

Mr INNES:

-The facts are that on 23 March 1976, in a joint Press statement issued by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), the Government announced that school leavers were not to be paid unemployment benefit in the school vacation period no matter how hard they tried to find employment and were unsuccessful. That statement reads:

Unemployment benefit be not paid to school leavers during the long vacation but that benefit be paid from the commencement of the new school year if the students do not then return to school or proceed to university. This procedure will operate from the end of the 1 976 school year.

The Minister claimed that in previous years school leavers had claimed unemployment benefit and then had gone back to school. Despite repeated questions from the Opposition in the other place the Minister for Social Security has not been able to provide any figures on how many school leavers had done this in previous years. The Government cannot table any legal advising that its action was justified and it cannot provide any statistics to justify its policy. Once again the Minister for Health is vacating the scene. The Minister for Health also was unable to provide any evidence. So we have had the Minister for Social Security being challenged in the other place to produce statistics and we have had the Minister for Health stand up in this place today and go on with a lot of twaddle but produce no evidence whatsoever.

The Government’s action in relation to unemployment benefit is an example of the welshing of the Government and the total disregard that it has for those people who, unfortunately, find themselves in the situation of being unemployed. This arbitrary and quite callous policy decision was implemented by the Commonwealth Employment Service and the Department of Social Security during the long vacation. Section 7 of the Social Services Act binds the DirectorGeneral of Social Services to act on the direction of the Minister for Social Security. The Minister for Social Security had directed that this policy be implemented. The Government was responsible for its introduction and the Government must accept responsibility for its implications.

Great play was made by the Minister once again of the fact that the plaintiff had sought an order that she was entitled to the benefit. The judge said in his judgment that he could not give such an order. As a consequence it naturally follows that the Government is not entitled to direct the Director-General. The Government has put him in a straight jacket. It has stood over him. What he is doing is mouthing the policies of the Government. The Government will find it difficult to side step this issue. The community at large and school leavers in particular will be bearing down on the Minister for Social Security and the Minister for Health in this respect. The High Court subsequently found that this blanket policy was contrary to the provisions of the Social Services Act. His Honour found that the Director-General should not have taken the Government’s policy on unemployment benefits for school leavers into account when determining whether Ms Karen Green was eligible for benefits. In other words, His Honour found that this policy was illegal, and the Government did not bother to appeal against the decision because it knew that such an appeal was useless. The Solicitor-General had originally advised the Department and the Government that they would lose the case and they did. Having failed in its attempt to bypass Parliament, the Government and the Minister searched around for another reason to deny Ms Green and the 35 000 other eligible school leavers their rightful income and support. Last Friday the Director-General of Social Services found that Ms Green had not taken reasonable steps to find employment. It is quite clear and concise what has happened. The Government once again has stood over the Director-General to hide its embarassment for the callous and frightful policy it had initiated in the first instance. It decided that Ms Green and the 35 000 other eligible school leavers would be pawns in a game of chess. The Director-General in a Press statement said:

I am not satisfied that by 20 December 1 976 she had taken reasonable steps to obtain work suitable to be undertaken by her.

I therefore determine that on 20 December 1976 she was not qualified to receive an unemployment benefit.

What a load of rot. Ms Green made extensive efforts to find employment. She first registered for employment with the Commonwealth Employment Service on 27 November 1976, and she was told that no work was available for her on that date and again on 20 December. Evidence was tendered in the High Court that Ms Green had made intensive efforts to find employment during this period including repeated visits to 2 private employment agencies. We might wonder what criteria the Director-General used in reaching this decision and what constitutes reasonable efforts to find employment. We might wonder whether these efforts were enough and what else she was expected to do to find employment. There was no way that the Minister for Social Security was going to allow the Director-General out of a straight jacket. He was to carry out the Government policy whether he liked it or not. The truth is that the Government is determined to ignore the High Court judgment and it will not pay these benefits to school leavers no matter what the legality of its actions. Why else would the Government refuse to review the case of 35 000 school leavers who most probably are eligible for benefits? It is the Minister’s duty to instruct the Director-General to review these cases. She has the power under section 7 of the Act and she must use it. The Government must stop hiding behind the skirts of the DirectorGeneral and accept its responsibility to set right this disastrous and illegal policy.

The Opposition has said that it believes that school leavers are entitled to unemployment benefits. They have felt the impact of Government unemployment policies in a disproportionate way. It is bad enough to suffer the frustration of not being able to obtain a first job but it is worse to suffer the indignity of total dependence on others. The Minister for Health, who is at the table, made great play about the unemployment situation under the Labor Government. What is the case today? More people are receiving the unemployment benefit at present than ever before. What is the Government doing in terms of policy?

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is the only benefit they will pay.

Mr INNES:

– That is true. Karen Green has been made a scapegoat for the callous policies of the Government. She had sufficient fortitude to continue to fight her case against crushing odds of Government indifference. She took her case to the High Court which found in her favour.

The Government’s harsh attitude to Karen is characteristic of its general attitude to the unemployed. Indeed, the Government is inhuman and inflexible to all wage earners and those who want to become wage earners. But beyond that the Government flies in the face of the High Court decision and persists with its refusal to pay unemployment benefits. This action can be described only as bloody mindedness. There is no excuse for such behaviour. Clearly the Department did not make an independent decision. It is clear from the Government’s statement how the Director-General was expected to interpret the matter, how he was expected to make decisions along these lines. This question of the statement was followed by a buck passing exercise, with the Government shifting whatever blame it could back onto the Department. We heard the Minister in another place go to great lengths in an endeavour to do that. It is clear that Karen satisfied the criteria for receiving the benefit. It is unbelievable that a girl with the tenacity to take her case to the highest court in the land would not have pursued every job opportunity possible. Dismissal of her application on a technicality is a clear extension of the Government’s policy of bashing the unemployed.

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

Mr ABEL:
Evans

-The matter of public importance now under discussion is weakly worded. Thus far members of the Opposition have put forward a great argument on the law. They have restricted their remarks to the judgment in the Karen Green case. But the terms of the matter of public importance go a bit further than that. In part they state:

  1. . disregard for the young people in the payment of unemployment benefits to schoolleavers.
Mr Innes:

– How very true.

Mr ABEL:

– The honourable member for Melbourne says: ‘Hear, hear’. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) when the Karen Green case was announced, in part said:

  1. . I urged young men and women to continue to assert their right to apply for benefits to which they were entitled by law.

He did not say anything about the moral aspect. He did not say anything about cost. He did not say anything about the sociological problems. He made the specific point that he urged young people to do something at law without regard to the consequence of what that would mean to the young people themselves or to this country. I should like to say a little on that aspect of the matter.

At the moment the unemployment benefit paid to young people in the 16 to 18 year old bracket is $36 a week. I ask honourable members to consider the implications of carrying out Labor’s stated policy which was just confirmed by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes). The policy is that the unemployment benefit should be paid to all school leavers. This policy has been endorsed by the Labor Caucus. It has been endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition- the one who was only barely elected again today to that position. He has said that school leavers should be given the unemployment benefit. Do honourable members opposite, including the honourable member for Melbourne, say that a 17-year old child who leaves school without having determined whether he is going to work or whether he wants to work should receive $36 a week? Would honourable members opposite like to multiply that amount by about 3000 and say ‘yes’?

Mr Innes:

– You pour that down the drain in other directions.

Mr ABEL:

– The honourable member for Melbourne will not confirm what his Party policy is but in fact that is what it is- school leavers would get a $36 a week paid vacation. Apparently we have a new social era. The policy of the Labor Government which came into office in 1972-73 was aimed at changing the whole social attitude and aspects of the Australian way of life. This policy is now being changed again.

Mr Sainsbury:

– It was disastrous.

Mr ABEL:

– As my colleague says, it was disastrous. We are now asked to look at a proposition for school leavers to have a paid vacation. I state very clearly and very precisely that I do not now nor will I in the future support paid vacation leave for school leavers. I shall look at a few more statistics. The claims for unemployment benefits for school leavers in the period 7 January to 22 April 1977 numbered 62 820. Claims granted in that period numbered 38 537 leaving a balance of 24 283. 1 ask: Where did the balance of 24 283 go? I suggest that a great proportion went back to school and that a great proportion took gainful employment.

Mr Innes:

– You have no evidence.

Mr ABEL:

-The honourable member for Melbourne interjects that there is no evidence. What evidence does he have that those people would have taken a job? What evidence does he and the Leader of the Opposition have that, had those people been paid unemployment benefits at the date they left school, that they would have gone back to work.

Mr Innes:

– There is no evidence at all.

Mr ABEL:

– There is no evidence. I suggest in the strongest possible terms that studies in the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries, where money is given for no gainful work, demonstrate without any shadow of a doubt that there are social problems and that in the years to come they will be frightening in their magnitude. The honourable member for Melbourne is saying that we do not want young people to work. When I left school, I sought a position. I had a break for four or five weeks having completed a long time at school. Then I decided to seek a job. I did not ask someone to give me money while I searched around for that position. Notwithstanding, if the decision of an applicant is that he should take employment after three or four weeks because of hardship or on the ground of difficulty at home, provision already exists in the Act for him to be considered for special benefits. The Minister for Social Security has stated clearly and constantly in the Senate the Government’s policy in regard to the payment of unemployment benefit. In another place on 30 May, in answer to a question, she stated:

I have stated repeatedly that last March the Government announced a policy decision with regard to the payment of the unemployment benefit. Its decision was to the effect that the benefit would not be paid automatically to school leavers.

Further on she stated: the policy of the previous Administration was that the unemployment benefit would be paid to everyone who could not find a job of his own choice.

That was automatic. Further in the answer the Minister stated:

I have said further that the Director-General makes the determinations with regard to eligibility. I find no inconsistency between that and the proposition which Senator Wheeldon has put for the first time in this Senate- namely, that there is a Government policy and that the determinations are made by the Director-General- as that is precisely the point that I have been trying to make since this matter arose.

The Minister has said that clearly. There is the Government policy. It is up to the DirectorGeneral to clearly make the determination. When the Government’s policy was announced last year, provision was stated clearly for the Director-General of Social Services, under section 124 of the Social Services Act, to have the discretion to pay a special benefit because of age, physical or mental disability or domestic circumstances or for any other reason, where a person is unable to earn sufficient money for himself or his dependents, if any. The rate of that special benefit is equivalent to the rate of unemployment benefit. Surely this is fair and just. We are giving the young people the opportunity, if there is hardship, to claim a special benefit. Surely it is fair for Australians to feel that when people leave school they must make some reasonable effort to obtain work. The Opposition has argued today, and it has argued constantly, that because somebody goes out and looks for employment for 7 days, 10 days, 14 days or a month, that person has made every effort. Karen Green was given the opportunity to state a case to the Director-General of Social Services for special consideration.

Mr Innes:

– The judgment was in her favour. Why do you not read the judgment?

Mr ABEL:

– I shall read from the judgment in the case of Karen Green. It states:

The plaintiff was offered the opportunity of showing that hers was a special case but she failed to take it, by her failure accepting the view that she had not then satisfied the Director-General.

Karen Green was given the opportunity and she did not avail herself of it to claim that she had a special case. In raising this matter of public importance today the Opposition, by the nature of the debate, has tried to make political capital out of human misery and the suffering of the young. The honourable member for Melbourne nods his head in agreement. I would like him to listen and perhaps he will agree with my proposition. As at 31 December 1976, 95 per cent of school leavers from the previous year had obtained gainful employment. Under the policy of the previous Government of paying everyone who left school I would not predict that 95 per cent would have obtained gainful employment. Today over 80 per cent of last years school leavers have found employment.

When this Government came to office in December 1975 it found that, as at November 1975, 60 249 school leavers were unemployed and 152 000 people under the age of 21 years of age were unemployed. The comparable figures as at April this year are 32 600 and 127 352. The reason for this improvement is that under this Government’s policy we have, in fact, made an effort to see that people find gainful employment. It is not the old story of the Australian Labor Party which gave out money and people did not have to find work. There are social problems. There are moral problems. Not one press statement from the Leader of the Opposition or the Labor Party spokesman on social security or from honourable members opposite has done anything in regard to those questions.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

-The honourable member’s time has expired. The discussion is concluded.

page 2191

ROADS ACT AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 2191

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

page 2191

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

page 2191

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) BILL 1977

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

page 2191

PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS BOUNTY AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mr Howard:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-The Government’s proposal to increase the superphosphate bounty is not opposed by the Opposition. However, we want the section of primary industry which uses superphosphate to be absolutely clear that the action being taken by the Government is a cunning, mischievous way of disguising future price increases. The Government will increase the phosphate bounty from the current rate of $1 1.81 a tonne by 19 cents to $12 a tonne. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) claims that the action is in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Industries Assistance Commission report. This is not correct. Either the Minister has difficulty reading IAC reports or is deliberately attempting to mislead primary producers. The Government did not follow the IAC report strictly. The IAC recommended a 20 per cent ad valorem rate on superphosphate and on phosphate rock prepared for use as fertiliser, or $138 a tonne for phosphorous content either greater or less than the phosphorous content of single superphosphate on the available phosphorous content.

If the Government adhered to the IAC recommendations it would mean that the amount of bounty would increase with any increase in the ex-works price for bulk material or of the importer’s selling price at the port of entry. However, the Government is really announcing the intention to decrease the rate of bounty over the next 5 years. There is no doubt that the price of superphosphate will continue to rise. In fact, we believe that one of the reasons why the matter is being rushed through at the end of this current session of Parliament is that a price rise is imminent. The Government must think primary producers are fools not to have seen the Government’s intention to reduce the effective rate of assistance to this section of the industry. The recent decision in the Ocean Island case and the commitment by the partners in the British Phosphate Commission to pay the Banabans $10m, combined with increasing costs of removing Christmas Island phosphate rock, means that price increases for phosphate rock must soon beassed on. Once the price increases, the rate ofounty will no longer be the 20 per cent ad valorem rate recommended in the Industries Assistance Commission report but something less than that and ever decreasing.

As with so much of the current legislation, it is not clear if the review within the 5-year period would include a review of the rate and total amount payable to the industry. In fact, the Opposition understands that the review would only be to consider if the bounty should be maintained beyond 1982. The Government should have been honest to primary users who use superphosphate and warned them that price rises are imminent and that the Government did not propose to adhere strictly to the IAC recommendations. While the Opposition does not oppose this Bill, it must observe that the report of the IAC was not a majority one. One of the commissioners recommended that the bounty be phased out over 2 years. The Opposition understands the reasoning behind his dissenting recommendation.

The Opposition is concerned that the benefit of the superphosphate bounty is not spread equally throughout rural industry. There are large sections of the cattle industry in Queensland and wide areas of the black soil plains wheat growing areas which do not need superphosphate. In addition, wool and cattle producers in the pastoral zone are unable to usefully spread superphosphate on their vast grazing areas. It seems inequitable that a section of primary industry receives $50m a year while others receive absolutely nothing. There is also some concern that the bounty is not enjoyed by those who most need it. There is strong evidence to suggest it is the wealthier section of the industry which receives the greatest advantage. At a time when many primary producers are in a desperate state there are some grounds for arguing that the $50m could be more equitably distributed to assist those people in real trouble. However, it appears that the Government is cutting back this sort of assistance, and the recent announcement by the Minister for Primary Industry that funds for loans to beef producers will be cut back during the next financial year is some indication of that. Thus the apparent munificence of the Government in increasing the superphosphate bounty is little better than a callous sham and is increasing evidence of the Government reducing its support for rural industry in real terms while granting a disproportionately larger increase to manufacturing industry at the same time.

Mr PORTER:
Barker

-We have heard the same thing again from the Australian Labor Party, which has the worst history of any government in this country in helping the farmer, welcome the decision of the Government, as implemented by this Bill, to continue for a further 5 years from 1 July the payment of a bounty on production of phosphate fertilisers for use in Australia at the rate of $12 a tonne. Referring briefly to the history of the subsidy, when it was introduced by the coalition Parties in 1963 the objectives of the bounty were stated to be to encourage the most economic use of agricultural resources, to stimulate pasture improvement, and to help increase productivity and the expansion of rural production. In December 1974 the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, announced the discontinuance of the bounty. So much for what the previous speaker said. In fact, at that time the then Prime Minister said that the aims of the bounty had been achieved and that it was no longer appropriate for this extensive charge to be carried by the taxpayer. In 1973-74 bounty payments totalled almost $67m.

In the interim report of the Industries Assistance Commission on 31 July 1975, two commissioners recommended the restoration of the bounty at the previous rate pending completion of the inquiry. They proposed that, if practicable, restoration should be retrospective to 1 January 1975. Again, what did the Labor Government do? Absolutely nothing. It was only after the election, when the coalition Parties were put on the government benches, that on 10 February 1976 the Government announced restoration of the bounty. In announcing the Government’s decision the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) stated that the bounty would apply on sales to users from 11 February 1976 until 30 June 1977, by which time the Government would have considered the Commission’s final report. Of course, during that period, and indeed since then, the Labor Party has continually ridiculed the coalition Parties for giving aid to farmers. It has taken great pride in quoting the amount of subsidy to some users. It was the Labor Party which inflamed inflation in this country and did a great deal to reduce the income of the farming community. Farmers were not protected against inflation. They were faced with the cost of their inputs rising enormously in both machinery and labour, with no matching increase in their incomes. They did not get any wage rises but still the Labor Party removed the subsidy.

I ought to point out to the Labor Party that the bounty is not a payment to the farmers, as Opposition members seem to think, but rather a reduction in the cost that the farmer has to pay for one of his imput components. As to the benefit arising to the different farmers, the IAC report stated at page 34:

In general it would appear that the effects of the bounty on income distribution within the farm sector are likely to be small, and not advene, and therefore do not constitute grounds for rejecting the bounty as a method of assistance.

The Labor Party would do well to drop its cheap political gimmickry in relation to this matter. I want to refer briefly to the basis of the bounty and to the IAC report which shows that the commissioners are obviously convinced of the justification for the bounty. The report states:

In assessing whether the Australian Government should continue to provide assistance for the consumption of phosphatic fertilisers, the Commission has considered both the economic efficiency and welfare implications. It has concluded, on efficiency grounds, that assistance for the consumption of phosphatic fertilisers should be continued. It has reached this conclusion on the basis of its judgment that, given present levels and pattern of assistance to Australian industry generally and the low-cost status of the major phosphate-using activities, removal of the present assistance would lead to less efficient use of Australian resources. However, it does not favour increased assistance.

The Commission recognises that a fertiliser subsidy has disadvantages but assesses these to be small relative to the advantages of maintaining encouragement for the use of resources in a relatively efficient sector of the economy. It believes the desirability of bounty assistance should not be judged by reference to some ideal configuration of the economy or ideal form of assistance, but rather by reference to the existing situation and the likely practical alternatives.

Further it states:

The Commission sees tariff-induced distortions as being removed only gradually. It has no evidence that demonstrably better measures will be found easily or quickly. On the other hand, it believes the opportunities to identify alternative and more efficient measures should arise as assistance for rural industries is reviewed. Progress in this area and in reducing high protection to import-competing industries would need to be taken into account when the bounty is reviewed.

In other words, the Commission is saying that once the protection to the other sectors of Australian industry is reduced and so the burden borne by the farmers of such protection is likewise reduced, this is one factor to be considered in a review of the bounty. I am sure that the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) will say more on that.

Mr Kelly:

– And with feeling.

Mr PORTER:

– Yes, and with feeling. I think it is worth recording the amount paid under the subsidy in recent years. In 1974-75, $29.5m was paid. But it ought to be remembered that in that year the subsidy was taken off by the Labor Government in December.

Mr Lloyd:

– Who took off the subsidy?

Mr PORTER:

-The Labor Government did in December 1974. In 1975-76, $20. lm was paid but, of course, the subsidy was reintroduced only in February of that year. In 1 976-77 to the end of April, $27.9m was paid in subsidy. The projected figure for 1977-78 is $50m. But that figure was based on the subsidy on an ad valorem 20 per cent basis and, in fact, it may be a little higher than the actual figure given the $12.00 bounty which is the subject of this Bill. I want to look very briefly to the future supplies of phosphate rock in Australia and particularly at the availability and possibility of using the deposits from Queensland owned by Broken Hill South ‘s subsidiary, Queensland Phosphate Ltd. The development program of that deposit has been inhibited, especially by the Labor Government when it virtually stopped the project when, as I understand it, the company could have made some export sales and thus recovered some of its setup costs to the benefit of the Australian producer and, of course, the Australian community in general. I am told that the company has spent some $70m so far and it is obviously in Australia’s interests to become self reliant with a source of supply within Australia instead of relying entirely on Nauru and Christmas Island deposits.

There are problems which, as I understand it, have not yet been resolved. These are mainly technical and quality problems. From the trials so far concluded it has been shown that the deposits could be used for superphosphate of slightly lower grade, but the tests left unresolved the problems concerning wear on rock mills caused by inclusions of chert, a hard siliceous rock, in the phosphate. Also, I understand that there is an excessive evolution of fluorine during the processing, following which the gas offtake flues become quickly blocked with silica deposits. In addition, there are problems with severe setting of the product in storage prior to sale. So it would seem that more work needs to be done before this deposit can be used commercially in Australia. However, I am sure that the Government will try to assist in bringing that Queensland deposit into use. Finally, I want to congratulate the Government for continuing the bounty. It may in future have to review the size of the bounty depending on the cost of superphosphate from the supplier. However, the undertaking in this Bill is of great assistance to the farming community in Australia in that we will not have the threat of the subsidy being on and off as occurred under the previous Labor Government.

Mr FRY:
Fraser

– I support the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Amendment Bill, which extends the payment of the bounty on the use of phosphate for a further period of 5 years as recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission. It is inevitable that the Government will say that the Australian Labor Party has changed its mind about the bounty. Of course, this disregards the very large number of issues on which the Government has changed its mind, including the very important recent issues of the referendum in which the Government recently did a complete turnabout. However, although the Opposition does not formally oppose the Bill this does not mean that we are admitting that our previous criticism was not valid. I still think that the criticism we made of the inequitable way in which the bounty operated is still very valid. Certainly, the assistance in the form in which it has been given in the past has not been of material benefit to the majority of farmers. It has been of particular benefit to a notorious few farmers and of very little benefit to those who have been in the greatest need. It is a well known fact that those farmers at the lower end of the scale are not in a position to use superphosphate at all.

The bounty is regressive in that the big companies and big land holders, including the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), are the people who profit most from this bounty.

For example, the bounty has not assisted the 50 000 farmers who have left the land in the last 10 years. It can hardly be claimed that it has assisted those farmers who received on average less than $150 a year from the operation of the scheme when other measures would have been more effective. Of course, when the ALP Government moved for the removal of the bounty, farm incomes were much different from what they are now. They were at an all time high of $15,902. Average yearly earnings at the time were $6,136. In other words, average weekly earnings represented only 38.59 per cent of farm income. By 1975-76, however, the position had changed drastically. The change primarily was caused by the severe drop in farm income which in no way could be attributed to the superphosphate bounty. Farm income in dollar terms dropped to $9,194 which in real terms represented a much greater fall. By comparison, average weekly earnings rose to $8,814, still below farm income and in real terms not a substantial increase. Average weekly earnings represented 95.87 per cent of farm income for that year. These figures quite clearly support the case for a fundamental re-think of the existing measures designed to assist farmers. The existing measures are not doing what they set out to do.

It is unfortunate that so much emphasis has been placed on the continuation of the bounty that it has hindered the formulation of alternative or supplementary policies of assistance which would provide genuine assistance to our rural industries. Farmers are fighting to maintain their viability not because in any way they can be said to be inefficient but because of the forces, especially those of the international sphere, which are continuing to dominate the economy. Farmers are aware of the diminishing terms of trade that they are fighting against and that the type of assistance offered by governments in the form of bounties on use or production have not been really significant. What has been more significant is the international market situation for Australian agricultural products.

Since attaining office the Fraser Government has illustrated beyond any doubt that it has no special relationship with our major trading partners. Instead of the Government’s promoting our agricultural products, the Australian people are confronted with the spectacle of Minister after Minister, mostly the farming Ministers and particularly the Leader of the National Country

Party, (Mr Anthony) tripping overseas with the objective of selling our minerals as cheaply as they can. The significance of these endeavours bears directly on the situation of the rural sector. The demands of international economic pressures are for our minerals. These pressures nave relegated out rural exports to a secondary role. It would appear that the role Australia is being increasingly asked to play is that of a major mineral exporter and a very minor agricultural exporter confined to quota systems with our traditional markets, which means a further reduction in the living standards of people living on the land. To provide assistance on the basis of a substance which increases production is only true assistance if there is a market at a sufficient price for the extra production. In some instances there is a market and in those cases the bounty can be said to provide an economic return to producers. Of course, this is not always the case and that is why the Opposition while not opposing the Bill would like to draw the attention of the House to the opinion of the dissenting commissioner, Mr Robinson. Mr Robinson proposed a full scale inquiry aimed at co-ordinating existing assistance measures and recommending new measures where justified in order to develop an effective and efficient framework within which rural industry could continue to develop as a low cost, nationally valuable activity. While farmer organisations have displayed little interest in this proposal, I have found that individual farmers are quite receptive to it. Perhaps the farmer organisations should consider the wishes of thenrank and file and at least look at this suggestion in a serious way.

Returning to the detail of the Bill, I would like to make a few points. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) in his second reading speech misled the Parliament. The rate of bounty is not in accordance with the Industries Assistance Commission report. The IAC recommended that the bounty be paid on an ad valorem rate of 20 per cent of the manufacturers’ ex-works price. Setting the bounty on a fixed rate of $12 per tonne, whilst in round terms it approximates 20 per cent of the current price, does not take into consideration future fluctuations in price. The prospect is that the price of phosphate will rise. The existing iniquitous arrangements for exploiting rock phosphate from Christmas Island no doubt will be terminated and the workers and people of the island compensated. The result will be increased pressure for rises in the price of superphosphate. Thus the Government, by not adopting the letter of the IAC recommendation, has adopted a basis which will become less significant as the price of phosphate undoubtedly rises. No provision is made to adjust these rises in price.

I believe that there is a strong case for reviewing the bounty when conditions improve in the rural sector. I have no doubt that conditions will improve in the rural sector and that the present slump in the beef industry will be followed by a boom in a year or two. That would be the appropriate time to consider reviewing this bounty, not when conditions in the industry are bad. The continuation of the bounty now is a justifiable protection in much the same way as we justify similar protection of the manufacturing sector. I support the Bill.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– I promised our Whip that I would try to say what I had to say in 5 minutes. I have a fair bit to say but will have mercy on the House and not say it all at this stage. Above all I want to make one point. The only real justification for doing what we are doing today is to give back to the rural sector some of its own. As the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) so rightly said, the rural sector has been carrying a great cross in terms of high costs caused by tariffs. This Bill is some compensation- not good or efficient compensationfor the damage that the rural sector has had to suffer because of the tariff policy of this and other governments. One of the disquieting things about the tariff policy is the way in which it teaches and encourages people to lean on one another, and here we see it happening again. Now even the rural sector has had to go to the Government because it has been leant on by secondary industry through the tariff system. This was revealed in the Brigden report back in 1929, which said:

The most disquieting effect of the tariff has been the stimulus it has given to demands for government assistance of all kinds with consequent demoralising effect upon self-reliant efficiency throughout all forms of production.

We are seeing that again now. The rural sector has had to ask for tariff compensation because it has had to carry this immense extra cost which it should not have had to carry. The tariff policy has turned Australians into a mob of leaners. People are always bragging about their belief in private enterprise but as soon as they have finished making their resounding speeches on the subject they slip around to the door of the Industries Assistance Commission or to the Government and say: ‘We would like a bit more assistance for this and that’. Now even the rural sector has to ask for tariff compensation. It will not be fair compensation. There will be many people in my saltbush areas and in Queensland who do not use superphosphate but will have to pay through taxation for the compensation that will be paid to other sectors. This is yet another example of the implications of the tariff system and of the way it is destroying the private enterprise system. Even farmers now have had to ask for tariff compensation in this way.

Let us look at the case that the graziers’ association made when it said that it would rather have a reduction in tariff than the superphosphate subsidy. It was right because the rough balance sheet shows that last year secondary industry received SI 59m in direct subsidies and $4,000m in indirect subsidies through tariffs. It may be thought that these are my figures, but they are not. I am quoting Mr Henderson, the DirectorGeneral of the Associated Chamber of Manufactures of Australia. No one could say that he is a lightweight. Certainly no one could claim that he is not generally a high protection advocate. He said:

I fully accept the IAC argument that the consumer must pay for tariff protection. There is no question about this. I will also accept the arithmetic that the cost is around $4,300m annually.

That is the size of the burden. The rural sector produces about half the exports so it carries half the burden. It has hanging around its neck a $2, 000m albatross which is beginning to do what dead albatrosses do, which I hesitate to mention, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your distinguished company. It not only is heavy but also has that other attribute. The rural sector got only $6 lm in direct subsidies last financial year. It now will get another $50m which is what this superphosphate subsidy will cost. Yet it will have to pay about $2,000m, that being its share of the tariff burden because it produces half our export income. The rough arithmetic is that secondary industry is getting $4, 15 9m in the form of subsidies while the rural sector is getting minus $ 1 ,889m. That is the kind of justification, indeed the only justification, for this Bill being before us.

Let me put it more sharply into focus. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be well aware that a lot of superphosphate goes away in bags. Just recently there came into this House a tariff decision on bags and the subsidy equivalent of this Government decision works out at about $5m. I did not see anybody giving tongue about the featherbedding of the bag manufacturers. No one mentioned that. Yet $5m was provided in one simple Bill as the result of one simple tariff decision. In the IAC report the IAC estimates that the cost of having to carry the rock in Australian manned ships is $10m. Again no one mentioned that. People sling off about the featherbedding of the farmer but no one says anything about the flagrant featherbedding of the sailors who carry the rock in Australian ships at an extra cost of $10m. The justification for the Bill before us today is that we are getting a little bit of our own back. That is not a good reason for doing anything but it is better than doing nothing when the rural sector has hung around its neck this great albatross weighing $2 ,000m each year.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Darling) (4.41)-The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) has given us the benefit of his knowledge on the effects of tariffs on our rural industries. I am inclined to agree with him that no doubt they have a very serious effect on our rural industries. I also agree that perhaps there are better ways of giving assistance to the rural industries than paying a bounty on superphosphate. The only thing that had me worried was that I thought that as the honourable member was warming to his subject he was going to deprive me of my opportunity to have a few words on this matter. I support the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Amendment Bill. It gives effect to the Industries Assistance Commission report of 20 October 1976 which recommends the continuation for another S years of the payment of a bounty on the production of phosphate fertilisers for use in Australia. This is very important. It seems to me that the various industries have enough trouble getting their problems before the Industries Assistance Commission. When they get them there and a report is brought down I think that the Parliament has some obligation to take notice.

There is no doubt that most of our rural industries are at present faced with rising costs and falling prices. As the honourable member for Wakefield said, tariff protection is one of the factors that vastly increases the cost of production. There is no doubt that this will have a resulting squeeze on farmers’ incomes. The Australian Labor Party has never opposed giving assistance to industries which require it. We are opposed to assistance going to the people who need it least of all. I shall not deal with the people who receive the superphosphate bounty. I think it is well known that many people who benefit from this bounty do not require it. Many other sections of our rural industry vitally need some kind of assistance and it is not reaching them.

In my electorate a good deal of support for the superphosphate bounty arises from an emotional issue. The bounty has been given so much publicity that it seems to be a status issue. People believe that if the Government does not give them a superphosphate bounty it is doing something bad for the rural industry. I am inclined to agree with the honourable member for Wakefield that we should be looking at other ways of assisting people in rural industries. We should be giving assistance which is of more benefit than the superphosphate bounty. The reason there is so much emotion about this issue is that Australia has a long history of assisting the use of phosphatic fertilisers. A bounty has been paid in most of the years since 1931. It is easy to understand that many of our farmers have become used to using superphosphate and they depend vitally upon it for their results.

Although much has been said about the Labor Party’s actions in relation to the use of the bounty we should have a look at the first interim report of the Industries Assistance Commission. It gives some idea of the justification for the Labor Government removing the bounty. Page 2 of that report states:

At the time the decision was taken, economic conditions within the rural industries were generally buoyant. Since then, the average ex-factory price of single superphosphate (in bulk) to users has risen from about $16 to about $55 per tonne.

The price is much higher today. That gives some indication of the justification of the Labor Party in removing the bounty at that time. When these measures come before the Parliament they should not be attacked from a political viewpoint. There is no doubt that many of our rural industries at present are undergoing severe economic pressures. Until we put into effect some of the suggestions of the honourable member for Wakefield the superphosphate bounty seems to be justified.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

– Australians must surely be grateful to the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) for his clear and direct exposition of the facts in relation to this legislation. I believe that in his excellent address he laid at rest once and for all the charge of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) that members of the farming community are nothing more than corporate dole bludgers. The honourable member for Wakefield in his lucid explanation of the situation left us all completely convinced that what the farmers are getting under this legislation is their actual right. I believe that his speech should be made compulsory reading for all those people who live in the city areas so that they know the tremendous burden under which the farming population has been operating for a great length of time.

This legislation is most pertinent at this time. Real income per farm at $10,432 per annum is slightly lower than it was last year. It has risen by 13 per cent but, on account of inflation running at IS per cent, real farm income is somewhat less than it was the previous year. Farm costs have risen by 1 1 per cent. This has been due to a 13 per cent increase in the price of farm inputs which was balanced by a continuing improvement in productivity. The application of the superphosphate bounty concerns productivity. As the honourable member for Wakefield outlined, this Government’s contribution to farmers does not nearly measure up to the contribution which governments are giving to people engaged in the ship building industry at $19,000 per man per year, to waterside workers at $13,000 per man per year or to people engaged in the car manufacturing industry at $5,000 per man per year. It is no wonder that the National Country Party fully supports this continuing commitment to Australian rural production by the Fraser-Anthony coalition Government and, more importantly, the guidelines which have been set for the next 5 years.

It is interesting to note that there has been a decline in prices for farm products. The price of wheat has fallen by 8 per cent from last year with an anticipated income of $1,1 50m. The volume is roughly the same but the area planted has increased by 5 per cent to 8.9 million hectares. The average yield is down. This is a further proof that there is a vital need for the input of fertilisers. In reading page 35 of the Industries Assistance Commission report I was convinced by the argument that was advanced that one of the disadvantages in a blanket cover was that it provides little assistance to producers of wool, wheat and meat in districts where little or no phosphatic fertiliser is used. We might therefore refer to those areas where nitrogen is used and phosphate is not. It is absolutely essential, I believe, if productivity is to be increased so that costs can be contained, that the Government, in its pre-Budget discussions, gives very serious consideration to maintaining the present bounty on nitrogenous fertiliser at $60 a ton of contained nitrogen. There has been pressure for agriculture in Australia to be expanded due to difficulty in the beef and sheep industries with the consequent increase in areas of what we might term infertile land. Of course associated with this is the fact that our present lands and soils are becoming older and consequently need applications of nitrogen. This is so in all areas of Australia, not only in Queensland, in order to guarantee increases in productivity.

It is interesting to note that the grain industries are now the greatest users of nitrogen. It is absolutely essential to realise that nitrogen is required in cereal growing areas, sugar areas and fruit growing and dairying districts. It needs to be applied each year. There cannot be a bank or build-up of it. In most areas where it is required, there are no clovers. It is therefore necessary to do all that is possible to ensure that this particular subsidy is increased or at least maintained at the present rate. It is worth reminding people that in 1975, when the IAC commissioned the report on nitrogen, it was stated that the situation would be reviewed later on- this also was a commitment in the Budget of last year-in the light of prices prevailing at the time. When it was decided to grant a nitrogen subsidy of $60 a ton, wheat was worth $1 10 on the world market; at the present time it is $90. Sorgum was worth $80 a ton and is now $64 a ton.

Mr Braithwaite:

– The sugar price has decreased, too.

Mr McVEIGH:

-I am reminded by the honourable member for Dawson that the price obtained for sugar has also decreased. So, I believe that, to overcome the serious problems of farmers who do not require phosphate but who do use nitrogen, the attention of the Government should be drawn to the absolute necessity to ensure that those farmers who do use nitrogen are not discriminated against and are treated as equal citizens along with those who use phosphates.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2197

DAIRY INDUSTRY STABILIZATION BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr McLEAY:
Minister for Construction · Boothby · 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 should like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Bill, the Dairy Produce Amendment BUI, the Dairy Industry Assistance BUI and the Dairy Industry Assistance Levy BUI, as they are associated measures. Separate questions Will of course be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the 5 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these 5 measures? There being no objection, I Wil allow that course to be followed.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-The Opposition does not oppose these Bills but welcomes them as evidence of the first tentative signs of this conservative Government finally acting to lead the ailing Australian dairy industry down the road to rationalisation and reorganisation. The Bills simply act to implement Stage I of the Industries Assistance Commission’s recommendations on marketing arrangements as included in the report delivered to the Government in early September 1976. These Bills do not embrace Stage II which relates to a nationally negotiable market entitlement scheme, nor Stage III which relates to opening up the entire industry to the impact of export prices. The Bills give effect to the agreement reached by the Australian Agricultural Council at its one hundredth meeting in early February of this year. It was agreed at this meeting that provision for a compulsory levy disbursement system should be made. In other words, the voluntary equalisation arrangement is being replaced by a compulsory one. It is encouraging to learn that such agreement was reached regarding Stage II at the Australian Agricultural Council meeting.

The Opposition acknowledges the difficulty faced by any federal government in trying to bring equitable reforms to the dairy industry. State interests are of vital concern in this matter and a compromise has to be reached with each State unless the Commonwealth is prepared to lead. However, comment needs to be made on the tardiness and lack-lustre performance of the present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) with respect to the dairy industry which has just gone through its two worst years, particularly in Victoria. The Opposition’s criticism is not that nothing is being done but that so little is being done for so many in such a slow time.

The Government is not and has not been short of information on the dairy industry on which to base policy if it wanted to act. But the Minister invited paralysis by analysis in asking for a further report on the dairying industry from the IAC immediately after having the report of the IAC which was delivered in October 1975 to the Labor Government shortly before the Senate was perverted by the Liberal and Country Parties in November of that year. The Minister, in his speech on the second reading of the Dairy Stabilisation Bill 1977 said:

As the dairy industry was, however, unable to come forward with an agreed plan the Government referred the matter back to the IAC and requested that it report specifically on what long-term marketing arrangements should be introduced for the industry.

It is a hopeless reason to state that the industry was not able to agree. For a start, there are at least 3 industries involved in dairying and a superstructure of administrative and institutional arrangements that means consensus is impossible. For those who talk so much about ‘leadership, ‘ why would the Government not propose a scheme in the light of all the knowledge it has. It is not for the IAC to make Government policy. That is the function of the Government via the Minister and his Department. It is the IAC’s primary function to make recommendations to the Government on measures of industry assistance, not on industry arrangements. What if the arrangements as recommended had not been satisfactory or not agreed upon? Would another inquiry have been called for? What makes the Minister think that all the recommendations will be accepted by the industry? Even he hints- he has done so recently- that they will not be. So much for the abdication of responsibility that has marked the Minister’s administration of his portfolio!

The Minister knows full well that there was no need for a second inquiry. The findings of the Victorian inquiry of May 1975 provided abundant information on the deficiencies of equalisation. The discussions centring on the Australian Dairy Corporation plan indicated the parameters on which any scheme could and should centre. In the hour of the dairy industry’s greatest need the Government called for another inquiry as a stall. Prevarication and procastination have marked the Government’s approach to primary industry matters since its election. It took an estimated 20 000 Victorian dairy farmers and their families who took to the streets in June last year for the Government to make decent gestures towards the level of underwriting for the 1976-77 season. Addressing the United Dairy Farmers of Victoria in October 1976, the Minister said that the Government would not abandon dairying and that decisions of great courage were needed. It has taken another Vh months from that meeting for us to arrive at this first step towards industry marketing reform. Stage I is the easy stage of the IAC recommendations. This is supposed to be called courage!

Of course we all know of the Minister’s tardiness with respect to marketing reform in both the meat and wool industries. His inaction provoked the New South Wales United Farmers and Woolgrowers Association to call for his resignation in February this year. And of course, dissatisfaction with the Minister’s hamfisted approach has continued until the present with calls for changes to the Meat and Livestock Corporation still being called for by way of full page advertisements in some newspapers. It is not just the Minister who should take the blame for inaction on rural matters. In speech after speech to rural audiences over many years, Liberal and Country Party speakers have scorned the lack of farmers in the Labor Party. The barbs that once were aimed at Ken Wriedt are now aimed at me. The Minister still cannot resist denigrating Ken Wriedt because he was not a farmer. One only has to read the Minister’s Press release on his address to the Victorian Country Party Annual Conference at Horsham to realise the repetitious and sterile line of argument that is used on rural audiences.

So let us see what a farmer’s government has done for the dairy farmer. Of the 4 most senior people in the Cabinet, three are farmers. Of the 12 Cabinet members, six are farmers. Of the 25 Ministers in the Ministry, nine are farmers. It has taken this farmer’s Government 17 months to introduce a first step on the road to dairy marketing reform the rule of which is to change a voluntary arrangement into a compulsory one. Big deal! No wonder beef farmers are predicting that the Government could lose 13 seats in rural areas at the next election. The slogan ‘Only Butter Butters’ is now being joined by ‘Only Sinclair Dithers’. What has been happening to this great industry while the Government has been dithering? It has been going backwards, and well the Government knows it.

Taking Australian Bureau of Statistics data for the period 31 March 1971 to 31 March 1975 the number of dairy holdings declined by over 26 per cent with the number of properties dropping from 54 841 to 40 490. If herds under 30 cows were excluded from these figures on the grounds that most farmers in this category are not specialist dairy farmers, then the decline is still in excess of 23 per cent. These figures do not necessarily represent a fall in production of the percentage stated as the tendency is for average herd size to increase and cow numbers have dropped by only some 9 per cent for the same period. But since this period and particularly for the period that this Government has been in office, and taking into account the drought in Victoria in 1976, and State trends in the decline in farm numbers, it is probable that today the number of holdings is now down to 33 000. That would be a drop of nearly 40 per cent in 7 years. With figures like these it is no wonder that many dairy farmers, or should I say ex-dairy farmers, regard the Government’s inaction with cynicism.

All Governments in Australia and all in the industry have known or should have known of the long term prospects for the industry. Although the facts have not prevented State governments and politicians from encouraging more production for parochial reasons, the trend has been plain and apprehendable for those that would read, listen and see. Britain’s entry into the Common Market, France’s continuing intransigence with respect to domestic subsidisation, the European Economic Community’s overall policies, the problems faced by New Zealand and the volatility of prices on the world market, given small changes in the volume traded, have all been known for a long while. On the domestic scene although the fluid market is strong, per capita consumption is declining. The impact of margarine as a competitor for butter is causing severe problems for the manufacturing milk sector and the processing industry, being over capitalised and under specialised, is engaged in a process of rationalisation. Measures of assistance for rationalisation and readjustment have helped some people out of the industry. But for many the economists’ euphemism of adjustment’ has meant getting out without any compensation. The reason and the blame for this sorry state of affairs must be laid at the doors of previous Liberal-Country Party governments through the 1960s which encouraged the dairy industry and led it to believe in a fool ‘s paradise without pointing to the inevitable. If there are any dairy farmers who do not believe the industry is in the process of adjusting to a level of production at or near local consumption then I believe they should read the statements of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and of Mr Tony Webster of the Australian Dairy Corporation at this year’s Outlook Conference.

The Dairy Industry Assistance Levy Bill relates to the powers to impose a levy on market milk, which will raise concern in many quarters, particularly in New South Wales, but it is to be hoped that the need for such a levy will not be prompted and that available fluid markets will continue to be shared more equitably in the

States. The Dairy Produce Amendment Bill 1 977 which is also being considered in this cognate debate is to be welcomed because it sensibly sets up an advisory committee to phase out the equalisation committees without conflict and to centralise marketing and administrative power in the Australian Dairy Corporation. In the Minister’s second reading speech on the Dairy Industry Assistance Bill reference was made to the blanket provisions on access to properties, power to call for books and returns and to set up virtually an inspectorate and a disbursement scheme on the lines of Commonwealth Egg Marketing Authority legislation in the poultry industry. It is to be hoped that the mechanisms of inspection and enforcement of the Act do not lead to the conflict and excessive bureaucracy that is causing concern in the egg industry where the cost of orderly marketing seems to be out of all proportion.

Finally, it seems that the Australian Agricultural Council in February this year largely agreed to Stage II of the IAC recommendations; this stage to commence possibly on 1 January 1978. Although some States are baulking at Stage II, it is essential for the Minister to initiate more discussions on national entitlement measures. That date, 1 January 1978, is very close and any decision on Stage II not well appreciated by the farmers themselves is going to cause governments much difficulty in the implementation phase. The tardiness that has marked the Government’s approach to this industry to date must not be allowed to continue. The Opposition does not oppose the legislation.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

-Congratulations to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) on the rapid progress he has made to stabilise the Australian dairy industry since the Liberal and National Country parties were returned to power 18 months ago. I emphasise rapid in view of the recent years of indecision within the industry about the need to adjust to the real market situation following final exclusion from the British market, the threat to domestic orderly marketing following the Labor Government’s abolition of the bounty and the reliance on a voluntary equalisation scheme without a bounty incentive. There was also the inappropriateness of a private company administering the financial mechanism of equalisation. There is also the changing dairy products consumption pattern domestically with the removal of margarine quotas, once again by the Labor Government, and internationally with the loss of the British bulk butter and cheese markets. Furthermore, when we returned to office the export manufacturing sector of the industry faced chaos due to the collapse of the international skim milk powder market and the failure of the Labor Government to agree to an industry request several months earlier to support the industry by underwriting a minimum equalised price.

The Government, at the urging of the Minister for Primary Industry and a number of Government backbenchers, moved quickly to provide underwriting at approximately 50c per lb fat in whole milk in March last year and thus prevented the breakdown of orderly marketing and farmer and factory bankruptcy. Since then underwriting has been progressively increased to 60c and now approximately 60c to 65c per lb. The Minister already has announced continuation of the 60c to 65c per lb level of underwriting for the 1977-78 season- an announcement made in good time to allow the industry administrators and producers to plan for the new season. I have only one contradictory comment on the new underwriting; that is, that full cream powder should be included as it will be included in the new equalisation arrangements for 1977-78.

The first report of the Industries Assistance Commission in 1975 recommended no specific action on restructuring the dairy industry and handed the matter over to the industry. The industry organisations were unable to resolve the issues confronting the industry; so the Minister for Primary Industry moved quickly once again to refer the matter back to the IAC, but this time he stipulated a time limit and required the IAC to make specific recommendations. The IAC reported in September 1976. Following a series of Australian Agricultural Council meetings the first stage of a 3-stage proposal is before the Parliament today. It is a proposal that was necessarily amended after consultation with the industry, the States, and Government backbenchers. In the meantime the continuation of underwriting has kept the industry stable and in a reasonable if not prosperous state. The underwriting has cost the Commonwealth Government approximately $10m since its inception last year and it could cost the Commonwealth Government far more in the coming year.

Stage I really only makes the present voluntary equalisation arrangements for manufactured dairy products statutory or compulsory by the imposition of a levy. That is a simple but important and fundamental breakthrough for the orderly marketing of dairy products. In fact, the use of the levy is of tremendous importance to primary industry stabilisation generally. Those who challenge it will do so to the peril of the orderly or stable marketing of all primary products in this country. Stage I is of greater value to the 2 southern export States- Victoria and Tasmania- and to a lesser extent to South Australia than it is to the deficit States of Western Australia, Queensland and New South Wales because it prevents any of the deficit States’ factories from withdrawing from the equalisation scheme and just selling their product on the higher priced local market. The corollary or quid pro quo of this compulsory equalisation of manufactured products is the compulsory or orderly marketing, if you like, or continued stability of market milk sales through the imposition of the market milk levy, which will be applied if and only if the market milk sector is threatened by imminent breakdown.

The other aspects of the legislation include a Reserve Bank or government guaranteed advance payment procedure to overcome a possible short term liquidity problem with the product levy for both the factory and the farmer. Secondly, the equalisation function will be assumed by the Australian Dairy Corporation, which is in line with the control by the Australian Wool Corporation and the Australian Wheat Board of the financial mechanisms or arrangements of those industries. A dairy industry advisory committee will be established with which the Australian Dairy Corporation will be required to consult to allow a greater accountability by the Corporation to the various sectors of the industry. I suggest to the dairy industry that once the new arrangement is working satisfactorily it should look at the direct election and accountability mechanisms in the consultative committees which will be there to support the new Meat and Live-stock Corporation; in other words, a further degree of accountability back to the 2 major sectors of the dairy industry- the producers and the manufacturers. Unfortunately, condensery products will not be included until Stage II. It is unfortunate because all major products and all major sectors of the dairy industry should be included.

The contradictory criticism coming from the various States over the Stage I proposals and the market milk levy indicates that the Minister has trodden a fairly neutral and constructive path with this legislation. Those who cry that a lack of justice has been shown to the Victorian dairy farmers- I am a Victorian dairy farmer- because of the market milk levy overlook the fact that the States jealously retain their power over intrastate milk, the Victorian Government no less than the others. Fortunately the States are at last beginning to equalise their market milk arrangements; in some cases, such as in New South Wales, it is done without reasonable compensation and in others, such as in Victoria, it is done with over generous compensation and over too long a period. It is hypocritical for a Victorian Minister to claim that lack of justice has been shown because the Victorian dairy farmers theoretically cannot take on the Sydney milk market when the same Victorian farmers will be prevented for 10 years by that same Minister from complete access to the Melbourne market and to cry about UHT milk- ultra-high treatment milk- being included in the levy if and only if it is found to be disrupting orderly marketing when Victorian UHT milk has been effectively barred from the Melbourne market for many years. However, it has to be recognised that there is a need for an annual review of the interstate sales of liquid milk, along with State aggregate entitlements, when Stage II is introduced.

Now that Stage I is here the real debate is under way on Stage II. It involves a far more fundamental restructuring of the industry. The issues still to be resolved include the size of the national aggregate entitlement, interpool transfers, market signals and the inability of factories and their suppliers locked into a product range necessarily to respond to the ebbs and flows of the market, reviews of entitlement and transferability, and the inclusion or exclusion of market milk in the entitlement.

As I stated earlier, I agree with the Minister’s decision to stabilise market milk at least until such time as the new industry arrangements are in operation and the States have equalised thenown market milk arrangements. However, that raises the important question of whether, if the additional financial return for market milk is not to be equalised, then, as a position of minimum justice for southern dairy farmers the quantity of that milk should be included in the national entitlement; that is, that the quantity as distinct from its value should be included or, to put it another way, the butterfat equivalent of market milk produced in a State should be included in the State’s entitlement and the State should then be left to sort out how it will handle the market milk in the provision of an individual farmer’s entitlements.

The percentage of a State ‘s production that is used for market milk varies from State to State. According to the first IAC report, in 1973-74 it was 56 per cent in New South Wales; 12 per cent in Victoria; 40 per cent in Queensland; 35 per cent in South Australia; 48 per cent in Western Australia; and 20 per cent in Tasmania. The percentages now used for market milk would be higher. If the butterfat equivalent of that market milk used in a State is not included the farmers in the deficit States will not only have their equal share of the national aggregate entitlement but an even better entitlement, that is, their market milk entitlement. That will be the real cream, if you like, on top of the wholemilk or the national aggregate entitlement and a very small or nonexistent non-preferred percentage, or skim milk. In the export States of Tasmania and Victoria there will be very little cream because we are looking at a percentage of 12 in relation to Victoria for market milk to a percentage of 56 in relation to New South Wales. There will be the same amount of wholemilk and there will be a hell of a lot of skim milk.

I have made certain calculations that are based on the production by 2 farmers of 30 000 lb of butterfat in wholemilk in the States of New South Wales and Victoria. I have based these calculations on the New South Wales farmer having an equalised return of 56 per cent of his production at the current Sydney market price for milk and on the Victorian farmer having a 12 per cent return at the current Melbourne price. I have made certain guesstimates concerning production in the coming year and concerning the relativities between exports and home consumption and Stage II percentage of preferred and non-preferred entitlement. The example I have used is probably an extreme case now but in 2 or 3 years it will not be extreme. I estimate that without the inclusion of the butterfat equivalent of the New South Wales dairy farmer’s market milk entitlement in the national aggregate entitlement his income on that 30 000 lb of butterfat would be approximately $40,500. The income of the Victoria’n dairy farmer producing the same amount of milk would be approximately $23,500, which means a gap of $17,000 between the gross returns of the New South Wales dairy farmer and the Victorian dairy farmer producing the same amount of milk.

If the butterfat equivalent of the market milk entitlement is included in the national aggregate entitlement and therefore in the State entitlement, there is still a tremendous difference between the New South Wales and the Victorian dairy farmer. But this difference is reduced considerably. My calculations are that the gross income of the New South Wales dairy farmer comes back to $33,000 and the Victorian dairy farmer’s gross income increases to $23,000. There is an approximate $10,000 difference still in favour of the New South Wales dairy farmer. No one could say that by including the butterfat equivalent or the quantity of market milk entitlement as distinct from the value we are by any means equalising the situation. I intend to send these calculations to the Minister for Primary Industry so that the officers in his Department can tell me how far wrong I am. But I would be surprised if the overall result is very different from what I have indicated.

I believe that the Minister should allow adequate time for debate on and assessment of this most fundamental restructuring of the dairy industry. I refer here to the Stage II proposals. The Minister should be prepared to go against the majority of the States if they are not prepared to concede the justice of the argument that I have just put on the inclusion of the butterfat equivalent of the market milk entitlement in the national aggregate entitlement, just as that same Minister decided against the State with the majority of production when he introduced the market milk levy. I support this legislation. I believe that it is the most important and fundamental dairying industry legislation to be introduced into this House for many years. I congratulate the Minister on treading a steady and constructive path through the minefield that he has had to walk so far and I wish him well for the future.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I rise to debate these Bills as chairman of the Government parties rural committee only because of the generosity of various members of the committee who have refused to take my place in the debate. I thank them for their loyalty and I shall attempt to cover their point of view.

We are debating 5 dairy Bills of great significance to the dairy industry. The first 3 Bills concern the introduction of Stage 1 of the Industries Assistance Commission dairying plan which was primarily involved in giving legislative backing to the old voluntary equalisation scheme. They deal with milk which has been processed into butter, cheese and other milk products. The other 2 Bills propose to place on the statute book a law that can be triggered by decision of the Australian Agricultural Council in the event of the emergence of any serious threat to the stability of the domestic fluid milk market. This matter was most adequately covered by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) in the excellent speech that he made a few minutes ago. Because I have noticed some misunderstanding in relation to these Bills it should be emphasised that the Government is not introducing levies on the domestic milk section of the market by virtue of this legislation. The Government proposes purely to put a law on the statute book in case it is deemed necessary in the future by the Agricultural Council whose role is to trigger such action in case of need to avoid any vast disruption to that market.

Historically the dairying industry has never been short of its Messiahs, nor has it been shy in producing plans affecting future marketing. In my short memory a very interesting plan was produced by Edwards and Drane in 1959. That Edwards is perhaps better known today as the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Edwards). Amongst other matters they suggested a 2-tier price system for purchasing dairy production for the first time, as did a scheme put to the present Minister for National Resources and Minister for Overseas Trade (Mr Anthony) back in 1971. Since then, as the economics of the dairying industry have reeled from a world over supply of butter to an even bigger mountain of skim milk powder, and in Australia we have entered into extraordinarily difficult times of drought, the industry itself produced the Australian Dairy Corporation Plan, the Spectrum Plan and finally the Commonwealth equalisation committee plan. In the field of equalisation we have had the Norton plan and then more latterly the O’Brien plan. In the meantime Professor Crawford tabled on 1 1 November 1975 his first Industries Assistance Commission report.

It is hardly surprising in retrospect that few people got around to studying this plan. In some ways I hold the personal belief that it possibly had more merit than did the later Crawford plan or IAC report commissioned by the present Government and on which the Bills under consideration today are based.

The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) stated that these legislative proposals are concerned only with Stage I of the IAC report and that it is hoped to introduce Stage II in approximately 12 months. The IAC, at least, looks on a slightly longer interval prior to the introduction of Stage III. Many members of my committee and State Ministers of Agriculture will not at this early stage look forward at all to that introduction. It would be a fair assumption to state that the Government parties rural committee finds no problem with the Bills before the House. On the other hand, it has several reservations about the legislation as it relates to the latter stages of the plan. Might I add that I personally have no particular reservations about the introduction of Stage II.

Many of the doubts were placed in our minds by a most successful meeting held on 17 December last with representatives from the

Dairy Corporation, the Milk Equalisation Committee and the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation and representatives of various manufacturing interests, both proprietary and cooperative. In justice to those who were kind enough to attend this meeting, I must say that a full copy of the proceedings was sent to the Minister and I believe was studied by his Department. It was at this stage that the Minister for Primary Industry, chairing a series of Agricultural Council meetings, started to make real progress towards the consensus on which these Bills are founded It is perhaps true to say that the rapid progress made, greatly to the credit of the Minister, in some ways pre-empted the work done by the rural committee. However, it is true I think to take note of Bill Pyle, the President of the United Dairy Farmers of Victoria when he said 2 things of note. Firstly, he said: ‘If you are going to introduce the IAC proposals, then don’t tinker around with them too much because there is merit in the totality where alterations may prove to make the scheme unworkable’. Secondly, if I can paraphrase his remarks, he said: The situation of the dairying industry is in such an urgent position that action must be taken and people must see the merits in the total proposals ‘. The practical difficulties that then eventuated were, of course, that each State tended to make its own individual stand on one or several of the considerations. However, in spite of these difficulties, I believe we have before the House today a set of proposals which can achieve a great deal of rationality and which will work to the benefit of the industry as a whole.

It is perhaps unfortunate that because of the actions of at least one State we are now posed with the problem in the dying stages of this session of Parliament of introducing quite radical changes to the structure of the dairying industry without a proper amount of time for debate. I seek leave of the House to table a Press report labelled Victorian Delays to Federal Dairy Marketing Legislation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Mr GILES:

– The blame for this situation cannot be held to be the fault of this Government. It is obviously necessary that the new plan be brought in as of 1 July. Therefore, the squeeze on all of us in the late hours of this session of Parliament is obvious. It is also necessary to make one other matter clear to the industry. The new arrangements before the House will not in themselves mean any increased return to the industry.

In isolation the new arrangements will not generate additional funds. However, I anticipate that there could well be a rub off in relation to returns to growers by a more efficient operation. But I make a proviso. It is apparent to many that there is an enormously increased amount of statistically work involved in the new arrangements. If that work can be carried out economically- some people think it cannot- I believe that some of this efficiency can rub off to the benefit of the industry.

I note that the Chairman of the Australian Dairy Corporation, Mr Webster, states that, given a normal season, production in Australia is estimated, for this coming year, to be about 5.3 billion litres of milk which is much the same as the level achieved last year. The drought of 1976 and the huge increases in the cost of production which have been borne by the dairy industrythis bears on the excellent speech made by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) about half an hour ago- together with the consequent effect on a lack of competitive position with other producing nations and, a surplus position with many dairying commodities on the world market have all brought about a contraction in the size of the industry. This has been of great consequence. Much of the contraction has occurred in the case of younger dairy farmers who, unfortunately, have had a higher debt load. They have had to give away their vocation in life. I mention this aspect because they are from the very section which would have produced the dairy leaders of the future. Their loss is a very dire one to the dairying industry and to this country.

This contraction has brought production to a volume at which we should be able to sell our products at a reasonable return if some sanity can be brought to bear on the policies of other dairying producing nations. The Industries Assistance Commission in its report of September last year recommended the implementation of a staged mandatory marketing scheme for the manufacturing sector of the industry with a view to achieving a stable and viable basis for the industry. The Australian Agricultural Council and sections of the industry have agreed with the Government that the implementation of stage one should be from 1 July this year. As well as providing for compulsory, instead of voluntary, equalisation the legislation provides for a levy on prescribed products. The Dairy Produce Amendment Bill empowers the Australian Dairy Corporation to administer the levy-disbursement arrangements and sets up an Australian Dairy Industry Advisory Committee to give the best possible technical advice to the Corporation in the field of marketing arrangements. The Government has listened to further advice and recently it amended the composition to include 11 members. There will be one independent chairman, 3 members representing butter, skimmed milk and casein manufacturers, 2 members representing cheese manufacturers, one member representing other processed milk products and 4 dairy farmers, including one from the market milk sector.

The last 2 Bills establish, as I mentioned earlier, reserve powers to be used if disruption occurs in the liquid milk sector. These powers can be triggered by the Agricultural Council, by majority vote. So that the current margins of costs can be discerned State by State, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table headed:

The Price Structure for Market Milk in the States.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

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

The table read as follows-

Mr GILES:

– I note that the honourable member for Murray cited some statistics from this document.

Mr Lloyd:

– It would be the percentages rather than prices.

Mr GILES:

– Quite true. The lower cost of production in Victoria and South Australia will interest the industry in other States, particularly in New South Wales and Queensland.

There is still much to be done in relation to the dairying industry. I shall mention some of these matters in brief form. The first matter is allowances. Various allowances, for example to assist with storage and transport, will be reviewed. The Industries Assistance Commission has recommended that they should be reviewed. These allowances are funded under equalisation by the industry. I believe that some of the allowances may prove unnecessary.

Underwriting of equalised returns from sales of dairy products to assist in stabilising the incomes of dairy farmers is the next matter. The Government has extended this scheme for butter and cheese, as is probably well known to the House, to the 1977-78 season. Subject to agreement by State governments, a similar extension could be granted in the field of skim milk powder and casein. In relation to rural adjustment, the Commonwealth and the States will make $55m available in 1977-78. A significant proportion of this amount will no doubt be provided to assist dairy farmers. I gather that more funds can be made available when claims which might necessitate that action are processed. However, the implementation of stage one from 1 July 1977 is a major step forward. The Government and the Minister are to be congratulated on this action.

Mr MILLAR:
Wide Bay

-The House is concerned with the Dairy Industry Stabilization Bill and associated Bills whose provisions are designed to bring some stability to the Australian dairying industry. It is a matter of record that the Liberal-National Country Party Government has always had a concern for primary industry in general and the dairying industry in particular as is evidenced by the support measures which it has introduced over the years. These Bills constitute another chapter in the rather sorry saga of the progression of an industry from the euphoria of the post World War II period to the present situation where, with escalating prices and diminishing market opportunities, chaos is threatening. I say it has been a stumbling progression. At times it appeared more as a bumbling progression where a diligent and efficient dairying industry responded to the demands which were made from time to time. The initial demand was that production should be increased. When increased productivity failed to achieve economic viability, it was said that efficiency must improve. This did not prove a solution to the dilemma. Various measures were discussed and some were proposed as to how rationalisation in the industry should take place.

I shall say a word for Queensland in the face of the commendable exposition given by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) who, understandably is concerned for his constituents in Victoria. I speak for Queensland because since the post-war period it might be claimed that Queensland has suffered retrenchment in the dairy industry with a fall in the number of producers from approximately 25 000 to 4000. In many respects the cause of that reduction can be attributed to the lack of concern, even total indifference, shown by other elements in the dairying industry, particularly in other States. While we talk now of market signals, one cannot be too optimistic about the people concerned taking heed of signals. The market signals have been there over the last 25 years. In the 1960s, notwithstanding clear indications that the dairying industry was heading for trouble, Victoria with cavalier disregard for the signals embarked on the development of the dairying industry. It had some encouragement to do this in the short term because under the subsidy provisions which prevailed at the time a substantial portion of that subsidy finished up in Victoria and Tasmania. Because dairying was carried out in a conducive environment, farmers were able to produce a high class commodity at a low cost of production.

There were efficient producers in Queensland who had a greater need of subsidy support but they were actually receiving less because the level of production was lower. In that climate it was easy to understand how the Victorians thought these euphoric conditions could last forever. In the present deliberations it cannot be disguised that a cancer still exists in Victoria resulting from the irresponsibility of a previous administration which produced enormous problems for dairy farmers in Victoria for whom I have a strong personal sympathy. It is not unreasonable to expect that that cancer should be first excised and stability should be brought to that State- as it should to all States- before serious thought is given to a national stabilisation scheme which, in effect, gives a commonality to the prospects of the dairy farmers within that State. Queensland has been apprehensive that Victoria would look to be eased from its selfinduced difficulties by drawing on some of the prospects of dairy farmers in other States.

I say again that Queensland has suffered retrenchment and it is insisting, therefore, that stage 2 be introduced at the earliest possible date. It is envisaged that stage 2 will be introduced on 1 July 1978 and this will not be a day too soon. It is totally unreasonable to imagine that the situation in Victoria can exist without a special effort within that State to resolve its self-induced dilemma. This would thereby deny the State of Queensland and possibly other smaller States the opportunity, long awaited, to establish some degree of stability within their States. Queensland is in the position now of importing its domestic butter requirements and that indicates the downturn of the industry in that State. We are at a stage now where, with a State entitlement, we can rationalise the industry within the State and hope to exploit the only real prospect in the industry of developing the market milk opportunity. At the present time, happily there is no serious competitor for market milk. We have not been able to withstand the intrusion of substitutes in other manufacturing fields. Initially there was a moral argument to withstand the intrusion of imported vegetable oils as a butter substitute but as the growing activities became established in Queensland that argument could not be sustained because it limited the opportunities of Australian oilseeds producers.

The fact of the matter is that the retrenchment has taken effect in Queensland. We have suffered our trauma. We require Stage II of the scheme to ensure that we will not be subjected to further disadvantage. While the States have arrived at some degree of accord through the Australian Agricultural Council, it must not be forgotten that the acceptance by the State of Queensland of the introduction of Stage I by this legislation is dependent entirely on the assurance that Stage II will be introduced, thereby enabling the establishment of a State entitlement program which will protect Queensland from further intrusion on its not unreasonable prospects. I have pleasure in supporting the Bills and I hope that in the current sad situation they will lead the Australian dairymen to a happier position, one which can be arrived at in complete accord.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2206

DAIRY INDUSTRY STABILIZATION LEVY BILL 1977

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2207

DAIRY PRODUCE AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2207

DAIRY INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE BILL 1977

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2207

DAIRY INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE LEVY BILL 1977

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2207

AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVE-STOCK CORPORATION BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · Balaclava · LP

– 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, the Live-stock Export Charge Bill, the Live-stock Export Charge Collection Bill, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Collection Amendment Bill, and the Meat Research Amendment Bill, as they are associated measures. Separate questions will of course be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the 6 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 6 measures? I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-The purpose of this Bill and the associated levy Bills is to establish the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation and set up the basis for financing the operations of the proposed new Corporation and associated activities in the meat industry. The handling of this issue by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) will ensure that he goes down in Australia’s agricultural history because the bungling of the entire Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation proposal is a monument to 12 months of procrastination, indecision and, at times, bitter attack by primary producers on the Minister and the Government.

National Country Party members, particularly those in Queensland, must be increasingly concerned about the criticism which traditional National Country Party supporters are levelling against the Minister and the Government.

The ever-growing and publicised criticism by the Australian Cattlemen’s Union in Queensland indicates that large numbers of National Country Party supporters are far from happy with the approach adopted by the Minister and the attitude of some of their traditional organisations.

If we go back over the records, it is easy to see why the criticism has been made. On 8 September the Minister published a letter which he had written to various industry leaders about his proposals for the re-organisation of the Australian Meat Board into the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. In that letter, he said:

During the past six months, I have indicated publicly on numerous occasions, that the present powers and functions and composition of the Australian Meat Board would be reviewed to ensure that the Board is adequately equipped to control and promote Australia’s meat exports in the light of present and likely future production and marketing decisions.

Even this statement is a little surprising, because if we go back less than 6 months from September last year we find that on 2 April when addressing the Central Coast Graziers’ Association in Rockhampton, the Minister said:

The Australian Meat Board is faced with an exceptionally demanding task of great magnitude. These set firm decisionmaking tasks against a background of improving and protecting the interests of the meat industry. Too much criticism of the Board has been negative criticism. If criticism is to be made, it must be constructive. The Board has a difficult task. It has to strike balance, assist the Australian industry and ensure that Australia’s meat industry can sell successfully overseas. It needs the highest managerial skills, the best marketing intelligence, the best context. In recent times, it has endeavoured to do its job in an adverse era for the meat industry. To my mind, it has done its job well.

These remarks imply that in April the Minister was satisfied with the Board, and contrast with his assertion of needing to proceed towards replacing the Board. Further, it is in line with the Minister’s reputation throughout the country that he does not spoil a good story with the truth. Again in his letter attached to the statement of 8 September, he said:

I believe that an early decision concerning reconstitution of the Australian Meat Board will be to the benefit of all connected with the meat industry to enable the Board to commence operation as soon as possible. It is my intention to proceed with the legislation necessary to amend the Board’s charter as a matter of priority.

I am certain that most primary producer organisations understood these remarks to mean that a draft of the legislation would be available before Christmas and brought in during February or March so that the Corporation could have been operating by 1 July of this year. The Minister reinforced this notion of attempting to move quickly when on 2 1 October in a statement dealing with the re-constitution of the Australian Meat Board, he said:

I can assure all parties that their views and comments will be considered by the Government and an early decision made on the nature and timing of any necessary legislation.

I emphasise the words, ‘an early decision made on the nature and timing of any necessary legislation’. It was not until the producers’ criticism reach a crescendo that the Minister or the Government showed any haste. In the process of floating his notions about the proposed structure of the Board and its powers and functions, we find the result is that the organisations representing livestock producers are at each other’s throats and the Australian Meat Exporters’ Federal Council is attacking both the livestock producer organisations and the Minister. This is somewhat ironic because when the Minister was speaking on the Wool Industry Bill on 28 November 1974 he said:

It is essential that the divisiveness which Labor in office promotes be reduced.

What nonsense. I believe that the Minister has deliberately set about to cause division within this industry because he knows it will delay the implementation of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation proposal. Consequently, it is highly doubtful whether effective trading and the introduction of meat classification on a serious basis will start until at least February or March of next year. This gives a further lie to the election promises made by the National Country Party in November 1975 when it said a system of meat classification would be introduced after consultation with the Australian Meat Board and the industry.

The Opposition has taken note of the statements by all the producer organisations and has received written statements from them. It has also received the proposals put forward by the Australian Meat Exporters’ Federal Council. The Opposition does not oppose the concept of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. In fact, it is in line with its restructuring of the Australian Wool Corporation, the Australian Dairy Corporation and the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation. The Opposition strongly supports this new body. It also supports the structure and composition of the Board. We do so because it was what we devised and would have applied to the Meat Board, although the Opposition cannot help but notice that the proposal which the Minister puts forward is almost identical to the concept, the composition and structure of major rural product marketing corporations initiated by the Australian Labor Party in government and about which the Minister, during his period in Opposition, expressed strong reservations. In fact, it will be most interesting to see how the Minister and his supporters justify their support of this Labor initiative, because the Minister himself on 4 December 1974 said:

Why should he -

Referring to the then Minister for Agriculture in the Labor Government, Senator Wriedt- accept another body which is elected from the wool growers of this country to represent them.

In addition, Mr Bungey, the National Country Party Member for Canning said:

I am one who advocates grower control of statutory boards marketing primary products and I fiercely oppose the proposition that in an enlarged Board as is proposed, the proportion of wool grower representation is reduced.

Importantly, he went on to say:

The Opposition rejects the changed membership proposal for the Corporation, and rejects the spill which will result.

It will be interesting to see if Mr Bungey, who is still in this Parliament, along with his other colleagues now on the Government benches, will express the same fierce opposition which they professed towards exactly the same restructuring proposal for the wool industry. At least in this matter, the Australian Labor Party is being consistent, which is not something which can be said of the Government. It is no wonder the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation and other organisations are accusing the Government publicly of hypocrisy.

While we agree with the composition of the Board, we do not agree with the way in which the Minister has structured the trading powers and we have a number of reservations about the levy Bills. It is proposed to amend the Australian Meat and Live-stock Bill in some detail. I should make it clear to primary producers who may be listening to this debate that our intention is not to block the legislation but to try to put it in a form that is more in line with their proposals. We are strongly of the view that if the Minister had approached the negotiations in a different fashion and had been more persistent in talking to the primary producer organisations, this last minute rush would never have happened. The Minister is reaping the harvest of his own delay.

Fundamental to the producer organisations’ proposals, was a notion that the new Corporation should have unfettered commercial autonomy. There are differences in emphasis. The Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation and the Australian Cattlemen’s Union want absolute acquisition powers and the Australian National Cattlemen’s Council and the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council want commercial autonomy but have reservations about acquisition. The Opposition, like the Government, has reservations about the beef stabilisation proposals. The price of beef cannot be set independent of either other red meats such as mutton and lamb or white meats such as chicken and fish.

Recent evidence has shown that demand for beef is relatively elastic and a decline in price will lead to a substantial increase in consumption. While not greatly helping the financial position of beef producers, the slump in beef” prices caused a large increase in consumption. From the industry’s point of view, it is essential that the rate of consumption be maintained. However, sections of the beef industry do appear to have forgotten that the functions of the existing Australian Meat Board and the proposed Australian

Meat and Live-stock Corporation are to further the sale of sheep and goat meats as well as livestock.

In 1970-71 during the dying days of the last Liberal-Country Party Government, the bottom fell out of the wool market. As a consequence, surplus sheep and lambs could not be sold and the price of sheep meats plummeted. That situation may arise again. The large scale factory type production of chickens offers a threat to both beef and sheep meats and any pricing policies must recognise that a fall in feed grain prices would intensify the consumption of white meats. Under these circumstances, the new Corporation cannot deal in isolation. It must be able to influence pricing policies so that if beef is being promoted the interests of sheep meat producers are not prejudiced. If the Board has to constantly refer to the Minister for approval, the Opposition believes that it will make it extremely difficult for the Corporation to meet this competition. The Opposition does not believe that much of Part II of the Act gives the Corporation adequate flexibility. It has doubts, for example, whether the Minister could adequately explain in terms of section 9 (4), what is regarded as ‘commercial practice’ in the meat industry. The producers’ attitudes and marketing approaches are so diverse there is no such thing as an ‘average’ or basic model. What is commercial practice for one firm would not be for another.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr KEATING:

– In principle, the Opposition contends that the Corporation should be able to operate in a similar manner to either the Australian Wheat Board or the Australian Wool Corporation. It is proposed to remove any reference in the legislation to the Board of the Corporation having to seek approval from the Minister to act. Naturally, because it is a statutory corporation and there is a Government appointee on the Board, that person would keep the Minister informed in detail about the Corporation’s operations. As with other major primary product marketing boards, the Opposition agrees that the Minister should have the power to issue mandatory directions. Not only does this protect the Government’s position, but in the event of it being necessary for the operation of the Board to be co-ordinated with other Government trade policy objectives, the Minister is in a position to issue a direction and the Board shall comply with that direction.

The Minister has precluded the new Corporation from trading within Australia. It appears that the Government wishes the new Corporation to have a limited scope within which to exercise its powers and functions. While the Opposition is not arguing that the new Corporation should go into the Australian market and compete on a daily basis with meat wholesalers and retailers, it is necessary for the Corporation to have the power at least, to trade within Australia. For this there are several good reasons, one of which is to be able to buy meat so that it can be sold in conjunction with advertising and other promotion work the Corporation might be undertaking. Several years ago, the Meat and Allied Trades Federation attempted to promote the sale of sweet meats, previously described as offal. It would have been helpful if the Australian Meat Board could have been more actively involved and the power to buy stocks of meat to sell as part of the promotion program would have been useful. The operation and interpretation of section 92 of the Constitution effectively prevents the existing operations in the Australian market from domination by the Corporation. To grant the AMLC power to trade locally would be consistent with the powers which have been given to the Australian Wheat Board and the Australian Wool Corporation. On that basis alone, there are no grounds for Government opposition to our amendments.

One of the major innovations producers and sections of the meat trade are seeking to implement is meat classification. While there are strong arguments about the most suitable method to be used the strong consensus of the industry is that a clear, reputable system of classification is urgently needed. One of the major obstacles is the high capital cost of establishing facilities in some of the existing abattoirs. While the level of profitability of some meat companies does seem to be high, there are grounds for the new Corporation supervising and assisting with the introduction of a standard Australia-wide system of meat classification. It is surprising therefore that section 7 (d) of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Bill is identical with section 23 ( 1 ) and (b) of the existing Meat Industry Act.

A large number of producers have accused the Australian Meat Board of proceeding very slowly with the devising of a classification scheme and its introduction. Although the Government in its election policy promised the introduction of a classification scheme, it has not publicly urged the Board to proceed with more speed. Unless the Minister can break his procrastination habit, to leave the final decision in his hands awaiting consideration would be a total disaster. The Opposition believes that the new Corporation should be issued with a direction to proceed with the implementation of a meat classifiacation scheme as a matter of urgency and top priority.

Apart from reference to the Corporation’s powers to borrow, there is very little detail about the financial arrangements, especially if the Board decides to trade. What is to happen if the Board trades at a loss? What is to happen with any substantial profits that are made? There is no similar arrangements that exists for the Wool Corporation or the Wheat Board. As meat exports have on occasions been the most rural export and in every year are extremely important, the Opposition contends that the funding arrangements should be more certain than they are.

The Opposition regards as of paramount importance the appointment of an independent chairman and managerial staff of the highest calibre. It is pleasing that in the determination of salaries, the Remuneration Tribunal rather than the Public Service Board shall be the determining body. When the salaries are being determined, particularly that of the chairman, the Minister should, as a guide, suggest that they are set at a level so as to attract the best men from industry. The appointment of the chairman is a delicate matter but it must be raised because the producers’ organisations have been unanimous in requesting that the present Chairman of the Australian Meat Board not be re-appointed. I will request an assurance from the Minister at the Committee stage that this will be the case.

The final matter is the question of the producer consultative groups. The Opposition does not oppose the idea of the consultative groups but has some reservations about their structure and the role of the Australian Meat Industry Conference. It is understandable that the details should be set out in regulations. However, we suspect it is being used as a subterfuge for further delay. In his second reading speech, the Minister spoke about ‘the electoral producers’ of the consultative groups. This is vague, but is probably deliberately so. What it does not say is whether the members of the producer consultative groups will be elected by the producers themselves, as proposed by the AWMPF and the ACU or by the existing organisations as proposed by the AWGC and the ANCC. The latter two organisations obviously oppose election because they would be outnumbered by representatives from the other organisations.

The Opposition seeks a clear statement from the Minister on whether he proposes that election to the producer groups will be along the same lines as current elections of members to the Australian Wool Industry Conference or by direct election by livestock producers. If the Minister proposes direct election by producers, we seek a statement on the proposed sheep, lamb, cattle, goat equivalent for the purpose of determining a common basis on which to determine an eligibility qualification. We also seek a statement about the minimum qualifications for an elector and whether voting will be on the basis, one man, one vote or a multiple voting system.

The composition of the Australian Meat Industry Conference has not been stated. Prior to the end of this debate we trust that the Minister will have given some sort of guidelines to the House. The Minister expressed this view on 4 December:

As far as I am concerned, the farmer deserves a say on the Corporation just as much as representatives of the trade union movement deserve their say. He should not accept any move by this Government to destroy the opportunity of a farmer having a say in regard to the wages and salaries of the people he employs. We accept that the trade unions should be represented on the Corporation.

There are a number of other minor matters which the Opposition believes deserve less hurried consideration by both the Parliament and the organisations which have an interest in this legislation. The only good fortune is that due to the speed with which this legislation was put to the Parliament, it will be here for amendment in the near future.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– Initially may I commiserate with the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) on his unsuccessful attempt today to become Deputy Leader of the Opposition. However, it has its compensations for this side. We are delighted with the result and the honourable member can take that as he wishes.

Mr Charles Jones:

– He made the Ministry, which is more than you have done.

Mr GILES:

– I suppose that even the honourable member for Newcastle would be a prospect for the position of shadow Minister for Rural Affairs. I do not know how he would shuffle that one. There would be another candidate, the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), who at least has a woolly look about him. Perhaps we could then look forward to having direct Opposition responsibility for rural affairs in this House for a change instead of having the Opposition hiding people away in another place. The honourable member for

Blaxland accused the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and, I think, the Government of prevarication. As I will explain later on in my speech the opposite is the case. He confuses the need to negotiate, and to give all groups a proper chance to express their opinions, with prevarication.

The Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Bill gives effect to proposals from the majority of elements of the industry to change the composition, powers, financial arrangements and salaries applicable to the current Australian Meat Board. The new Corporation envisaged by this legislation oversees the promotion and export of beef and veal, mutton and lamb, goat and buffalo meat as well as live cattle, buffalo, sheep, lambs and goats with the possibility later of the inclusion of pig meat and the export of live pigs. Statutory control over export marketing of meat has existed since the Meat Export Control Act 193S which established the Australian Meat Board. Changes have been made to the composition and powers of this Board on several occasions, including the Meat Industry Act 1 964.

Since that time, with a large increase in the national cattle herd, a higher proportion of total production from this nation has gone to export. This simple fact has meant that the Government has to restructure the composition and powers of the Board for that internal reason and also for the external reasons whereby various countries, including those from behind the Iron curtain, now resort either to government to government arrangements for the purchase of beef and meat or, alternatively, by contracting with the wide variety of national boards and corporations. An understanding of these changed conditions is necessary to appreciate fully the Government’s thinking in relation to changes to the composition, functions and powers of the new Corporation. I refer honourable members to statistics given in the second reading speech of the Minister for Primary Industry on 26 May which point to the huge increases in production and the export component and the value of meat exports themselves in Australia. This has increased by 270 percent from 1964 to 1973.

Likewise, there has been a big change in the pattern of exports associated with this increase in volume. In 1963-64, 90 per cent of exports of beef and veal were shipped to the United States and the United Kingdom. There is no need for me at this stage to point to the difficulties that Australia has experienced with all trade to the European Economic Community with its insistence on an inward, selfish and artificial internal pricing mechanism that flowed from the Treaty of Rome. Although prior to the United Kingdom entering the Common Market the sight of Australian frozen beef carcasses at Smithfield did little to improve the image of Australian beef, we were still far too slow in those days to encourage innovation and arrange for Australian chilled beef to reach that important market. However, the changing pattern now shows that more than half of our beef exports in 1976 were consigned to the United States of America with growing markets in Canada, Japan, the Middle East and eastern Europe. Australia is now the largest single meat exporter in the world. This has occurred at a time when many importing countries face strong political pressure to protect their own production.

The restrictions that this has imposed on Australian exports have led to a potential instability for us and small changes in demand overseas have had large ramifications on our sales and on the price structures of Australian producers. Rises in shipping freights, in some cases exorbitant rises, have cut into the final realisations of growers in this country as has the undue use of industrial muscle in process and killing meatworks thanks to the irresponsible years of the Whitlam Government and, perhaps, a Labor Minister’s insistence on using the civil service as a pace setter in wages and conditions. Those working in meatworks have been granted an undue proportion of the final price available from export meat. Nor is this the end of the problem. More than one meatworks- I am thinking now of Consolidated Meat Holdings in Wodonga- has had to close for long periods due to industrial trouble. In many instances those striking are receiving much higher weekly payments in their pay packets than the producers of the commodity they process. New innovations and upgrading of mechanism has not brought the increase in productivity expected. I have in mind Murray Meats in Murray Bridge, which, 2 years ago, put a hide stripping machine on cattle killed at that meatworks. By the time it had finished negotiating with the unions it was a worthless exercise as regards the returns flowing to that factory and to the producer.

It is against all these factors that the Government has now produced the new Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. For nearly 9 months now, instead of prevaricating as the honourable member for Blaxland would have us believe, both the Minister for Primary Industry and others from the Government side, including members of the Government parties rural committee, have held negotiations with a large number of major rural industry organisations, consumer bodies and other interested people. Is this the honourable member’s idea of prevarication? Everybody has not only agreed, but also requested that there should be change. In many cases there has been little unanimity as to what those changes should be. The Minister produced for consideration, as did the Government parties rural committee, a paper which was read out by the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde) as deputy chairman of our committee at a seminar called by the Minister in Sydney during, I think, February this year. All industry representatives were invited to make further submissions and to give additional thought to areas where it proved impossible to reach consensus.

Because of the conflict of interests, particularly between rural organisations on the one hand and meat exporters on the other, the Government quite properly has had to adjudicate and come down with a structure for the new Corporation which it deems to be the most efficient method of streamlining its future functions. The national interest has been taken into account by increasing the administrative efficiency and flexibility of the operations of the new Corporation. I fully support the Government in the action it has taken and regard this new legislation as an historic move which is likely to increase the efficiency of handling Australia ‘s meat exports in all forms and likely to lead to a better feedback of information both to meat processors and exporters but, more particularly, to rural organisations and the grass roots producers themselves.

I shall now touch on some of the reasons for my belief. Firstly, the powers of the Corporation itself have been extended. The Bill allows for this form of elasticity of operation by way of regulation. Matters of great concern to a more efficient pricing mechanism inside Australia, such as a system of meat classification, is a case in point. The sooner we can concoct an efficient method of harnessing the majority of meatworks to this system, the sooner Australian producers will receive the proper price for their product. There has been comment on the powers of the Minister included in this Bill. I seek leave to have incorp orated in Hansard-I have shown it to the h onourable member for Blaxland- a paper setting out a comparison of ministerial involvement and powers under the Meat Industry Act 1964 as compared with this new AMLC Act.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

The paper read as follows-

Mr GILES:

-It will be apparent to those interested in the technical features of powers that the powers in this Bill are similar to those of the recently formed Apple and Pear Corporation and the Australian Wool Corporation. In many ways the powers vested in the Minister and, indeed, in the Corporation are less than those vested in the Australian Wheat Board or in the Minister in relation to that Act. By vesting these powers only in the field of export and therefore in the field of handling, shipping, promotion and sale, all of which in my view are the basic ingredients of marketing, the Government has assured the maximum play of the free enterprise system in comparison with changing market attitudes of other nations. Likewise, the powers vested in the Board are consistent with this theme but protect to a real degree the deteriorating position of grower returns. The traditional free enterprise system ‘of marketing the product will remain an important ingredient as new markets are discovered and promoted. I personally hope, however, that, where entitlements to the United States market are purchased by price cutting in other markets, the Board will use its powers to rationalise such under-cutting. The Corporation will, therefore, have power to cancel or suspend the licences of exporters who fail to comply with a Corporation direction. I am pleased to note also that in such instances there is a capacity to review the decision by appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The composition of the Corporation, as is well known to this House, has been altered with a view to introducing a compact, cohesive working corporation with members of the highest possible calibre, particularly selected to cover new fields of expertise necessary in the interests of efficient meat exporting. As well as the chairman and the Government representative, 4 members representing Australian livestock producers, one meat export representative and two specially qualified members will be appointed. So far, industry organisations have, I think, been looking on the producers’ consultative group as a group charged primarily with the responsibility of producing a panel of names- six in all- from which the Minister will select 4 representatives. However, the importance of this group is far greater than just this single responsibility would imply. The Minister has suggested that this group, and in particular its executive, should maintain a close working relationship with the Corporation itself. This should assure a proper flowback of information to all industry groups and to all grass roots producers in each State of the Commonwealth from which this group will be elected on a franchise which is yet to be determined. I personally hope that there will later be a voluntary arrangement between the producer consultative group and the export and abattoirs consultative group to form a joint executive for even closer contact with the Corporation. Be this as it may, it is necessary that the producer consultative group executive consults regularly with the Corporation and passes back all information necessary through the chain to the producer himself. On the other hand, I see the role of this executive as being the mechanism by which the full consultative group is called together from time to time.

Colonel MacArthur, the present Chairman of the Australian Meat Board, has performed in his inimitable way, displaying his great personality to a magnificent extent to many of our export customers overseas. Nobody would question his dedication to the job and the hard work he has performed on behalf of the industry. This hard work possibly accounts for his recent ill health. But given the changing circumstances of today, the Meat Board was not constituted to deal with the proper flow back. It is vital that the new Corporation considers fully its powers under the new Act and makes quite certain that grower groups are kept fully informed as to the reasons why decisions are made.

It is also my belief, supported by a certain amount of evidence, that exporters have in many ways dominated the decision making process of the Meat Board, although producer representatives accounted for six of the ten members of that Board. To overcome this problem, the Government has cut the number of exporter representatives, which is presently two, to one and increased the number of those with special qualifications to two. It is fair to say that nobody was entirely happy with the performance of the Meat Board in the past, although six of the ten members represented primary producer organisations. The Government has therefore decided to appoint 4 representatives, who, together with any duplication of interests from the 2 representatives with special qualifications or from the appointment of the Chairman himself, in my view will certainly give adequate producer representation. Logic demands a compact and cohesive board and logic also demands a higher proportion of those with knowledge of overseas markets and trading rather than general industry experience to be represented for the first time on the new Corporation. We have proved conclusively in the past that we can produce beef cattle and all meat extraordinarily well, but we are yet to prove that we have a structure that can market that commodity efficiently.

As a producer of beef and fat lambs, I believe that we have the best potential structure to cope efficiently with the future problem of meat marketing. I say ‘potential’, not because I doubt the Minister’s wisdom in the appointments he will make, but because there is still the need for producer organisations to put forward on their panels for ministerial consideration, the absolute top calibre of man available to sit as their representatives on the Corporation. If this is done and if the producer consultative groups function as they are expected to, the use of the word ‘potential’ can certainly be deleted from my previous statement. There is no doubt that, with increasing world demand reflecting an increased price and with reduced inflation and with some industrial peace, there will be an improvement of prices to the producer. I believe that this new Corporation will do more than play its part in achieving the results that all of us desire.

I should like to thank all of the producer and other organisations which have so frankly expressed their views to the Government Parties’ rural committee and for the time and effort they have obviously devoted to forming their submissions, both written and oral. I hope that this enthusiasm and dedication is continued through the consultative groups once the Corporation is operating. I strongly support the Bill.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Darling) (8.27)-Earlier today I felt grateful to the Government Whip for making time available for me to speak on these Bills, as I was under the impression that time was precious. But I must admit that, after listening to the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles), I am somewhat confused: I cannot see how precious time is because the first part of the honourable member’s speech was concerned with machinery amendments to the Australian Labor Party’s political machine.

Mr Giles:

– They are very important.

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– I agree. The impression I gained was that the honourable member believes that machinery amendments to the Australian Labor Party’s political machine is more important than the amendments his Party introduces into this House. At least I must agree with him that the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) deserves to be congratulated for the fine results of the Party ballot. It is indeed a credit to such a young member to get such a high vote in that Australian Labor Party ballot.

I believe that the Austraiian meat industry requires a board or a corporation with powers and financial arrangements to oversee and promote Australian meat and livestock exports. For that reason, I am supporting the Bill that reconstitutes the Australian Meat Board as the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. I also support the Live-stock Export Charge Bill, the Live-stock Export Charge Collection Bill, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill, Live-stock Slaughter Levy Collection Amendment Bill and the Meat Research Amendment Bill. We all know that these Bills are necessary so that the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Bill can operate efficiently. All of these Bills are necessary because during the last few years there has been a decline in meat prices. This has brought about tragic economic circumstances for many, if not most, of the Australian livestock producers.

The Australian Meat Board, which was established in 1935, has been subjected to considerable pressure and criticism. I agree with the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) who, in his second reading speech, said that much of this was unwarranted because, during the last few years, the circumstances of the industry have largely been beyond the control of the Board and indeed most Australian producers. With the output of the industry greatly expanded and the greatly increased proportion of beef and sheep meat being exported, it was only natural that a review of the Meat Board’s functions was justified. All representatives of the industry seem to agree that an immediate change should take place. But from my observation there seems to be some difference of opinion as to what changes should take place, especially in regard to the composition of the Corporation and the selection procedure applying to its members.

The Minister informed the House in his second reading speech that the bulk of the powers possessed by the Australian Meat Board will be retained by the Corporation but the changes provided for in the Bill have received very little reaction from the industry, the implication being that there is widespread agreement with these changes. I am glad to get this assurance from the Minister because many producers in my electorate have given me the opposite impression. I have received many telegrams complaining bitterly about the changes. However, I have to be honest; I have also received telegrams informing me of support for the changes. A Press report which seems to be causing some concern to the producers stated that the Corporation will have to consult the Public Service Board when appointing its senior officials. The beef producers in my electorate are very concerned about this matter. They think that this will not produce the best type of person for the Corporation. Of course, this could happen.

Some of the producers complained about the Minister having too much power over the Corporation. However, the growing tendency to move away from the traditional trader to trader operations in my opinion makes it more important that the Minister has more power. I believe that in recent times a lot of our primary products would have been left unsold if it had not been for government to government agencies. I cite the example of the eastern European and Middle Eastern markets. We all know that a lot of government to government negotiations were going on in respect of the Australian beef trade with Japan. This being the case, I believe it is warranted that the Minister have a certain amount of control. Australia’s obligation to regulate meat exports to the United States of America in accordance with a voluntary restraint arrangement also would require a certain amount of Government control and certainly inspection.

In his second reading speech the Minister stated that hopefully these Bills will facilitate a return to reasonable prosperity for many cattlemen who are disadvantaged at present. There is no doubt this could happen and that over the long term we will see a big upturn in the beef industry. This seems to be the general trend in all our industries. They have their slumps and then they pick up again. However, I believe it would be foolish to suppose that just by setting up a new board and changing some provisions of the legislation things will improve overnight. Many producers realise that the situation will not improve overnight. What is worrying a good many of them is that they may not be able to survive much longer. They are looking for additional assistance.

I am reminded of the buffer price scheme or the deficiency payments that they brought to my attention. In particular the producers mentioned the stabilisation scheme operating in New Zealand. They said that if New Zealand can provide some kind of a buffer price scheme Australia also should be able to provide the same sort of thing. It is well known that we have such schemes for our other primary industries, the dried fruit industry and others. I believe that these Bills should be supported and that we should look for some other way of tiding over our meat industry in this severe economic period.

Mr CARIGE:
Capricornia

– It gives me a great deal of satisfaction to be able to associate myself and my Party with this important legislation. Regarding the remarks of the honourable member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick), I think it is appropriate that I point out to him clause 3 1 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Bill, under the heading of ‘Staff ‘, shows that what he said about the Public Service Board is completely and utterly incorrect. In fact clause 3 1 (2) states:

The terms and conditions of service or employment (in respect of matters not provided for by this Act) of persons appointed or engaged under this section are such as are, subject to the approval of the Minister, determined by the Corporation.

That provision removes the matter completely from the Public Service Board. In representing the beef capital of Australia, it could be said that I have had more than a passing interest in the formulation of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and the rural committee received in excess of 200 submissions from organisations and individuals. Honourable members must realise what a tremendous crosssection of views was placed before all concerned. All members of my Party and I support the Minister and the rural committee in reaching a compromise between all parties.

During the past 5 weeks there has been a considerable amount of criticism of the Minister and the Government. It is fair to say that no area has been more critical than my own or, for that matter, my State. It was unfortunate that such criticism occurred because more than anything else it assisted in dividing the cattle industry. It is not my role here tonight to canvass the issues that developed between the different organisations. Suffice to say that all the bickering and the different points of view should now be treated as water under the bridge. Industry leaders ought to try to reach a situation whereby they can once again put forward a totally united front. All persons who have been involved in the beef industry should never lose sight of the fact that we all- I emphasise the words ‘we all’- should do all in our power to obtain a better return for the producers and at the same time to ensure that our export markets remain open to us.

It has been of major concern to the Government that some of our exports have not been true to label. This was borne out by Sir John Egerton who stated on behalf of Qantas Airways Ltd that Qantas could not afford always to use Australian beef because there is virtually no quality control. The legislation before the House covers this aspect. There will be provision for the Corporation to have access to all export works, in order to check on quality control and to take the appropriate action if any group or company is found to be abusing this area of its export contract.

The Corporation will now have a great deal more autonomy than the Australian Meat Board. In regard to overseas sales, the new Corporation will have extensive trading powers providing it acts within the confines of commercial marketing practices. The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) made great play on this tonight. He asked: ‘What are normal commercial marketing practices?’ If he does not know that now I can well understand why he did not make the grade this morning. The Corporation can act in this way without having to seek ministerial approval. The only time the Minister is to be involved will be when the Corporation considers there is a need to engage in practices that might well involve a financial loss to the industry or where the actions of the Corporation will in fact contravene the laws of the importing countries. In the case of these circumstances arising it is essential that the Minister be informed and that his approval be requested or we could find ourselves in a situation where the whole industry would be seriously disrupted.

The legislation provides further for major changes in regard to who will be eligible to become members of the Corporation. For example, it has been put forward that the beef and sheep producers of Australia elect by postal vote their representatives to form the producers consultative group. It will be from this group that their 4 representatives will be chosen to take their places on the Corporation. That will come about by virtue of the consultative group placing 6 names before the Minister and the Minister selecting four of the six. In the normal course of events the first 4 representatives nominated would be automatically elected. The exporters and processors shall also set up a consultative group and shall also place names before the Minister for their representatives to be elected. It is also to be compulsory for any member of the Corporation to disclose any pecuniary interest if that member is involved with an organisation or company that employs 25 or more persons. That in itself is a major departure from the regulations governing the Australian Meat Board.

Two persons with special qualifications will be appointed to the Corporation by the Minister. It is this area that has caused a great deal of concern to all the organisations. In fact, it has become the most controversial provision of the new Corporation. It should be agreed by all- I am sure that it will be- that if the Minister is to attract the person who has the ability required it would be foolish to expect that person’s name to be bandied around as if it were some type of political football because, without a shadow of doubt, these types of people are already holding down very important and responsible positions. By the same token the Minister has indicated that any organisation or industry leader who feels that it or he knows such people should forward their names to the Minister for consideration. The Minister has said that the same set of circumstances will apply to the very important position of Chairman. The Minister has also clearly indicated that he would not and will not appoint anybody without first consulting with the consultative groups. That in itself is a major step forward.

There is also to be a major departure with regard to the employment of staff and consultants. This is where the honourable member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick) has missed the point. Previously they had to be employed under conditions laid down by the Public Service Board. Now the Minister shall have the say in regard to the terms and conditions of employment. This has been welcomed by all the producer organisations throughout Australia. As I have mentioned before, the Minister has abdicated his power in many areas so as to ensure that the Corporation not only will appear to have more autonomy but also in actual fact will have a far wider and freer reign than ever before.

I would like to deal now at some length with how this legislation will apply to the primary producer sector. As I have already said, the main proposal is that the primary producers elect their representatives to the consultative group. The intention is to hold an election in all States and the Northern Territory. The eligibility to vote has not yet been defined, but it is expected to be on the basis of the number of cattle and sheep held on a particular property at the time of registering with the Australian Electoral Office. The Government considers this to be a fair and equitable method because in the past a number of producers, and quite rightly so, have argued that their representatives were not directly responsible to the rank and file producers. By the method now outlined producer representatives will be directly responsible to their electors. That in itself should lead to a better liaison between all concerned.

Some organisations have argued that the Corporation should be producer dominated. It is worth pointing out here that the producers are the dominating body on the Australian Meat Board and that it is a body that most producers agree should be changed. The producers will still remain the largest single group on the Corporation. While that is a very significant point it is not the strongest control working for the producers. If honourable members look at clause 30 (4) of the Bill they will find that a quorum shall consist of 5 members of which one member must be a representative of the Australian livestock producers. The significance of that clause is that if the producer members were to feel that the Corporation at a particular meeting in fact was not considering measures that would be beneficial to the producers in the short or long term they could, after careful consideration, withdraw from that meeting and, because of clause 30 (4), the meeting would have to be abandoned until the producers indicated that their area of concern had been rectified to their satisfaction.

That is one of the most important clauses relating to primary producers in this whole Bill. In this manner the producers would have in actual fact sacrificed nothing by way of loss of numbers but in reality have enormous powers vested in them. That is one of the reasons why the Minister should and must retain the power of selection of members. One could well imagine the situation that could arise if, for one reason or another, an irresponsible person happened to be appointed to the Corporation and decided that he was going to subvert every attempt made by the Cororation. For this very reason the Minister will ave the responsibility to ensure that such a person does not reach this high position. Of course, the producers are expected to elect only very responsible people to the Corporation.

That is not the only reason why the Minister must retain the power of selection of members, even though it is a very important and valid reason. Another valid reason is that the Corporation has to reflect the views of all the different areas of Australia and also must take into account that both cattle and sheep producers must be considered. If, for example, the Minister were to abdicate his power in this respect the situation may arise whereby the sheep producers in Australia could dominate the Corporation or, alternatively, the Victorian members could well be in the majority. If that situation were allowed to arise one could well imagine the outcry that would come from the cattle producers or the producers from the larger States- for example, Queensland.

The Minister must ensure that there is a geographical and industry spread across Australia. I suggest that this could have been achieved by having an additional producer on the Corporation, but where would one stop if one did that? Maybe there should be one from each State plus a representative of the cattle industry and a representative of the sheep industry from each State. We should not overlook the exporters and the processors. Therefore what number would we have in reality on the Corporation? It was for this reason that the membership was declared to be nine in number and no more. The producer consultative group will be the body that must represent all the producing areas and all the producers likewise. The exporters consultative group should represent all the different areas of processing and exporting. If that does not occur the Corporation will surely suffer the same fate as the Australian Meat Board.

We can all learn a valuable lesson from the Australian Meat Board. I am appalled to find that many producers are not kept informed about the decisions taken by that Board. I would suggest that the new Corporation should pay particular attention to reporting back to producers and exporters alike. For example, I can see no valid reason why with the co-operation of the Australian Broadcasting Commission a spokesman from the Corporation could not report back to the people on the outcome of any meeting after it had concluded. By this method, together with the reporting back by the consultative groups, most if not all people would be better informed. Surely that would take a lot of the speculation out of the many business transactions that occur almost daily. It would also assist in the formulation of better budgets from year to year.

There is a new provision in this legislation in regard to levies. This legislation clearly states that the owner of a beast at the point of slaughter shall pay the levy. This legislation also deems that the point of change of ownership occurs at the knocking box and not at the scales unless a prior contract is entered into between the producer and the processor. This is a major departure from anything else that has occurred previously in Australia. As I said when I began, surely it is time that all the bickering between the different organisations stopped and we were all firm in the resolve that this Corporation will work. It can work only if we the producers and the people who are making the decisions decide that it shall work. I am quite sure that if we all work together this Corporation will become a major force in establishing a far better deal and a far better return to all producers. It should be clearly understood by all concerned that this Corporation will not be a panacea to all the problems being experienced by our beef producers today, but in fact it will form a base from which many innovations can be implemented. For example, the Corporation is empowered to continue with classification if the producers deem this to be in their best interests. I think that the majority of producers have deemed already that this is what they require.

The Corporation shall also be empowered to investigate the best method to obtain shipping rates and so on. This has drawn some criticism from a number of organisations which have not quite realised the full implications. The Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon), for example, has insisted that the Minister must retain power in this area. It is important that we all acknowledge that the Meat Board has not in fact been altered since 1964 and yet the whole trading circumstances have significantly changed since anybody last looked at or amended the Board. I am sure that the legislation before the House deserves the full support of each and every supporter of the Government, if not of all the members of the Opposition.

I am appalled at the content of the amendments put forward by the Opposition. Never has anything been so hastily prepared and ill conceived as the amendments we have before us tonight put foward by the Opposition. The Opposition is claiming that the Corporation should have the power to trade within Australia. The Opposition members know quite well that the Commonwealth has no power whatsoever to trade within Australia. Nor has it the power to legislate for trade within Australia. That is a State matter. The Minister and the Government have said on numerous occasions that if the States legislate for power over and for control of the beef industry the Commonwealth will surely follow suit. But the first move must come from the States. For example, if the States want to set up stabilisation schemes, they must have the approval of the Agricultural Council to do so and then the Commonwealth Government legislates accordingly. I give my full support to the Bill. I wish it a speedy passage. I also wish and hope that the Corporation will be implemented in the very near future.

Mr KING:
Wimmera

– I move:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The question is that the debate be adjourned and that the adjourned debate be made an order of the day -

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I asked that the debate be adjourned because I anticipated that the Minister would be in the House. He has not arrived. Can we continue the debate?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-We will go back to the point at which I called the honourable member for Wimmera.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rise to order. If the honourable gentleman opposite is making some inference about an Opposition speaker being here -

Mr Bourchier:

– No.

Mr Staley:

– He was referring to the Minister in charge of the Bill.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The program is not running on such a stable basis. We are entitled to a little bit of latitude.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I think we might revert to the point at which I call the honourable member for Wimmera.

Mr KING:

– Firstly, might I point out for the information of honourable members that the Minister has been called out of the chamber and no doubt will be back in a few minutes. Secondly, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Carige) on his magnificant contribution.

Those of us on this side of the House are fully aware of the great contribution that the honourable member has made in relation to this legislation. I am sure that most honourable members who followed his speech intently will fully appreciate what he had to say.

There is no doubt in my mind that this legislation is important. I fully appreciate that the Government naturally wants to dispense with this legislation tonight so that it can go to another place and so become law in the very near future. Those people who are interested in the meat industry will appreciate that we are dealing with a very contentious issue. We have on the one hand exporters opposing the legislation because we are proposing to reduce the size of their representation from two on the Australian Meat Board to one on the new Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. Some primary producer organisations are opposing the legislation for a similar reason in so much as their representation is to be reduced from six to four. I am sure that if the Minister who has made a great study of this legislation were to try to agree with all the requests that he has had put to him in recent times we would have a corporation made up of 30, 50 or even 100 members. We would need a body of this size if the Minister were to try to fulfil the wishes of those people who would like to be represented. The demand for a greater grower and exporter representation has been outlined in the Bill. The grower organisations are divided by States. They are divided between difference sections within the industry such as lamb, mutton and beef producers. Then, of course, 3 major federal organisations all want a voice for representation. No doubt many of these organisations would like to have a majority of representation on the Corporation.

It is obvious that the main opposition to this Bill by the Victorian Farmers Union concerns a lack of grower representation on the Corporation. This organisation believes that it should automatically have a majority of the 9 members appointed by this Government. Over the years I have watched the activities of the Meat Board. It is obvious to me that there has been a great deal of criticism of its actions. The view has been put forward that if 6 growers out of a total of eleven on the Meat Board failed to meet the requirements of the industry we should well ask the questions: Did the 2 exporters with all thenknowledge sway the 6 growers? Did the Board have sufficient independent experts when making decisions? Did the 6 growers have enough time and ability to convey the problems to the industry? These are but some of the questions that are very much in doubt in the minds of people, including many primary producers.

It is obvious that strong opposition is coming from the exporters who are to have their representation reduced and some of the organisations which believe that the industry itself should have a majority on the Corporation. The exporters claim that once the stock are slaughtered it virtually becomes the property of the exporter and that with only one representative they could eventually lose their influence. I do not argue that case one way or the other. The cattlemen’s union based in Queensland, which is another great critic of the legislation, is a com- paratively new organisation and no doubt it has een formed only as a result of the very low beef prices. It is my belief that the meat industry is far too important to have people playing industrial politics with it. If we want a first class system of selling stock on the one hand and meat on the other we must look to expertise. The States have the responsibility of marketing and this can quite easily flow to the Commonwealth through the Australian Agricultural Council. Unless the industry is prepared to adopt this principle there is little future for an overall Australian marketing system which is acceptable to all sectors of the industry. Those people who are so inclined to believe that they should hand over their industry to the Commonwealth Government of course must suffer the consequences.

I believe that this Bill is a genuine attempt to try to solve the problems that have plagued the industry for so long. When prices have been high or reasonable growers have been reluctant to do very much about the situation. Today we find that Australia is producing too much beef to match a reluctant buying consumer. The Minister in his second reading speech reminded the House that since 1964 beef cattle numbers have increased from 14 million head to 30 million head. So we have a situation in which, as I have said, Australia is producing too much beef to match a reluctant buying consumer. At the same time we are seeing a terrific increase in the purchase of sheep meats. So we have a situation in which beef producers are almost going broke while mutton producers are doing very well. This Bill, of course, will not cure this anomaly but it will place one section of the industry in a position where it will at least endeavour to match the world problem.

I can fully appreciate and understand the feeling of growers at the moment. I can appreciate their desire to boycott cattle sales in an effort to draw the attention of the world at large to their plight. But in my mind a deliberate move to withhold stock from market will not rectify the situation. What is required is a marketing system, which takes into consideration the quantity or production in keeping with demand, not just in Australia or in one corner of the globe but based on world requirements. It is not an easy situation to resolve. Price and cost, of course, are of the utmost importance. So, it is obvious that the major problem now is that, while we have an unlimited spiral in cost, the future of primary producers in this field is very much in doubt. I commend the Minister for the introduction of this major meat industry legislation. I know that in recent times he has come in for a lot of criticism.

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Unfair criticism too.

Mr KING:

– It is most unfair criticism. Most of this criticism has been brought about by people who, to my mind, do not understand all the ramifications of the problems of the industry. In my electorate there has been a great deal of criticism of the Minister. I am equally sure that it has been brought about by people who do not know how much time and energy he has expended in preparing this legislation. It is interesting to note that for years growers have been somewhat critical of the existing Australian Meat Board. The general cry has been: ‘What about re-organising the Meat Board and giving it more teeth and more authority?’ So, the present Minister for Primary Industry in conjunction with his colleagues has worked on this matter for quite some time to produce this legislation. Following the announcement of the legislation many of those critics who once believed the Meat Board was ineffective, are now criticising simply to try to secure a board or corporation which basically will concentrate on individual interests and not on the industry as a whole. I am quite convinced that, once growers really understand this legislation and once the corporation becomes effective, most of those critics of the past will change their views and accept the corporation.

To my mind, when this legislation is implemented there will be room for improvement in our marketing methods. There is no disputing this. However, I do not believe that it is a case of the responsibility falling on the Commonwealth. Rather, it is up to the industry organisations to get together, particularly on a State level, work out what they require and then put their submissions through the Australian Agricultural Council. I believe that by doing this the meat industry will have come a long way towards solving its problems. I go along with the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), who is the spokesman for the Opposition, in relation to his remarks on meat classifications. This is an area in which the industry must make a more definite move instead of throwing the responsibility on the Commonwealth. As I have said, one of the criticisms which have been put forward by the growers is that they have only four out of nine members on the proposed corporation.

But, of course, there is the possibility that the chairman could be a producer and this would give them a total of 5 members or a majority. If 4 strong primary producers cannot convince one of the remaining 5 members of their point of view, either their case is weak or the members may be weak. I think that this is an important point of which growers must be reminded when they are being critical of this so called minority. I am sure that if a suitable primary producer could be found to fill the position of chairman, the Minister would appoint that person. After all, this certainly would not be the first occasion on which a Minister has appointed a primary producer to the important position of chairman. This appointment would give primary producers the majority they require.

To me it is far more important that the personnel of the corporation must be the best possible. Today the industry is looking for salesmen who can put a strong case on behalf of producers. If one finds oneself in court because one has a speeding charge, one does not go to another speedster to defend one. One will try to secure the best brains possible. That is exactly what we are trying to do in relation to this Bill. We are making sure that there are sufficient brains available to represent the growers and their all important issues. We want people to assist in the marketing of Australian meat, particularly on the world market. I can think of many first-class meat producers but they may not be worth a pinch of salt when it comes to being salesmen.

The wheat industry has been held up as a perfect example of successful marketing by a grower controlled board. I wish to make 2 points in relation to this matter. Firstly, wheat is a comparatively easy commodity to handle and it can be stored easily for a reasonable length of time. Meat is not so easily stored and its life is somewhat limited while the storage of it is very costly. The second point is vital as far as the wheat industry is concerned. It has one federal organisation, namely, the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation, with one commodity to sell although it might have a commodity made up of 16 or so different qualities. So we cannot compare these 2 issues. When the meat industry organises itself into one organisation, I believe the situation will be different. But until the industry does that there is little chance of unanimity within the industry. I support this Bill wholeheartedly. I think this legislation is long overdue. I again compliment the Minister and the chairman of the Government Parties Rural Committee. That Committee spent a great deal of rime on this matter. I am sure that when this Bill becomes effective- I do not believe it will take until March next year as the spokesman for the Opposition has said-that will be the time when the growers of this nation will fully appreciate its importance.

Mr FRY:
Fraser

– I am pleased to support the Australian Meat and Live-Stock Corporation Bill as its introduction recognises the very dire straits that the beef industry is in and also the way in which the Government has let down the beef industry. The Government, with these belated efforts, is trying to overcome those deficiencies. There is no doubt that the Government has let the beef industry down. We have seen a unique situation. It is something which happens very rarely in Australia. We have seen primary producers in Australia adopting a militant attitude and organising themselves accordingly. To indicate my interest in the industry I point out that a couple of weeks ago I was invited to address a meeting of Victorian farmers at a little place called Merino which is in the heart of Wannon, the electorate of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). We had a very successful meeting. It was a unique occasion where 60 or 70 farmers- a lot of them militant-sat down and talked across the table with 3 Australian Labor Party politicians. They were very glad to listen to us because they knew that we were sympathetic to their problems. They knew that we understood their problems. They found us much more sympathetic and understanding than some of the politicians on the Government side.

It was an interesting experience. Of course, it was the militant farmers from Hamilton who organised the first boycott of the meat and livestock auctions at Hamilton. Whose co-operation did they seek in order to make that boycott successful? They sought the co-operation of the trade union movement. With the assistance of the trade union movement- particularly the Transport Workers Union- the boycott was successful. It was so successful at Hamilton that some livestock producers in Queensland were encouraged to do the same thing. They showed their disgust at the way in which the Government was handling their situation by putting on a boycott at Rockhampton. Last week we had another boycott at Horsham. These are indications of the dissatisfaction of the producers at the way in which the Government has misled the industry, has not looked after industry interests and at the contrary advice which it is getting from the Government.

Only a few weeks ago the Leader of the National Country Party of Australia, Mr Anthony, was telling the producers to withhold their stocks. That is what they did. But when they did what the Leader of the National Country Party told them, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) turned around and criticised them for doing that. No wonder they have lost confidence in the Government. When one looks at the results that the meat exporters have achieved one can see who has been profiting from the bad management of the Government. We all know that the meat exporters have been showing increased profits for the last two or three years at the expense of the producers.

Returning to the meeting, I must tell the House of the concern these farmers have about the Meat and Live-stock Corporation. Firstly, they were very concerned about the inconsistency of the advice they were getting from the leaders, Mr Anthony and Mr Sinclair, who were putting opposing views. There were very concerned about the overriding authority of the Minister and about the lack of clarity in the selection of the consultative committees. They were very concerned about all the things which have not been set out in this legislation and which are to be left to the regulations. A very wide ranging set of conditions are to be left to the regulations over which this Parliament will have not control whatsoever. They were concerned about the lack of producer representation and they were particularly concerned about the timing. I hope I am wrong but I cannot see how this Corporation is going to get off the ground before next March. The Government has not said how the consultative committees are to be selected. It has not outlined the basis on which representation is to be based and it will take a long time for the producers to get their representatives into the field, and for all the other sectors of the industry which need to be represented to organise themselves.

These people had reached the stage where they realised that to do anything about thenindustry they had to accept some form of government intervention in the marketing of meat. They had to accept a degree of socialisation, not in the production of meat but in the marketing of meat. They are prepared to accept that. That is what they want, but it took the Government a long time to respond to the needs and requests of the industry. It will be interesting to see whether the producers still think that their marketing needs to be socialised in 18 months or 2 years time, when the beef industry starts to recover, and I have no doubt at all that it will recover. In view of the experience of the last couple of years, I hope that when the industry does recover the producers will have the good sense to set up a levy and put aside some money in the boom times to carry them through the sorts of bad times they have experienced recently, when they have had no levy to support them and no support from the Government. I am convinced that some people at least will learn from their experience. They will have learned that sometimes through frustration militant action is justified. Even though they have been very ready to criticise trade unionists who take militant action, when they see that it is in their interests to take such action they do so. I commend them for doing that. I commend them also for asking the trade union movement to support them because when they work together they can be very successful. The occasion when primary producers combined with trade unionists to achieve some relief from their problems was a very interesting event.

I was interested to read what was said by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Sainsbury). He must have been in a great dilemma when he had to come to the rescue of the Minister and defend him against the criticism of some of his own constituents and of some of the organisations in his electorate. The United Farmers and Woolgrowers Association objected very strongly to not having enough producer representation and the honourable member for Eden-Monaro had to come in and defend the Minister. I do not know that I admire his judgment but certainly I admire his courage in doing that. Whether he showed good judgment or not we will be able to tell at the next election. There is no doubt that the way this matter has been handled has caused great divisions in the beef industry, divisions which I hope have taught the industry a lesson. I hope too that the producers will learn that lesson. I hope that when the good times come along they will remember the occasions when they called on the support of the trade union movement to help them overcome their problems. I hope that they will remember the days when their returns were very low; that they will put aside some money during the boom times so that they do not have to ask the Government for assistance but can be strong and independent. I think they can do that if they are prepared to set up export levies when times are good to protect themselves against downturns in the market.

Debate (on motion by Mr Bourchier) adjourned.

page 2223

STATES GRANTS (ROADS INTERIM ASSISTANCE) BILL 1977

Bill- by leave- presented by Mr Macphee, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr MACPHEE:
Acting Minister for Transport · Balaclava · LP

– I move:

The main purpose of this Bill is to provide interim funds for the continuation of Commonwealth financial assistance to the States for road works during the first 3 months of 1977-78. The Bill provides for the appropriation of $1 18.75m, that is, one-quarter of the already announced program of Commonwealth assistance for 1977-78 totalling $475m. The legislation currently before the House can most easily be considered by taking the funding aspect separately from the general question of the administration and programming arrangements involved in the operation of the Commonwealth’s roads assistance program.

First of all, as far as the funding aspect is concerned, honourable members will be aware that at the present time financial assistance is provided to the States for road works under the National Roads and Roads Grants Acts. Appropriations under these Acts terminate on 30 June 1977 and new appropriations and legislation will therefore be needed to cover Commonwealth assistance from the beginning of the new financial year. It is the Government’s intention to introduce legislation in the Budget sittings to provide for continuation of financial assistance to the States for road works over the 3 years 1977-78 to 1979-80 inclusive. The new road arrangements which we will be proposing from 1 July next onwards do involve a number of significant policy issues. It would in the Government ‘s view be inappropriate to rush such legislation through the Parliament without the opportunity for proper study of the specific provisions of the legislation by members of both Houses. However, the States will need funds in the early part of the 1977-78 financial year to meet the Commonwealth’s share of the costs of the road program. We have decided to introduce the Bill now before the House so as to ensure that the necessary specific purpose funds are available for the States.

I now turn to the administrative issues. I think honourable members are already aware of the general shape of the arrangements under which our roads assistance program operates. However, I have arranged to have circulated to honourable members background material explaining in some detail the principles on which the scheme is administered. In very general terms, the road arrangements involve approval by the Commonwealth of road programs proposed by the States on which Commonwealth funds are to be used. Programs are submitted for approval in relation to works to be carried out by the States on particular road categories, for example, national highways, rural arterials, local roads and so on. This system ensures that the Commonwealth can identify the uses to which its funds are to be put. Honourable members will be aware that the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) makes available to each member of the House- irrespective of party affiliations- details of the programs that affect his electorate.

Since coming to office we have held extensive discussions with the States, mainly through the Australian Transport Advisory Council, on the arrangements which are to apply in respect of Commonwealth assistance for road works to be carried out by the States in the future. The Bill now before the House contains some general provisions which have the effect of allowing, by the exercise of ministerial discretion, the proposed arrangements to operate virtually as if the legislation to be introduced in the Budget sittings had, in fact, been passed. As indicated, the States themselves are already aware of what is proposed with regard to future roads assistance programs. They have been assured, and I now give the House the Government’s assurance, that the interim arrangements will be administered in accordance with the spirit of the proposed 3-year legislation.

I now propose to deal in a little more detail with the Bill itself. Clauses 1 and 2 provide the usual details with regard to title and date of commencement of the Bill. Clause 3 sets out a number of definitions which are needed in order to limit the ways which Commonwealth funds may be used in relation to road works. I would also draw honourable members’ attention to sub-clause 3 of clause 3 which has the effect of allowing pay-roll tax charged by the States to be treated as an eligible item of expenditure from Commonwealth grants. This is in line with assurances given to State governments. Clause 4 provides the Minister with discretionary powers to approve road works. The purpose of this clause is to ensure that the Commonwealth is aware in advance of the projects on which Commonwealth funds are to be used. As already indicated to the

House, this power will be exercised strictly in accordance with the arrangements discussed in detail with State administrations. It will be up to the State governments to propose road programs.

Clauses 5 and 6 are essentially to permit funds to be paid to and used by the States in accordance with their entitlement to Commonwealth funds as specified in the schedule. Each State already knows its entitlement of grants for the full year 1977-78. In the first 3 months of the year each State will be entitled to exactly onequarter of its proposed full year allocation. The amounts for each State in this period are:

Honourable members will note that clause 6 also allows certain conditions to be attached to these payments. This has been done to ensure that policy objectives with regard to use of these funds are in fact adhered to. I would again stress that the Bill covers only a limited period and specifies the level of funds which may be used during this interim period. The Bill will be subsumed by the legislation to be introduced in the Budget sittings. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2224

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

Supply Bill (No. 1) 1977-78.

Supply Bill (No. 2) 1977-78.

page 2224

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

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

That standing order 103- the 1 1 o’clock rule-and the sessional order of 10 March relating to the adjournment of sittings be suspended for the remainder of this week.

page 2224

AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVE-STOCK CORPORATION BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 6- by leave-taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 7 (Functions of Corporation).

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-A number of provisions of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation Bill are very unclear and require clarification. Rather than move an amendment to each clause the Opposition prefers to seek clarification from the Minister for Primary Industry. Of course he will understand that if he is unprepared to give assurances we will be obliged to move amendments now and probably to move further amendments when the Bill is debated in the Senate. So I should like to pose to the Minister a number of questions concerning clause 7 (d), to which I ask the Minister to respond.

Has the Minister had discussions with the Australian Meat Board about the introduction of a meat classification scheme? Secondly, has the Minister reached any agreement with the Board about a date for the introduction of a meat classification scheme? If so, will he regard those discussions as being discussions held with the new Corporation? Lastly, if the Government does not agree to the amendment circulated by the Opposition, will he give an assurance to the Parliament that he will act immediately on any recommendation from the new Corporation board about the introduction of a meat classification scheme?

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

– The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) has circulated a number of proposed amendments. In addition he has given me a copy of a number of questions he proposed to ask. For the convenience of the chamber and the information of honourable members it may be easier if I were to respond to those questions. Firstly, discussions have been held with the Australian Meat Board. The present meat classification proposals that are in trial in a number of abattoirs around Australian are a product of those discussions. The Australian Meat Board has not yet come to a decision on which preferable meat classification scheme it should implement. Accordingly, the p resent position is that no recommendations h ave come as to the time when classification will be introduced uniformly.

The Agricultural Council and I personally have been very anxious that there should be classification. However, as most members of the industry would know and honourable members on this side of the chamber at least would know, there have been enormous difficulties in getting exporters and abattoirs to accept classification. I know the Meat Board is very anxious to achieve a fairly uniform acceptance of classification as well as to be in a position to implement a preferred scheme as soon as it is available. Of course, discussions held with the Board will be identical to discussions held with the Corporation and it will not be a matter of beginning denovo. It is intended that as soon as possible classification should be introduced subject to the resolution of a number of matters relating to the cost of introducing the capital equipment, the personnel who will be required to operate it and the integration of those personnel with other people who are already on the meat chain. These are matters on which I expect either the Board, if it should be in a position to do so before the Corporation’s commencement date is proclaimed or, if not, the new Corporation, should make recommendations at the earliest possible time. I can assure the honourable member that we on this side of the chamber have a very firm intention to introduce classification as soon as any recommendation is available.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9.

  1. Without limiting the generality of section 8, the Corporation may-

    1. purchase meat or live-stock; or
    2. export, or sell for export, meat or live-stock owned by the Corporation.

  2. Except with the approval of the Minister, the Corporation shall not engage in trade otherwise than in a manner that accords with commercial practice.

Mr SAINSBURY:
Monaro · Eden

– I should like to say briefly that it is a very grave step when a government such as ours gets involved in the possibility of regulating a market. I can assure the chamber that I know the Minister for Primary Industry took this grave step only after realising the very strong fears of many of the producers that to some extent they were being exploited. That fear may well not have been reasonable, but nevertheless when we do have a number of companies involved in the export market who have a base overseas there is always that possibility that those polynationals can shunt profits overseas. I can quite understand the feelings of many of the producers who said we do need some sort of operation in the market, such as the proposed Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, to provide the right sorts of safeguards. That is one of the reasons why this

Bill seeks to set up that Corporation. This clause, however, is couched in terms that one would tend to expect from the coalition parties. It states that the Corporation shall not engage in trade otherwise than in a manner which accords with commercial practice. This should provide some reassurance to the exporters who may see this clause as a possible means to bite into their markets on illegitimate grounds.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I move:

The Opposition moves this amendment to give the Corporation the power to sell within Australia. The amendment also will empower the Corporation to sell meat in conjunction with any promotion program, such when as the Australian Meat Board attempted to promote the sale of sweetmeats. We believe that the addition of this paragraph would enhance the powers of the Corporation and more suitably equip it for the role which the Opposition envisages for it.

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

– There are difficulties in extending the powers of the Corporation in relation to the domestic market. Honourable members will realise that there are constitutional problems in any area affecting the domestic maret. Certainly there is a doubt about whether a clause, even one framed in the manner which the honourable gentleman proposes, would be constitutionally acceptable. There is also another difficulty which flows from discussions we have had in Agricultural Council on a number of primary commodities. If there is a question relating to domestic marketing of an agricultural commodity of any sort, the power should be introduced only after discussions within Agricultural Council. The Council has discussed the whole structure and format of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation.

There is also a study being made of a stabilisation proposal that emerged from Queensland. Already there has been a study of a proposal which emerged from the previous LiberalCountry Party Government in New South Wales and a study of a proposal from Victoria. To date the results of these studies have not come with recommendations to Agricultural Council. As there has been no acceptance by the State governments of this domestic selling proposal and with the constitutional difficulties which may well flow from an amendment of this type, the

Government will not accept the amendment moved by the honourable member for Blaxland.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-In my view the reply of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) is unsatisfactory. The Australian Wool Corporation has power to trade and process products in Australia without complementary legislation. Although we realise that there are constitutional impediments to such a provision, the Government could seek complementary legislation from the States, as it has done with the Australian Wheat Board, to enable the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation to trade within Australia. Therefore the Opposition will press the amendment to a division. I also would like to ask the Minister whether he will explain to the Parliament what he means by the phrase ‘commercial practice’ in sub-clause 4.

Mr Deputy Chairman, is it competent for me to ask the Minister these questions at this stage before I move my second amendment to this clause? The Opposition intends to divide on this and the following amendment. Am I obliged to move the other amendment now before the division on the first amendment?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)-The problem is whether the honourable member is entitled to speak for the second time on the same clause. As far the Chair is concerned, the honourable member can move his other amendment to clause 9 later if he wishes.

Mr KEATING:

– Thank you. I will move my second amendment to clause 9 later.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-The important thing to be understood when we are looking at this clause is the state of the meat industry as it exists in Australia at the moment and the way in which that industry is structured. This legislation is designed to cater largely for that portion of the Australian meat and livestock produce which is exported. As the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has said, there are constitutional difficulties associated with the introduction of a domestic marketing scheme in this country. The Commonwealth Government does not have the power, of its own accord, to introduce a domestic marketing scheme in Australia. As I understand the situation, the Minister has given an undertaking that if the States are able to reach agreement in this area the Commonwealth Government, for its part, will co-operate with them. In the meantime, the Opposition has moved an amendment to allow for what is, in effect, a domestic marketing scheme within Australia which obviously must be subject to constitutional difficulties. Mr Deputy Chairman, is it appropriate at this time to talk about the second amendment that is to be moved by the Opposition or do I have the right to speak on that amendment after it is moved?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)That would not be in order. The honourable member for Blaxland has not yet moved that amendment.

Question put:

That the paragraph proposed to be omitted (Mr Keating’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr G.O’H. Giles)

AYES: 74

NOES: 26

Majority…… 48

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-I would like at this stage to ask the Minister a number of questions which I have already circulated.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! I think it would be wiser if the honourable member moved his amendment straight away so that he will not be speaking more than once to the one amendment. If the honourable member puts his questions after that, the Chair will have not objection.

Mr KEATING:

– All right. I move:

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

The Corporation shall at regular intervals inform the Minister in writing of all purchases and sales made by the Corporation during the period since the Minister was last informed.’.

Mr Hyde:

– We cannot hear the honourable member.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! Honourable members will not stand in the aisles.

Mr KEATING:

– They are not interested, so why do they stay? The purpose of the amendment is to give the Board commercial autonomy and to ensure that the Minister is informed of any commercial transactions that take place. This would enable the Board to compete principally on the international market but if necessary on the local market, and we commend the amendment to the Committee and to the Minister.

May I add that I would like the Minister to explain, in terms of the questions which I have circulated, what he means in the legislation by the phrase ‘with commercial practice’. Does the Minister have any guidelines which would clarify to the Parliament what is meant by this term? The Opposition is concerned that the procedures adopted in the meat selling industry are so diverse that it is very difficult to establish what is commercial practice’. Will the Minister provide these guidelines before the Parliament rises at the end of the week? Finally, does the word owner’ in sub-clause (10) of clause 11 adequately cover all people who own livestock? Does it cover, for example, persons with livestock on agistment or livestock bought and travelled along stock routes? Does it also cover livestock dealers?

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

-This amendment probably more than any other typifies the approach of the Labor Party supporters to most matters affecting normal commercial transactions. They do not comprehend that there is between business people a normal relationship which has been the lifeblood upon which Australia has grown and flourished. The whole basis of the amendment is to ensure that there will not be a reference back to the Minister on occasions where there are non-commercial transactions. That is interesting because during the days when the Labor Party was in Government -

Mr Baillieu:

– Do not bring that up.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– … the Australian Meat Board entered into some arrangements with the Soviet Union. Well, I think it is wise that we do bring up those days because during those days the Labor Government entered into an arrangement which finished up in a very significant loss to the Australian meat industry. At the time that contract was negotiated, the then Minister for Agriculture, knowing that the beef industry was in a disastrous plight, came back and said: Don’t fear, taxpayers; we are going to levy the meat growers of Australia so that you will be covered for the loss’. Of course that was one of the areas where this Government picked up the loss in order to ensure that those same meat growers, the beef cattle men, were not unduly disadvantaged.

The purpose of this clause, as it was written, is to ensure that except with the approval of the Minister, the Corporation engages in normal commercial transactions. In answer to the question of the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) there is no definition or guideline as to commercial practice; commercial practice is the practice by which the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation will sell under the same sorts of terms and conditions as operate in the normal course of the Australian meat trade. Of course there are occasions when, under commercial practice, meat is sold at a loss.

I shall give honourable members an illustration of what I regard as a commercial practice. It is where there is only a marginally profitable sale such as the sale by the Australian Meat Board to the Soviet when, in order to establish a place for boneless meat in boxes, the Australian Meat Board offered a concessional approach. In other words, the sale perhaps was not at the best market price obtainable but the advantage of selling into the Soviet market for the first time instead of in carcass form, in hinds and quarters, in bonedout meat in boxes would be obvious to anyone. There is a saving in freight and a new product is being put into a new market. Now that was a commerical sale negotiated on the basis of being able to develop a market. But, when one is developing a market in a sense such as that where there is only a minimal discount, one would regard it as a commercial practice. But where there is obviously going to be a noncommercial sale or if the Corporation has doubts about the commercial character of the sale, the purpose of this clause is to ensure that it will be carried out only with the approval of the Minister.

The reason for this clause is to ensure that, if there should be a sale of the character of that earlier one to the Soviet and if the Government is likely to have to pick up the cost on behalf of the taxpayer, the Government is forewarned of the sale. I believe it to be a very proper and appropriate practice that clause 9 (4) remains in the Bill in its present form for that reason. The clause itself is intended simply to ensure that the interests of the taxpayer and the public at large are protected and that sales of that character are advised to the Government, but that all other sales by the Corporation may be made in a normal commercial manner.

Mr MacKENZIE:
Calare

-The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has pointed out the circumstances under which noncommercial practice can be undertaken. I think that it is a fair and reasonable assumption that the Minister should have the power of approval or veto if non-commercial practices were to be undertaken by the Corporation. Such practices could be discounting, the covering of loss sales, various types of export or new market subsidies. Such practices could have implications as far as international trading agreements are concerned- - for example, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Basically the principle is that in this situation of a non-commercial type of operation, it is the industry’s money that is being utilised. Therefore, the ultimate power and the ultimate responsibility of the Minister should be appropriate.

At the same time, the Opposition appears to be somewhat confused as to whether it wants more ministerial powers or less ministerial powers. The Opposition, in its amendment, has suggested that the Minister be notified in writing at regular intervals of all purchases and sales by the Corporation, whereas before, the Corporation was only required to inform the Minister of its policy and the reasons for adopting that policy. It also had to seek the approval of the Minister to operate in a non-commercial sphere. So, I think that the Opposition should make up its mind whether it is seeking more ministerial powers or less ministerial powers.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-The Opposition has moved an amendment to this clause which has the effect of introducing ministerial control into this particular power. There has been a lot of comment in the industry, particularly from the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation and the cattlemen’s union group, about the extent of ministerial power under this legislation. I want to take the opportunity during discussion on this clause to draw attention to some of the powers available to the Minister in relation to other corporations which exist by virtue of statute of this Parliament. Under the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act the Minister has powers under section 8 concerning the composition of the Australian Wheat Board and in relation to resignations and termination of appointment he has powers under sections 1 1 and 12. He has powers concerning delegations by the Board under section 14; performance of its functions by the Board under sections 17 and 18; approval for the appointment of overseas agents under section 20; payments for wheat under section 24; declaration of final delivery day for a season under section 27; the average support price under section 29; refunds from the Fund under section 31; the home consumption price of wheat under section 32; the special account for freight to Tasmania under section 33; borrowing under section 36; licensed receivers under section 40; and the operation of State laws under section 4 1 .

In the Wool Industry Act the Minister has powers in relation to the composition of the Australian Wool Corporation under sections 8 and 13; the appointment of a deputy chairman under section 11; the granting of leave under section 15; vacation of and removal from office and resignation under sections 16, 17 and 18; the functions conferred by the Act under section 20; consultation with trade unions under section 20A; borrowing under sections 26, 27 and 28; the market support fund under section 2 8 A; reimbursements under sections 3 1 and 32; and profits and losses in relation to wool marketing under section 33. The Treasurer must approve the bank with which the Corporation deals under section 34 and investments made by the Corporation under section 36. The Minister, again, has powers over the functions relating to wool marketing under section 38; over other trading functions under section 39A; wool futures contracts under section 40; the flexible reserve price scheme under section 41; payments to the Wool Research Trust Fund under section 68; research expenditure under section 69; the application of the Wool Research Trust Fund under sections 70 and 71; research agreements under section 73; and restrictions on transfer of land and buildings under section 76.

It goes on. I do not want to catalogue all the functions for the House but I think it is important that people are aware of the fact that this particular legislation does not represent the first occasion on which ministerial powers over a corporation have been put before the Parliament and instituted in the form of legislation. I could refer also- I do not want to take the time of the House on this occasion- to the Apple and Pear Corporation Act where similar and wide ranging powers lie with the Minister under the provisions of that Act. I think it is also pertinent to note that a comparison of the Ministerial involvement under the Meat Industry Act, which is the Act which this legislation is replacing, and the Bill which we are debating, the Australian Meat and Live-Stock Corporation Bill, reveals that the powers which the Minister has at his disposal are very similar between the 2 pieces of legislation. In fact, if there is a difference it is in the area of appeals to decisions to withhold or cancel or suspend the licences which, under the Meat Board legislation, was a power available to the Minister. Now it is not. It is a power available to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. With regard to the clause relating to staff and consultants, the terms and conditions used to be approved by the Public Service Board. Now the terms and conditions will be approved by the Minister.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)-I think the Chair has been pretty lenient with the honourable member considering that we are discussing trading powers in this clause and not cancellations of conditions to licences, which occurs later on in the Bill. I ask the honourable member to conclude his remarks by sticking to clause 9 which deals with trading powers.

Mr LUSHER:

– I respect your view Mr Deputy Chairman. I am directing my remarks to the amendment which has been moved by the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) which deals with powers of the Minister in relation to that particular clause. I have made my point and I will resume my seat.

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

– Unfortunately I forgot to answer the second question asked by the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating). Part of the difficulty I have is that under clause 9 -

Mr Keating:

-I am sorry, it is clause 1 1.I will come to it later. I could not find the word owner’.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-We will leave it till later. Question put:

That the sub-clause proposed to be omitted (Mr Keating’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 72

NOES: 29

Majority……. 43

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Proposed new clause 9a.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I move:

After clause 9, insert the following new clause: 9a. The Minister may give directions to the board concerning the performance of the functions and the exercise of the powers and the board shall comply with those directions.’

The purpose of this clause is to protect the Government’s position by giving the Minister the power to issue a mandatory direction to the board of the Corporation. This is identical to a provision in the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act which growers have found entirely satisfactory. In simple terms it is in line with the general amendments being moved by the Opposition. They seek to have the Minister out of the kitchen cabinet of the operations of the Board and yet give the Minister a mandatory power to issue a direction to the Board to protect the position of the Government. We think this is a reasonable proposition. It guarantees the autonomy of the Board. It guarantees the autonomy of the Corporation. It is not just then subservient totally to the Minister in its every day actions and performances. Yet the Minister, if this amendment is carried, reserves the right to issue directions to the Board with which the Board would, of course, be obliged to comply.

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

– Once again the Australian Labor Party has demonstrated how hopelessly out of touch it is with the industry. While this amendment is almost identical with the powers in the Australian Wheat Board legisl ation, it is quite apparent that the Labor Party is still seeking to put the heavy thumb of bureaucracy and government into every enterprise possible. It ill becomes the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) to try to intrude into this legislation in a way that does not exist in the legislation at the moment, in a more onerous and heavy handed way than any direction that is in the legislation, in a way that is designed to give the Government the power to manipulate the decisions of the Corporation, in a totally unacceptable form and in a manner in which not one of the organisations, parties or bodies, which are divided on almost everything else, has suggested. One thing on which they are united is that there should not be undue ministerial direction. Yet here the Labor Party wants to give the Government the power to direct what the Corporation does. This amendment is totally unacceptable. Although such a provision might appear in the wheat legislation, we do not believe it to be appropriate here. The Government opposes the amendment.

Mr MacKENZIE:
Calare

– As the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has pointed out, the Opposition is totally confused as to whether it is suggesting that the Corporation should have more or less power. The amendment shows how ill conceived its ideas are, how hastily they have been prepared and how inconsistent the Opposition has been. I remind the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) that if he looks at the definition of the word ‘Board’, which he has used in his amendment and which appears under proposed section 5 ( 1 ) he will find that it refers to the Australian Meat Board, which is the Board that we are replacing and reconstructing in this Bill. Strictly speaking, proposed clause 9a reads:

The Minister may give directions to the Australian Meat Board concerning the performance of the functions and the exercise of the powers and the Australian Meat Board shall comply with those directions.

The Opposition has told us where that provision came from, that is, from section 18 (1) of the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act 1974. It is a pity that the Opposition did not do its homework well enough at least to be able to substitute the word ‘Board’ for ‘Corporation’ and make it relevant to the Bill that the Opposition is talking about. So much for the level of understanding and sympathy that the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry) talked about when he referred to meeting a delegation of farmers in the electorate of Wannon- in a telephone booth.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-For the information of the ignorant members of the National Country Party of Australia I point out that the word ‘Board’ refers to the Board of the Corporation. Perhaps I should clear up one of the points that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) raised in terms of political rhetoric. He talked about the Australian Labor Party imposing a bureaucracy upon the Corporation. The fact is that the Corporation now will have to come cap in hand to the Minister for practically every decision. There is to be a bureaucracy which is supposed to be autonomous and which is in fact to be subject to ministerial control at every turn of the way. What we are saying is that if the Government is going to the trouble of setting up a corporation with statutory powers it should give it the functions to operate properly in a commercial atmosphere. Certainly let the Government have powers over it and let the Government be able through the Minister to issue directions to the Corporation. That is what we are arguing. It is completely consistent with the proper utilisation of the functions of a statutory corporation.

Mr SAINSBURY:
Monaro · Eden

– If I were to say that the performance of the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) on these amendments was lacklustre it would be a complete over-statement. Getting back to the direction of this amendment, I think I should mention for the information and elucidation of the large number of cattle producers from the Cattleman’s Union of Australia who have been lobbying in the halls of this Parliament in recent weeks and who have been talking about the problems in this legislation with regard to ministerial direction that this insertion into the legislation that the Australian Labor Party would like to make really gives the lie to the Labor Party. It wants to give the Minister the power to give directions. In just about every case where ministerial discretion is provided for in the Bill the Minister has the power to review, the power to veto and the power to consult. The amendment is typical of the big blanket Labor Party clause. We remember that before the last election the Australian Labor Party was inserting a similar blanket clause in so many Acts relating to so many fields of endeavour in Australia because of its aim to gain more power.

It wants power over the means of production, distribution and exchange. I hope that the people in the Cattlemen’s Union who, as I said, have been talking a great deal about ministerial discretion will note just where the aims of the Labor Party really are.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-The Opposition has moved an amendment proposing a new clause 9A which purports to give more power to the Minister and the Government. What is interesting about this amendment is that it proposes to give more power to the Minister over the whole range of functions of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. The Bill as proposed by the Government gives powers to the Minister in specific areas where they are warranted, but the amendment proposes to give him power over the performance of the functions and the exercise of the powers of the whole of the Corporation. No question has caused more concern in the industry than the whole question of ministerial influence over the Corporation. As I said a moment ago- I now reinforce my earlier argument- the powers which the Minister has taken under this legislation are quite reasonable. They have been included only where they are necessary and they are quite specific in their application. The Australian Labor Party has made it quite clear by the amendment that it wants the Minister to have overriding control over the total range of the powers and functions of the Corporation. The Government opposes the amendment.

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

-Only because the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) still seems to be totally ignorant of the legislation, I thought I should explain one matter to him. He said that the word ‘board’ in his amendment referred to the Board of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. I suggest that before he uses words he should look at the definitions clause to see whether there is reference to those words. Had he done so on this occasion, he would have seen in clause 5 that ‘Board’ means the Australian Meat Board referred to in section 7 of the Meat Industry Act 1 964.

Question put-

That the new clause proposed to be inserted (Mr Keating’s amendment) be so inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr G.O ‘H. Giles)

AYES: 29

NOES: 72

Majority……. 43

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 13- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 14.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I move:

  1. In sub-clause ( 1 ) (d), omit ‘approved in writing by the Minister upon the recommendation of the Corporation’, substitute ‘established by the Board of the Corporation and conveyed to the Minister in writing’.

This amendment is in line with the general view that the Opposition has taken. Clause 14 deals with contracts for the shipment of meat and livestock-carriage agreements. The way the Bill reads at the moment, such agreements can be approved only by the Minister upon the recommendation of the Corporation. We are suggesting that such agreements should be established by the Board of the Corporation and conveyed to the Minister in writing. There is a shade of difference in what we propose. The difference is mainly that the Board will be able to be more autonomous and can then convey the matter to the Minister in writing. We suggest that if the Minister were in disagreement with the arrangements, he could, under the other powers, issue a direction. However, our intention here is to remove the Minister from the position of having to approve every single, solitary action of the Corporation. Therefore we are proposing that amendment and commending it to the Government, to the Minister and to the Committee.

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

– We have spoken about the capability of issuing general directions. We do not see that as being a way by which there should be control of the negotiation of freight rates. Although in the legislation it perhaps might be so specified, the power is not to be exercised by the Minister for Primary Industry; it is to be exercised by the Minister for Transport. Its purpose is to maximise the advantage of freight negotiations for all agricultural commodities.

The reason for the inclusion of clause 1 4 in this form is that under the International Air Transport Association regulations, in an unrelated area in the negotiation of freight rates for commercial airline carriers, the practice has developed that the individual airlines negotiate a particular freight rate which then comes to the Minister for approval. It has been suggested that that is the appropriate way for a common clause to be inserted for commodity boards. The provisions of clause 14 are far wider than those contained in the present powers of the Australian Meat Board but are subject to regulation by the Minister in the form outlined in the clause. Under this clause the Minister for Transport will be able to ensure that in his dealings, which cover a broader front than those of any individual organisation and particularly those of a corporation such as the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation, the maximum advantage can be obtained. If, for example, there are other refrigerated cargoes he can ensure that they can also be tied in with whatever rate is set for reefer containers. If there happens to be- as the tragedy has been in the last few years- a number of containers which have not been in use, the whole burden of the costs of storage, the capital on those containers, the amortisation of the capital, the debt servicing and so on, is not brought down on the one industry. It is felt that there is an advantage in this general form. It is in order that the Minister for Transport can exercise final approval and help the Corporation on behalf of the producers. For that reason the Government persists with the original form which is included in the legislation and it opposes the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15.

  1. 1 ) Without limiting the generality of sections 8 and 9, the Corporation may-

    1. for the purposes of, or for purposes incidental to, international undertakings to which the Commonwealth is a party and with the approval of the Minister, purchase meat and live-stock and export, or sell for export, meat and live-stock owned by the Corporation;
    2. appoint agents, either in Australia or elsewhere;
    3. authorize the use of any patent vested in the Corporation;
    4. engage consultants on terms and conditions determined by it with the approval of the Minister; and
    5. enter into arrangements or agreements with persons, authorities or organizations in Australia or elsewhere, or, with the consent of the Minister, with a State, for the purposes of the Corporation.

  2. The Corporation may, with the consent of the Minister, operate, either on its own behalf or in conjunction with another person, authority or organization, an undertaking providing services of facilities for use in connexion with the export of Australian meat or live-stock, and may, for that purpose, do all things that are necessary or convenient to be done for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, establishing or operating such an undertaking.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-On behalf of the Opposition, I move:

Again, in line with the general tenor of the Opposition’s amendments, this amendment has been moved to provide the Corporation with more autonomy. The Corporation is to inform the Minister of any specific undertaking within a specified time. This is different from the provision which presently operates in the Bill. We believe our amendment gives the Corporation more necessary autonomy to carry out its proper functions in the market place.

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

-In fact, the amendment moved by the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) does not give the Corporation more autonomy. His amendment seeks to provide a capacity to direct the Corporation. Any amendment of this order needs to be read in the light of the earlier amendments. The Opposition has circulated a package of amendments. Let no one be fooled. The honourable member tells us that he is deleting the approval of the Minister. But he has inserted a direction-making power which, as a result of the report which is required under his proposed sub-clause 3, would ensure that, the action having been taken by the Corporation, the Minister or the Government would come in and tell the Corporation not to do it in that way but to do it in some other way.

The whole purpose of our specific drafting of this clause is to ensure that in this range of functionsall of them are a little broader in their general embrace than the things which have been done by the Australian Meat Board in the past but which may well be things which the Corporation decides to do- the Corporation has the initiative. If the Corporation believes it necessary, it can come along to the Government and say that it wants to do something. In the 4 areas where the Australian Labor Party has specifically deleted the reference to the Minister, the only difference in actual effect is that under the Labor Party’s intent the Corporation would be subject to a subsequent direction of the Government in a manner which we would see as not necessarily being in accordance with the wish of the Corporation. In our proposal in the Bill, the Corporation takes the decision but it cannot implement that decision until it has the approval of the Minister. The Government cannot direct. It can approve. I suggest that the distinction between those 2 words is fairly material. In not one of these instances do we see that the interests of the Australian primary producer would be protected and, therefore, we are opposed to the amendment.

Mr MacKENZIE:
Calare

– I must again draw the attention of the Committee to the inaccurate wording of this amendment, as was the case previously with amendment to clause 14. At no stage in the legislation are the words Board of the Corporation’ referred to. If we were to include this amendment in the legislation clause 15(1) (d) would strictly read: engage consultants on terms and conditions determined by the Australian Meat Board of the Corporation.

That shows how patently ridiculous the Opposition ‘s homework has been.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 16 and 17- by leave- taken together and agreed to.

Clause 18. (Membership of Corporation)

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I would like to ask the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) a question. As indicated in my speech, there is considerable interest in the appointment of the new chairman of the Board of the Corporation. Whilst I recognise that it is a delicate matter, can the Minister provide the Parliament with an assurance that the present chairman of the Australian Meat Board will not be appointed by the Minister as the new chairman of the Corporation?

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

– No decision has been taken on any of the personnel of the Corporation, which has not yet been approved by the Parliament or yet proclaimed. I can give no assurances to any persons whether or not they may be appointed.

Mr Stewart:

– Will they be Labor voters?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Very few of them are these days.

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

-As a representative of an electorate which contains several meat works and as a director of an Australian owned processor and exporter in an industry that is dominated by some very large multi-national companies, I certainly have a degree of concern about the clause. I recognise the immense difficulties with which the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) is faced in trying to resolve the irreconcilable objectives of various sections of the industry and I congratulate him on the skill with which he has avoided the twin rocks. I hope that he will look very seriously at the question of representation of the processing and exporting industry. Only one processor is to be represented. I suggest that when he is looking at the special representation, where there is a capacity for the Minister to appoint 2 people to the Corporation, he might give some kind of assurance that, if the one representative of the exporting and processing industry is not a moderately sized or small Australian owned processor, that section- the Australian owned sectionof the industry will receive some sort of representation. I believe that it is vital that this take place.

In particular I draw the Minister’s attention to his recognition in his second reading speech of the importance of having a meat exporter and processor on the Corporation he said:

Meat exporters also have pressed for additional representation. An increase in their number would lead to increased pressure for more producer members to maintain the kind of membership balance which most producers consider necessary, The end result would be an unwieldy, more costly and less efficient organisation.

At no stage do I deny the merit of having people who are experts in this industry effectively represented on this Board.

Mr Yates:

– I rise to order, Mr Deputy Chairman. May I inquire whether the honourable member has an interest in this clause and whether he has declared his interest to the Committee?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)-I take the view that the honourable member declared it at the start of his speech.

Mr BAUME:

– I declared at the beginning of my speech that I was a director of an Australian owned meat processing company. I thank the honourable member for the interruption. The Government has recognised, as it appears in the Minister’s second reading speech, that it is vital for the Corporation to have available to it the expert knowledge and advice that can only be given by exporters who are involved in the market place day by day. I submit to the Minister that his recognition of the role which they can and should play in such a Corporation seems to merit either an additional member by right or else the special consideration of the appointment of one of the 2 special representatives from the industry. It is self-evident that one processor cannot represent the conflicting interests of Australian-owned as against multinational processors and small local operators. By the way, some of those small operators are in fact producer co-operatives. One processing representative reporting back to his consultative group will not have in this situation another representative from the same group monitoring his performance at the Corporation or monitoring his reporting back to the consultative group. I am not making any comments on the calibre of the people who would not be so monitored but it would be a safer procedure if at least 2 people represented such a diverse industry with so many different motives.

Finally, I suggest that the 50 per cent reduction in the representation of the processing and exporting industry seems to imply some severe and, I would submit, unwarranted criticism of processor representation on the Meat Board in the past. If it is claimed that processor members of the Meat Board have acted improperly, I believe we should hear the accusations out in the open.

I must say a word in defence of the old Meat Board. There has been a lot of criticism of the Meat Board for its misjudging of the market. I do not believe that in any reconstitution we will be able to achieve a better result in terms of judging the market than we had in the past. Let us face it; the collapse of the beef market was simply and directly the result of a bad grain crop in the United States, of all things. If anyone wants to follow that situation through, the impact on feed lots was dramatic and unexpected, and the impact on the Japanese market was similarly so. Certainly that was the basis on which the collapse of the industry began, aided of course by the anti-rural domestic financial policies pursued by the Government of the day, a Government which is now in Opposition, a Government which imposed a levy of roughly $20m a year on the industry and then lent it back at interest to the industry which it had so destroyed. I merely ask the Minister whether he can give the industry some kind of assurance that all sections of the industry, particularly the Australian-owned sections, will be represented on the Corporation. After all, the industry owns the product with which the new Corporation will be dealing.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-This clause continues to be opposed by the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation and by the Cattlemen’s Union. It has the broad agreement of other sections of the industry. On the exporterprocessing side, the belief is still held that there should be more than one representative from that sector of the industry. I believe that, for any rational understanding of this legislation and this clause, and of the reasons for the creation of the Corporation, we must take account of the industry as it exists and as it is structured in Australia at this time. I am aware that there are sectors of the industry which would seek to introduce a domestic marketing scheme in Australia. That is not the objective of this legislation. As I said earlier, the Commonwealth Government does not have the constitutional power to establish a scheme to control the domestic marketing of meat and livestock. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has given his assurance that, subject to the agreement of the States to such a proposal, the Commonwealth would cooperate. Of course, such a scheme would require complementary Commonwealth and State legislation. We are now looking at the industry as it is presently structured.

Mr Keating:

-On a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman, why is the honourable member for Macarthur accosting the honourable member for Holt about his earlier interjection? I submit to you that his behaviour is quite improper. The honourable member for Holt was quite within his rights in raising the point of order.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! I do not follow the honourable member’s point of order.

Mr Yates:

– Speaking to the point of order, I raised the point of order, and it was perfectly explained by the honourable member for Macarthur. He said that I was incorrect in raising the point of order and that he had explained to the Committee that he had a direct and relevant interest in the business before the Committee. He is a controlling director of a company and the result of our decisions would benefit or not benefit his company. He declared his interest; so his electors have been informed of this. It was perfectly correct of him to say this. I am sorry that I misheard the honourable member and did not hear him say this in the first place.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! According to the Standing Orders, the Chair is not really interested in the issue, anyway. The Standing Orders state that honourable members may not vote without declaring that they have a vested interest in the relevant matter. I do not know of any standing order that prohibits anybody from talking to an issue. I do not think on my reading of the relevant standing order that the honourable member for Macarthur would be out of order if he had not declared his pecuniary interest if he wanted to discuss the issue. But that is a hypothetical situation and I do not think the Chair needs to worry about it.

Mr Uren:

- Mr Deputy Chairman, I wish to speak further to the point of order taken by the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating). The point was that the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) accosted the honourable member for Holt.

Mr Martyr:
Mr Uren:

– We observed it from here. It was quite aggressive. The fact is that this is against the Standing Orders. That is the point of order that was taken by the honourable member for Blaxland.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I am afraid that the Chair did not see any accosting take place.

Mr LUSHER:

– While we are on the subject I suppose I had better declare that I, too, produce cattle. The Committee is debating the structure and membership of the board of the Corporation. I believe the membership proposed in clause 18 is fair and reasonable. There is a balance between producers, exporters and members with special expertise. The bulk of the powers of the Corporation aim at the control of the export of meat and livestock from Australia. The fact is that exported meat is not owned by producers but is exported by those to whom it is sold. It is difficult to argue that producers should have a majority in this situation. It has been suggested that exporters and processors are under represented. I do not argue against that. There is no doubt that producers are entitled to a fair degree of say, as there is a direct relationship between the sale and the presentation of their product overseas and the overseas prices achieved for their product.

I have given a great deal of thought to this question of the structure of the Board of the Corporation. I believe that if producers were to have a majority on the Board they would be able to dominate the decisions of the Corporation through a bloc vote. If this were the case, it could be argued that there would be not much point in having other members on the Corporation at all. The Board has been structured in such a way that producers, need to win at least one of the remaining members of the Board of the Corporation by logic, argument and debate in order to achieve a majority and to have their views implemented. I believe that this is a far healthier situation than to have a straight producer majority. Similar provisions exist in the structures of other corporations such the Australian Wool Corporation, the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation and the Australian Dairy Corporation. I have heard no suggestion that these corporations are any less effective for the lack of a producer majority. The Australian Dairy Corporation has 3 producer representatives out of a board of eleven. The Australian Wool Corporation has 4 producer representatives out of a board of ten and the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation has 4 producer representatives out of a board of 9. I think that the most important aspect of this proposal is that it is essential that the new Corporation be able to operate successfully. I have no fears in this regard. I believe that the Corporation will be in the best possible position effectively and aggressively to market Australia’s beef on overseas markets.

Mr DRUMMOND:
Forrest

– I must initially express my interest in this matter. Firstly, I am a West Australian; secondly, I am a beef producer; and thirdly, I do eat the stuff. So I have an interest in it. I wish to speak briefly to this clause. I would like to say to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) that I understand the extreme difficulties that he has had in putting this board together and in endeavouring to look after all sections of the community. We all know that we wanted a corporation that was reasonably small- one that was manageable. To go beyond a membership of nine would be unreasonable. Being a West Australian, I ask the Minister whether he will make sure that the special provisions contained in the Bill regarding geographical areas will ensure that the different industry interests are looked after. In Western Australia we have different markets. We have approximately 74 per cent of the livestock trade out of Australia. This is not fully understood by the marketeers of the eastern States. We have built up special markets and we have special conditions with respect to those markets. The strongest representations have been made by grower organisations throughout Western Australia. I should like some assurance from the Minister that, if by some mischance a West Australian is not chosen by the producer consultative group to be appointed to the Corporation, a West Australian would be considered for one of the special representative positions.

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

– I note the truly dispassionate interest that it being shown in this matter by all honourable members from Western Australia. In fact, I saw the Minister for Agriculture from the west in Canberra today, together with representatives of primary producer organisations and exporters, which was quite unusual in view of the division that has been apparent in the general debate leading up to the introduction of this Bill. Essentially, all those people whom I saw today supported the case that has just been presented by the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond). An obvious difficulty exists. Western Australia has a different meat and livestock trade from the rest of Australia. They have developed- full marks to them- particular arrangements with respect to livestock exports. It is for that reason that the Government has agreed that in future livestock export permits will be issued only after receiving the recommendation of the Minister for Agriculture in Western Australia so that the particular trade that has been so effectively developed can be protected to the maximum and the peculiar circumstances in Western Australia can be recognised.

I can give no guarantee as to the regional base of any member of the Corporation. I can only be sure that Western Australia will be represented on the producer consultative group. One of the reasons why there is a reserve power for the Minister which enables him to appoint the members of the Corporation is to ensure that there is reasonable regional representation and, of course, at least one representative of the sheep trade and one representative of the beef trade. I cannot give the honourable member the assurance he seeks. But as I assured the Minister for Agriculture from Western Australia today, the Federal Government does recognise the peculiar position of Western Australia and hopes that the producer consultative group in submitting names of producers in accordance with this clause will also take that particular requirement on board. One would hope that as a result there will be no necessity for any ministerial involvement.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 19 (Members representing livestock producers).

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-Briefly, the Opposition supports the right of the Minister to make the final decision about the appointment of producer representatives to the Board. A precedent for this was established by the Labor Government. Can the Minister clarify what he would do in the event of his facing the same situation as we did with the Australian Meat Board selection committee having the power to refuse to put up additional names? Does the wording of clause 19 (2) adequately deal with this?

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

– Firstly, I am sorry to disillusion the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), but it is a pity the work performed by his staff is not a bit better. There was a suggestion that a precedent for this was established by the Labor Government. If the honourable member had looked at the Meat Industry Act, from which this present legislation was developed, perhaps he would have realised that that legislation was introduced in 1964 by a LiberalCountry Party government. That legislation provided for the provision of a panel of names. This legislation pursues the same practice. The general idea of the Meat Board selection committee has really been transposed into the producer consultative group in this legislation. The manner by which the previous Minister for Agriculture in the Labor Government sought to impose a name on the then Australian Meat Board Selection Committee is not a practice which this Government would favour. The submission of names from producers is intended to be at the discretion in future of the producer consultative group as it is for the time being at the discretion of the Australian Meat Board Selection Committee.

It would concern me if a Minister of any complexion were to put names forward. His right is only to say to the Selection Committee as it is now or to the future producer consultative group: I am sorry. We would like you to submit a few more names’. There is a right to refuse, not a right to nominate. As I understand it, the previous Minister sought to present names to the Selection Committee which correctly said: ‘No, that is not your function’. As a result the Minister was forced to appoint those names which were put forward by the Selection Committee. The same procedure will apply with the producer consultative group. Names submitted by either the producer or the exporter group will be the names from which the Minister will make a selection. If the Minister wishes further names can be called for in accordance with clause 19 sub-clause (2), but it will not be the practice for the Minister to put names into the recommendations that emerge from either group.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 20 to 25- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 26 (Remuneration and allowances).

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-The producer organisations have expressed substantial reservations about the salaries of the chairman and general manager of the Board. This clause applies to a member of the Corporation or a deputy of a member and provides that salaries will be determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. The Opposition seeks clarification. Does this mean that the salaries of the Chairman and Corporation members may exceed those set by the Public Service Board? If so, will the Minister make any submissions to the Remuneration Tribunal about the level of salaries? Will the Remuneration Tribunal give any guidance in respect of management salaries? Under clause 31 sub-clause (2) it appears that the employees’ terms and conditions of service and employment will be subject to ministerial approval.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Agriculture · New England · NCP/NP

– The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) just does not seem to understand. The Corporation is comprised of people appointed from a panel of names submitted in accordance with clause 18. The clause says:

The Corporation shall consist . . .

There is no board. It is a corporation. There are employees of the Corporation. Members of the Corporation will have their salary structure determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. The employees of the Corporation will have their salary structure determined with the approval of the Minister. So it is not a matter of the salary structure of the Corporation being subject in any way to the approval of the Minister except insofar as the recommendations of the Remuneration Tribunal are subject to the approval of this Parliament.

So the extent to which clause 26 is applicable is that the salary of the employees henceforth will, instead of being subject to the approval of the Public Service Board as at present, be set essentially by the Corporation but will be ratified by the Minister, this being a manner of ensuring that while the Corporation will be able to function in the public arena as a competitive commercial organisation to the maximum degree, it will not serve as a pacesetter in a way which would put other corporations and statutory organisations at a total disadvantage. The whole purpose of this clause is to ensure that adequate salary and wage structure are available for employees of the Corporation but that there is a reasonable relativity with others working in related industries and related levels of employment.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 27 to 40- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 41 (Establishment of Consultative Groups and Australian Meat Industry Conference).

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-The whole question of the producer consultative group seems to be unclear. While the Opposition does not oppose this clause it believes that the whole matter is entirely vague. We would have preferred to see the Minister place more detail in the legislation. Thus we seek more information from the Minister. If adequate answers are not received, amendments to this clause will be moved in the Senate. In his second reading speech, the Minister said:

The composition of both groups and the electoral procedures for the producer consultative group members will be decided shortly in consultation with industry representatives. While initially it is intended that these be prescribed, subsequent amendment to the Act is possible to ensure maintenance of the composition and electoral procedures of the consultative groups.

Will the Minister state whether he proposes that the producer consultative group members are to be elected directly by producers or indirectly by the producer organisations, as is the case with the Australian Wool Industry Conference? If he proposes to have direct election from producers, what does he propose for the sheep, cattle and goat equivalent which should form the common basis in determining voting qualifications? If he proposes direct election, would voting be on a one man, one vote basis or on a multiple voting basis? If the Minister decides against direct election by producers and appoints members of the group nominated by existing organisations, from which organisations will he make selections? I understand that this is the policy of the Australian National Cattlemen’s Council and the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers’ Council. If producer organisations cannot reach agreement, what action does the Minister propose? Can he answer the questions without behaving like a schoolmaster?

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England · NCP/NP

-Minister for Primary Industry) ( 1 1 . 1 )-I have to behave like a schoolmaster at times when I am speaking to a schoolboy. Unfortunately within clause 43 it is not possible to lay down the clear definition of what the constitution of these bodies will be. The alternatives generally are set out within clause 43 (2). While this question deals specifically with clause 41 and another question has been asked in respect of clause 42 (3), I should like to draw the attention of the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) to clause 43 (2) which sets down in general form the area within which it is thought that the regulating of the form of the body will be necessary. With respect to the actual form of the consultative groups, discussions already have taken place, firstly with the exporter, abattoir and meat and allied trades sector, and secondly with the producers.

I should say that at the first meeting with the exporters it emerged that one group of people who we felt might need to have consultations with the Meat and Live-stock Corporation felt that they could not be represented on either of the two consultative groups. For that reason the livestock exporters may well, for the time being at least, set up a committee in accordance with sub-clauses (1) and (2) of clause 16 of this Bill which would enable the livestock exporters to include some meat exporters and some stock and station agents so that they could also pass on advice to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. At this stage, it is felt that they are not perhaps sufficiently identifiable in form for them to be written in as a third consultative group.

With respect to the other two groups, it would seem that the exporters group will almost certainly be by appointment, again in accordance with clause 43 (3) (a). The form of the other producer consultative group has not yet been concluded. There is certainly some division of view as to the best manner of appointment or election. In relation to voting, discussions have been held without resolution. In relation to the extent to which votes will be allocated, there has been discussion, again without resolution. The honourable member asked what action I propose to take. I propose to distribute to the participants of the meeting on Monday a brief resume of the conclusions reached at that meeting. I hope that we identify those areas which are agreed and it will then be for further discussion to identify those areas which are not agreed.

I hope to get reasonable agreement in the end which will enable the regulations to be substantially accepted by all of the organisations to which this question refers. If that is possible and if there is reasonable agreement, as I have indicated in my second reading speech, the Government may be prepared to introduce subsequent amendments to the Act. However, initially we see the answers to this question as being matters for the producer organisations, if possible, to resolve rather than to have the Government arbitrate between them. If, however, there fails to be agreement it obviously will be necessary for the Government to act as it has with this legislation and to determine whatever would seem to be the most equitable arrangement, taking into account whatever conflicting points of view there may be.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 42 (Functions).

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– In this clause the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has provided for the formation of the Australian Meat Industry Conference. The Opposition seeks an assurance that both trade unions and consumers will be represented on the AMIC. In view of the apparent importance of this body, the Opposition also seeks details about the composition of the AMIC and the specific functions the Minister proposes. I realise that he may not be able to give all the details required about the producer consultative group. We seek an assurance from the Minister that the details will be made available prior to the Bill being debated in the Senate, which I think will be on Thursday afternoon.

The other area with which the Minister has not dealt adequately is the financial resources of the Corporation. The Opposition requests that the Minister give some specific indication on the following matters: Will the Corporation be given authority to trade in substantial quantities of meat or livestock if it requests to do so on a commercial basis? What would happen to the profits from any such transaction? Would they be returned to consolidated revenue or held by the Corporation to form a trading fund? What would happen if losses were incurred? Would these be met by the Government or would the Corporation have to borrow funds to carry the loss on a short term basis? If not, what arrangements would be made? Does the Government propose that the Corporation should have established a trading fund on a basis similar to the wheat and wool industries but modified to suit the meat industry? The Opposition would appreciate receiving specific answers to these questions prior to Thursday so that we can consider whether amendments should be moved in the Senate. Of course, we would much prefer to have specific answers now.

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

– I will give the maximum possible specific answers now. Obviously, discussions with the consultative groups have not been concluded. Until they have been concluded I cannot give specific answers. Consultations are under way. There will be further consultations fairly shortly to resolve the detail of the producer consultative group. That of the exporter consultative group seems to be fairly well established at the moment. The questions really relate more to the producer group than to the exporter group. As soon as these details are available I shall be prepared to give them to the honourable gentleman. The concept of the Australian Meat Industry Conference is that the representation on the Conference should be as broad as possible. It has been my intention, once the 2 consultative groups- possibly, there will be a third advisory committee- and the Corporation were established to have discussions with those 3 bodiesthe Corporation and the 2 consultative groupsand from those discussions to formulate an outline of the proposal for the AMIC.

It certainly is my intention that those who are not represented in the consultative groups should be available for discussion on the AMIC. They certainly would include the trade unions. I had in mind the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union and the Meat Inspectors Union as 2 illustrations of unions which I would expect to have representation on the AMIC. I certainly think that consumers should be represented. Othersfor example, the livestock agents- if not represented elsewhere, should be represented on the AMIC. Other persons may have an interest in this area. I cannot see exactly who they might be. Veterinarians might be one example of people who feel they have a special interest which is not adequately catered for. The intention is that within the Conference there will be a regular forum for the discussion of matters appropriate to the whole of the industry. The functions and the composition of the AMIC, in fact, will depend on consultations that will not be concluded until after the 2 consultative groups and the Corporation are established.

With respect to the first question asked by the honourable gentleman, I think it is necessary for me to refer him to clause 9 of the Bill. He will see that the trading powers are defined in that clause. As the clause stands, without his amendment, the Corporation already has powers, without reference to the Minister, to enter into general trading arrangements on commercial terms. However, under clause 9 (2) the Corporation may adopt such policy as it determines with respect to the exercise of these purchasing, export and selling powers and it must declare those policies. The purpose of this is to ensure that under sub-clause (3) both the Government and the consultative groups are well aware of the basis on which the Corporation will be pursuing its commercial trading. We see this as far preferable to the powers that are in the present Meat Industry Act. They are certainly significantly wider but they are designed to ensure that there can be a maximum understanding of the areas in which the Corporation will act. I think that this will provide adequate protection for the interests of producers who certainly have had some cause for concern on occasions where entitlements for example, has been worth anything up to 25c, 26c or 27c a lb and the price for the same product which is paid to the producer has been as low as 6c or 7c a lb.

As to profits, there is no specific provision but I would certainly envisage that they would be held by the Corporation. This could well be a matter for a subsequent discussion with the Corporation. Of course the policy would be declared by the Corporation, and at that time if the producers consultative group, the Exporters and abattoir group or the Government wished to put matters to the Corporation they would be able to do so.

In respect of losses, there would be no undertaking written in or understood, which would mean that the Government would necessarily pick up losses on a short or long term basis. If the Corporation were entering into any sort of a trading program in which it envisaged it would not be able to receive a normal commercial return, I would expect it might come to the Government and put a proposition to it. Indeed under clause 9 (4) the Corporation is required to do so, and if it sought some form of an offset such a proposition would be then considered by the Government.

In respect of the suggestion about the establishment of a trading fund similar to funds that operate within the wheat and the wool industries, this is a possibility. Obviously with the stabilisation proposition which is under consideration by a sub-committee of the Australian Agricultural Council at the moment this could well be a recommendation that will come forward. I do not believe it appropriate at this stage that a trading fund be established for the Corporation, but if it should be recommended by the Agricultural Council following the considerations by the sub-committee of that Council and subsequently those recommendations are adopted by the Federal Government, necessary amendments to this legislation can be introduced to ensure that trading fund is established. It may well be that if the Corporation does establish policy in accordance with clause 9(1), this may be a recommendation that the Corporation would want to put to the Government. If the Corporation were to do that, quite apart from the considerations of the Agricultural Council, I would be quite prepared to consider it at the time.

Clause agreed to.

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

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2241

LIVE-STOCK EXPORT CHARGE BILL 1977

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2241

LIVE-STOCK EXPORT CHARGE COLLECTION BILL 1977

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2241

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2241

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2242

MEAT RESEARCH AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2242

REPATRIATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 1977

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

Second Reading

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · Bass · LP

That the Bill be now read a second time.

As honourable members are aware, on 3 April, some important proposals to change the repatriation system involving repatriation boards and the Entitlement and Assessment Appeal Tribunals were announced. These proposals were developed out of the Government’s consideration of the conclusions and recommendations of the independent inquiry into repatriation conducted by Mr Justice Toose of the New South Wales Supreme Court. The Government has also had available to it comments on those conclusions and recommendations which it received from a large number of veterans ‘ organisations.

The Bill now before the House makes amendments to the Repatriation Act 1920 and the Seamen ‘s War Pensions and Allowances Act 1 940 to incorporate some of these changes. The Bill provides for changes in the method of appointment of repatriation boards and seamen’s pension committees and requires them to consult and cooperate with the Repatriation Commission. There will be no territorial limitation placed on them and, therefore, their activities will not be confined to specific States of the Commonwealth. The Bill also provides for the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to give directions to those bodies for the purpose of facilitating, ensuring or requiring consultation and co-operation with the Commission. In addition, the Bill introduces a new section 47 into the Repatriation Act. Section 47 is the section in the Repatriation Act which sets out the principles to be applied in determining claims under the Act. I shall now deal with each of these matters in more detail.

In his report, Mr Justice Toose recommended that repatriation boards should be abolished and replaced by a system whereby the initial determination of claims should be the responsibility of the Commission exercising its powers through suitably qualified persons acting individually as delegates. On the other hand, Mr Justice Toose recommended that, if repatriation boards were retained, the members when appointed should be subjected to an intensive training programme before making determinations, rotation of board chairmen and members should be actively pursued and the boards should be made clearly and directly subject to active oversight by the Commission. The Government received strong representations from the veterans’ organisations about these matters. The basic argument was that repatriation boards provided the initial tier in a three-tier system and that this system had been appreciated and accepted by veterans themselves. The existence of repatriation boards has provided an opportunity for veterans’ organisations to nominate persons for selection to the bodies involved in the first decision on a veteran’s claim. The Government recognises that these claims do have considerable merit and has, therefore, decided to retain the repatriation boards in order to maintain direct ex-service participation in appointments and determinations at this important first level.

The Goverment believes that within this system changes can still be made which it expects will lead to more efficient and effective administration and will improve the overall performance of the repatriation boards. To this end, the Government has decided to discontinue the present system of having boards appointed on a State basis, with their jurisdiction limited by the boundaries of their States, and to replace this with a system whereby the boards are appointed at large, with no territorial limitations on their jurisdiction. This will enable individual members to move between States or for claims to be referred to boards resident in other States if there are heavy work loads in a State. Additionally, the Government has adopted the recommendation by Mr Justice Toose that there should be arrangements for rotation of chairmen and members. The Bill provides authority for chairmen and members to be moved from one board to another for specified periods.

The Government also considered the view expressed by Mr Justice Toose that boards should be made clearly and directly subject to active oversight by the Commission. However, in view of the Commission’s position as the first appellate body above the boards, such oversight could be seen to weaken the independence of the boards as initial determining bodies. A modified proposal has, therefore, been developed and has been incorporated in the Bill. The proposed new section 15, set out in clause 7 of the Bill, will require boards to consult and co-operate with the Repatriation Commission. It empowers the Commission to make available to boards statements of principles which the Commission applies in deciding appeals, statements of principles deduced from the decisions of tribunals and any other material which the Commission considers may be of assistance to boards in the performance of their functions.

The section further provides that the Minister may issue directions to boards for the purpose of facilitating, ensuring and requiring that a board, or boards generally, consult and co-operate with the Commission with respect to matters specified in the direction. In this context, however, the section stipulates that neither the Minister nor the Commission is authorised to direct a board with respect to its consideration or determination of a particular claim or application. The Minister will furnish a copy of any such directions to the Commission, which shall publish it in its annual report tabled in the Parliament. The object of these provisions is to obtain better co-ordination among boards, to ensure the attainment of a high standard by boards in the discharge of their duties, as suggested by Mr Justice Toose, but without reducing the independence of each board in the exercise of its determining power under the Act in respect of individual cases.

The Bill inserts new sections 24aa and 24ab into the Repatriation Act and new sections 26 and 26a into the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act. All these new sections relate to the lodging of claims under the Acts. Mr Justice Toose had the following to say in this regard:

I am satisfied on the evidence that for many cases in the past claims have been presented in an inadequate fashion. I am also satisfied that this has to some extent been caused by a misunderstanding of the opening words of section 47 (2) of the Act . . .

A claim for entitlement may be seen as having two broad elements, first, identification of the disablement or death in respect of which the claim is made; and, second, the serviceconnection of the disablement or death.

He went on to say:

In respect of the nature of the disablement which is the subject of a claim it is necessary that the claimant should identify the condition sufficiently to enable the investigation of the case to proceed meaningfully. Clearly, in some cases it may be beyond the capacity of claimants to present positive identification of disablement, but in all cases some form of identification will be possible. It has always been the practice to require some identification from claimants.

He further said:

As to the relationship of disablement or death to service, a claimant should give some account of the service to which the disablement or death is claimed to be related and support his claim with evidence sufficing or helping to establish the fact. . . .

Mr Justice Toose came to the conclusion that:

In the past many claims have not been properly or adequately presented by the claimant. In my view, a claimant should particularise his claim to the fullest extent possible.

The Government has accepted Mr Justice Toose ‘s conclusion. It does not propose, however, to set out specific requirements in the legislation. Apart from the complex nature of such provisions, there could be an undesirable sideeffect of making unreasonable demands on some claimants. I refer particularly to those incapacitated by age, disabilities, or for other reasons, who may have difficulty in obtaining and providing all of the basic information, and to widows and dependants of deceased ex-servicemen who may not have such information readily available to them. A more flexible system is preferred.

The proposed section 24aa will require that a claim be submitted on the approved form and be accompanied by any evidence in the possession of the claimant which the claimant considers would support that claim. The claim form will be drawn so that those claimants who have the particular information readily available to them will be encouraged to provide it. The Bill specifically provides that such a procedure is not to be taken as imposing any onus of proof on a claimant. Under the proposed section 24ab, the Secretary to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs will be required to investigate all claims lodged and, on completion of those investigations, forward the claim, together with the results of his investigations and any evidence furnished by the claimant under section 24aa, to the Repatriation Board which will consider and determine the claim.

The Bill also sets out to deal with one of the most important, yet one of the most controversial, provisions in the Repatriation Act, section 47. That section sets out the principles to be applied by determining authorities under the Act in the hearing and determining of claims, applications or appeals under the Act. Mr Justice Toose reported that there was before his inquiry a considerable amount of evidence that the present section 47 had caused much dissatisfaction and frustration and he concluded that the present provisions of section 47 have proved most unsatisfactory and should be amended. He went on to analyse various provisions in other countries and recommended some major amendments to section 47.

The Government has examined this question in great depth and is concerned that the provision should be cast in its simplest possible form, while still preserving to a veteran the maximum advantage that should be allowed. The Bill provides for the repeal of the present section 47 and for the insertion in its place of a much simpler section which will provide that determining authorities: Are not bound by technicalities, legal forms or rules of evidence; and shall act according to substantial justice, taking into account any difficulty that for any reason may lie in the way of ascertaining the existence of any fact, cause or circumstance, including such reasons as the effects of the passage of time and the absence of or deficiency in any official records. The determining authorities will be required to grant a claim or application or allow an appeal unless they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there are insufficient grounds for granting that claim or application or allowing that appeal.

For the information of honourable members, I can advise that a further Bill to provide for the proposed transfer of the functions of the Repatriation Appeal Tribunals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will be introduced in the spring sittings. In addition, the Government is still considering many matters arising from the Toose report and the views on it obtained from veterans’ organisations. We shall be progressively announcing further decisions on matters arising from them. Honourable members may be assured, and all veterans may be assured, that the Government will not be arriving at those decisions lightly, but will keep in mind always that debt which this country owes to all those who have suffered or have been bereaved because of the service of its people in time of war and conflict. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Scholes) adjourned.

page 2244

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mr Newman:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr BONNETT:
Herbert

– I do not wish to detain the House very long. This Bill can be classed as a purely machinery Bill which puts into effect those matters foreshadowed by the Government in December of last year. It establishes the Defence Service Homes Corporation as the body to administer the Defence Service Homes Act and also effectively brings the complete administration of the Act under the one umbrella, the Department of Veterans Affairs. This is something I have been advocating for a number of years. I forget the number of departments that war service homes or defence service homes schemes have been operating under since their inception many years ago. This must have created an amount of frustration and administrative difficulties which should never have arisen. I have previously paid tribute to the good work done by the staff under these conditions and I do so again now. I can also add that it is good to see that the defence service homes scheme has been brought home under the administration of ex-servicemen’s affairs, where it always should have been. I also commend the establishment of the Defence Service Homes Trust Account which I feel will assist the administrative process considerably.

However, there are still a few matters concerning the Defence Service Homes Act which must be looked at closely and in my opinion adjusted by amendments as soon as possible. Foremost of these matters is the clause relating to eligibility for a defence service home which was introduced by the previous Labor administration. Briefly, and without going into detail, it extended the eligibility conditions to include those serving personnel who had completed a minimum of 3 years effective service, and it did not matter whether the servicemen had done overseas service. In my opinion this legislation completely destroyed the original concept of eligibility for a war service home, which was compensation for active service overseas in the defence of this country. If the Labor administration of the time introduced this measure as a recruiting aid, it failed miserably. What it did do was to create such a heavy demand on finance for a war service home that the waiting time to finance a loan had to be extended to 11 or 12 months. This, as we all know, has created unnecessary hardship for all eligible servicemen. I would like to see this part of the Act amended to alter this 3 year eligibility clause. If the Government wishes to include years of service as an eligibility factor and a condition of service, I have no objection providing it is done on a priority basis, where those personnel who have taken part in overseas service and who have left the Services have top priority. This should also relieve the waiting time for loan settlements.

As I said I do not wish to detain the House very long. I trust the Government will consider the suggestion I have made and introduce an amendment to the Act to implement my suggestion in the very near future. I wholeheartedly support the amending Bill now before the House.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-The Opposition does not oppose the Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 1977. Once the Parliament passed the Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 1976 abolishing the Australian Housing Corporation last December action such as this became a natural flow-on to clear up the administrative machinery involved. In effect this Bill ends the statutory corporation status of the Defence Service Homes Corporation and brings the administrative machinery ultimately under the Public Service Board. The original purpose of this legislation was to destroy the Australian Housing Corporation and to do so only because that Corporation had been an Australian Labor Party initiative. The Government has yet to show the Australian people that this new policy is in any way of real benefit to them.

Recent Press speculation, if one can believe it, indicates that this Government intends in the Budget session to hand over the new defence service homes loans to the State building societies. That could mean that those people who are eligible for defence service home loans will have the interest rates on those loans increased by up to three times the present rate. As honourable members are aware, the present rate is 3% per cent for the first $ 12,000 and 714 per cent for the $3,000 between $12,000 and $15,000. If the permanent building societies or even the terminating building societies were to administer these loans, which has been suggested and which is certainly under discussion by the Government, it would mean that those eligible for defence service home loans could have to pay something like lite per cent interest on their loans. I can conclude only that this form of subsidisation of the building societies is another example of this Government’s dogmatic determination to destroy the Labor Party’s overall urban and regional development policy. In so doing it will undermine a very fine scheme which has been in existence for so long and which has been administered even by the present Government.

As I said at the outset, this Bill is basically only a machinery measure. Be that as it may, it does impinge upon the overall housing situation as well as upon an area in which the Australian Government is directly involved in helping those people who served in time of war, some of whom sacrificed quite a lot and were badly injured. It is a commitment of war that we are trying to meet in this time of peace. I know that sometimes governments find it extremely hard to meet such commitments in the long term, but this is one commitment that they have been able to meet.

I know that the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman) has to contend with the same Treasury as we had when we were in government and that the Minister will have the problem of fighting its efforts to force up the interest rates. I am not saying dogmatically that the Government intends to hand over the administration of these loans to the permanent building societies in the States, but the speculation certainly is very strong that this will be the situation. This matter certainly has been under discussion. During our time in government the Treasury wanted to increase the interest rate to the long term bond rate. In fact, one of my achievements in the last Whitlam Ministry was that I was able to defeat that move. The Treasury had a great many victories in the last Budget of the Whitlam Government, but that was one occasion on which I and my Cabinet colleagues- honourable members know what would have happened to the matter if it had been raised in Caucus- were able to defeat the Treasury.

We know that the Minister is again under pressure. With the little bit of muscle that the Labor Cabinet was able to use it was able to defeat the Treasury then. I am wondering whether the Minister will have the same strength now. I understand that on one occasion the Cabinet even passed increased interest rates, but Senator Greenwood was able to get to the Prime Minister and was able to veto the decision. I wonder whether the Government will be able to continue efforts to stop this erosion.

I hope that the Government, as did other coalition governments in days past, will give war service homes a decent priority. There are delays. When there are shortages of labour or shortages of both materials and labour in the industry a delay might be expected, but in the housing industry today there is no reason why there should be a delay of 1 1 months to a year such as is occurring at present. We on the Opposition side would assist the Minister to agitate against his more conservative colleagues in the Cabinet as well as that awful conservative organisation, Treasury, and at least wipe away the waiting period during which people who are eligible for a war service homes loan and have one approved have to borrow money at a higher interest rate. These are problems we will have to look at in the future.

I refer now to the overall housing situation. In the 3 years of the Labor Administration a problem was building up. It is accelerating day by day and month by month. Families with a single income equivalent to something like 135 per cent of average weekly earnings are unable to meet monthly repayments, which are set by the lending societies at 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. More and more people are being forced out of the group who can meet monthly repayments economically. In certain areas the Australian Government becomes involved in what we call subsidised schemes. We are now debating one of them. Others come under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. The Commonwealth makes money directly available to the State governments. People earning up to 85 per cent of average weekly earnings are at least allowed to register with the State housing commissions. At least 30 per cent of the funds made available under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement are set aside in what we call the Builders Account. That is another subsidised scheme in which the Australian Government is involved.

Under the scheme people earning up to 95 per cent of average weekly earnings have a chancethey may have to wait a while- of getting a home. But the sad situation is that there is a growing group of people, those earning up to 135 per cent of average weekly earnings, whom the financial institutions and the Government have not been able to assist.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order!

Mr UREN:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you are drawing me back to the Bill, and I am aware of your guidance. I was just making those comments in passing. I will come back to the Bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I was going to say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that we have already debated a Bill covering financial assistance to the States in relation to roads. If he goes much further along the road he is now following we might even get onto that piece of legislation again. I suggest that he come back to the Bill.

Mr UREN:

– Roads are inter-related with housing. Everything is connected to everything else. I agree with what you have said, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will restrict my remarks to defence service housing. I know that we are discussing a machinery Bill. I appreciate the tolerance that you have shown me this evening. My colleague the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) wants to say a few words about this matter. In view of this and as the hour is late, I will conclude my remarks. I stress again that this piece of legislation was born out of malice. I believe that it does not represent any real progress and that it will not assist in any way those people who really need assistance in the defence service homes area.

Mr KING:
Wimmera

– I will not delay the House for very long. However, I would like to associate members of the National Country Party of Australia with this legislation for the simple reason that over the years we have taken a very close interest in defence service housing. Any honourable member who has been in this chamber for any length of time will fully appreciate the many problems that have been associated with defence service homes over the yearsproblems concerning interest rates, the amount of money that has been available and so forth.

I believe that the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman) covered this subject fairly well in his second reading speech. If people want to know more about the legislation, I refer them to that speech by the Minister. The only point I wish to make relates to proposed section 39a ( 1 ), as contained in clause 1 1. The proposed section states:

There shall be credited to the Defence Service Homes Trust Account-

moneys paid to the Corporation out of moneys appropriated by the Parliament from time to time for the purpose of providing capital for the Corporation or otherwise for the purposes of the account; and

all moneys received by the Corporation under this Act, not being payments that are required by section 40 to be credited to the Defence Service Homes Insurance Trust Account.

The purpose of that, in a nutshell, is to provide for moneys that are being repaid from existing loans to be paid into the Defence Service Homes Corporation instead of their going straight into the Treasury. It will be up to the Corporation then to handle the money as it sees fit.

I hope that as a result of this change the Government and the Corporation will be able to give more sympathetic consideration to second loans. I think that every member who has had anything to do with defence service homes will appreciate the personal problems that are created as a result of people not being able to secure a second loan. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should open this up and extend this assistance to everyone who wants to sell his home and move around the corner. All I am suggesting is that there are numerous occasions on which people, for health, occupational and other reasons, wish to sell their home and move to another location. These people often are cornered by not being able to secure a second loan. Once they have sold their existing defence service home, they can receive a second loan only in exceptional circumstances. I hope that as a result of this legislation a move will be made in the not too distant future to ease the pressure on those people who wish to secure a second loan.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will not keep the House for very long. The provisions of this Bill, as has been said, are consequential upon the abolition of the Australian Housing Corporation. When that Corporation was abolished the Defence Service Homes Corporation was established as the corporate entity to administer the Defence Service Homes Act. This Bill, of course, seeks to repeal the Defence Service Homes Corporation Act. So we see another change of course. There is total confusion in this area. It is confusing to ex-servicemen and it certainly is very confusing to the personnel who have been in the Housing Corporation and who now will go over to the new Defence Service Homes Corporation. The legislation establishes the Corporation under the Defence Service Homes Act. It makes certain changes to the staffing and financial arrangements under the scheme. The staff are to be employed under the Public Service Act. So the sort of statutory body characteristic that the previous organisation had has been altered. The body will no longer have the flexibility and versatility that it had previously. It will just be another routine government department incapable of meeting the housing needs of the people and using the resources that are available for defence service homes purposes in the best possible way. Of course, those resources are considerable, as the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman) knows.

One of the developments under the Labor Government was to consolidate the land holdings of the Defence Service Homes Division. Not long ago- in fact, on 2 November 1976- the Minister was able to tell me that 1223 hectares of land were held for that purpose, that we had purchased the land for $ 19.7m and that it is now valued at $39.4m. Honourable members might understand and recall that one of the purposes of the Australian Housing Corporation was to utilise this land for development purposes and not just for ex-servicemen. It was to be used for other people as well. The Corporation was to continue to build up that stock of land so that the Australian Government could take a very real initiative in respect of the needs of ex-servicemen and others. It would not be appropriate for me to enunciate the purposes of the Corporation. That has all gone by the board now. It is another aspect of the devolution that has taken place under this Minister who is often called the undertaker, the destroyer of Labor initiatives. Of course, this is just another comment in that destructive program that has been followed.

I want to tell the Minister that a great deal of concern is being expressed about the present administration of the Defence Service Homes Act. I know that the Minister in this chamber is not responsible for the Defence Service Homes Act. In this House he only speaks on those matters. However, he certainly has a very big responsibility for the destruction of the Australian Housing Corporation which accommodated the defence service homes scheme. So we are not going to be able to maximise the potential in terms of the constitutionality that is available to the Commonwealth in respect of the housing needs of the people. That is what the Corporation was all about. Its purpose was to provide housing for servicemen, ex-servicemen, migrants and employees of the Commonwealth. Indeed, it wouldhave been able to assist the recipients of social service benefits, and special allowances could have been invoked for that purpose as well. I want to confirm my contention that widespread concern has been expressed by reading to the House a letter which I have received from the State Secretary of the New South Wales branch of the Returned Services League. It reads:

Dear Mr Johnson,

The N.S.W. Branch of the RSL is concerned, that despite denials by the Commonwealth Government, there are, from time to time, media reports of proposed changes to the existing Defence Service Homes Benefits.

The alleged media comments have referred to proposals to increase interest rates and dispose of residential land which has been purchased for the erection of Defence Service Homes. Speculations were published in mid- 1975, again in February 1 976 and more recently this month.

On Wednesday, 4 May 1 977, The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the above matters were being considered by an inter-departmental committee including proposals for handing over veterans’ Home Loans to State Building Societies.

My State Council would appreciate that you recognise that the RSL considers such speculations are very disturbing, because of the insecurity and alarm they create amongst eligible servicemen, ex-servicemen and war widows.

We request your support in preserving the interests of veterans and their widows who expect the Defence Service Home Scheme to be maintained in accordance with the conditions of service promised to them at the time of their enlistment in the Armed Forces of the Commonwealth.

The letter is from Mr W. G. Osmond, State Secretary of the New South Wales branch of the Returned Services League. There is not much need for me to comment on it; it speaks for itself. It is an indication of the very widespread concern being expressed around Australia at the present time. I believe it is the obligation of this Government to maintain the momentum of reform and progress which the Australian Labor Party undertook in relation to the defence service homes scheme. If the Minister is starting to wince, let me give him something to wince about. I shall take a minute to mention several of the reforms which occurred under the Labor Administration. These reforms included the fact that loans were increased from $9,000 to $15,000. We extended the eligibility to single men and single women. For years and years people were calling for that provision, until the Labor Government was elected and gave effect to the proposal.

We introduced a transfer of loans scheme to assist persons who were required to change their residence for reasons of health or employment. That is one of the matters about which the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King) has just been talking. I do not think that he yet knows that we gave effect to a proposal along those lines. Of course, we raised the expenditure enormously. I cannot recall the figure for 1975-76 but I know that we brought the amount from $74m in 1972-73 to $1 15m in 1974-75. The amount went up much further in the next year. We expanded the category of qualifying personnel to include ancillary service personnel; for example those who served in the war theatres with the Salvation Army, the Comforts Fund and the Red Cross. This proposal was called for for many years. We changed the name of the legislation from the War Service Homes Act to the Defence Services Homes Act. We enabled national servicemen and permanent servicemen to qualify. What an enormous innovation.

Mr Sullivan:

– A disgrace!

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable gentleman is saying that that is a disgrace. The permanent servicemen of Australia will be delighted to know that apparently the National Country Party wants to defranchise the permanent members of the forces who now qualify after the completion of 3 years service! That was regarded as one of the great reforms under the defence service homes scheme. I have mentioned just a short number of reforms but together they add up to the most significant package deal of reforms to occur since the defence service homes legislation was first introduced in 1918. Now we have this legislation shemozzled in such a way that the staff is demoralised. I think the Minister knows that the staff is complaining. Many positions are unfilled. Other positions have been abolished. People are being worked in higher positions but they are not getting the commensurate salary. I am not speaking for myself here. I have received deputations from employees of this former great instrumentality. They want this Government to put the matter on an even keel and to make sure that the ex-servicemen do not have to wait for their loans and do not have to get second mortgages. That is what we asked the Government to do. We ask the Government to have regard to the record of progress and achievement for which the Australian Labor Party Government was responsible and to carry on in a similar vein to the advantage of servicemen and ex-servicemen of this country.

Mr DOBIE:
Cook

– I listened with some interest to the passion and enthusiasm of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson). However, I must say with all kindness in my heart that I cannot agree with most of the things about which he spoke. We have to face some reality. The reason for a waiting time for people seeking defence or war service homes loans was because of legislation brought in by the government in which he was a Minister. We are trying, with this legislation as part of the scene, to bring some reality back to the whole situation of defence homes. I was very interested to hear the honourable member for Hughes refer to the circular letter which all honourable members in New South Wales, on both sides of the House, received. Not one of us in the House would not be very concerned about the possibility of any reduction in benefits to our returned ex-servicemen. Quite frankly, there is absolutely nothing in this legislation which would give that indication.

The subject of the debate is a technical matter, providing that the staff of the Department shall come under the Public Service Act. The fact that the previous speaker became a little confused about what was happening with the departmental staff was probably due to his passion and feeling on this subject. The reality, from my own knowledge of the staff within the Department, is that the staff is quite delighted with the prospect of coming within the broader ambit of the Public Service Act instead of being under the Defence Service Homes Act. The staff appreciates the fact that it will have the capacity and the opportunities for greater promotional and career prospects as a result of this legislation. The financial aspects -

Mr Scholes:

– You are half a minute late.

Mr DOBIE:

– Perhaps the honourable member for Corio has his times confused. This Government has always maintained a close and realistic relationship and liaison with the ex-servicemen’s organisations. The application of all legislation that we have introduced over generations of being in government in this place since the First World War has been undertaken with complete and total consultation with the ex-servicemen’s organisations. The State Secretary of the Returned Services League in New South Wales knows that and I have replied to a letter from him in such terms.

Time is of the essence and the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman) seems anxious to answer the questions that have been put to him; so, I shall not delay the House. But I want to say one thing: There has never been any legislation introduced into this House by a Liberal-National Country Party Government that has ever suggested that we have had anything less than the legitimate well-being of all ex-servicemen in this country at heart. This Bill is in accord with that history. Any suggestions to that effect from the gallant Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) or the previous speaker, the honourable member for Hughes, would be slightly unfair and perhaps reveal that they are not as informed on the matter of the welfare of the ex-servicemen of this country as they might well be. In the 3 years in which the Australian Labor Party was in government it brought in some interesting and well needed alterations to the Defence Service Homes Act. Labor extended it to some very worthwhile and needy sections, namely- I speak with some interest here- to the single exservicemen and ex-servicewomen. But in general terms Labor confused the issue so badly that it has taken us 18 months to come to some conclusions as to what the future should be. No thinking person, no thinking ex-serviceman, would assume that 32 years after World War II, some years after Korea and some years after Vietnam, the same conditions that applied after the 1914-18 war would apply. I am sure that none of us in this chamber at the moment is privy to what the Budget will contain but I am sure that the returned services movements in Australia can rest content and not worry. I am certain that we will continue to be looking after the legitimate well-being of ex-servicemen when the Budget comes down. Although this Bill is very technical it is an indication that we are trying to plug the holes that the socialist Government opened in its 3 years in office.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

-I call the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development who will close the debate.

Wednesday, 1 June 1977

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · Bass · LP

– I noted the tone of your voice, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that only a few points need clearing up. I must compliment the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett) and the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) for putting the point of view of the Government so clearly. There is absolutely no doubt about the Government’s determination that the history of support to ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen will continue. I do not have to say any more about that. One thing that does have to be answered is the canard that has been allowed to run tonight by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson). I must say that the latter honourable member loves to come in here and with crocodile tears talk about the terrible rumours that are running about various things. In doing so, he tries to prosper them as fast as he can to those who may be listening and getting more and more worried about the matter.

Let me nail 2 issues. First of all, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is worried that we might be transferring the administration of the defence service homes to the States through the permanent building societies. I am advised that there is no truth in that assertion. As to the second assertion about interest rates, I answered questions in this chamber on the matter months ago and denied it, but still it seems to run. I suppose that the honourable member for Hughes when he gets back to his electorate devils around and addresses a few Returned Services League groups and tells them it is the truth. But let us have the truth here and now. There is no truth in the rumour, and I can only repeat what my colleague said in the other place on 4 May in answer to a question from Senator Bishop. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) said:

  1. . the Government does not have any plans to increase the interest rate on defence service homes.

He went on to say very categorically: . . the Defence Service Homes Corporation . . . is not placing any plans of this sort before any Government committee and is not placing before any Government committee or before the Cabinet any proposals to increase interest rates.

So foi the third or fourth time, let us have it all out again. There are no proposals in this scheme to increase interest rates.

I cannot resist dealing with the matter of waiting time. It was questioned by the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King), ignored by the honourable member for Hughes and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Of course the Labor Government had to introduce first of all increased amounts for the defence service homes scheme. After all, it produced by its wretched policies an inflation rate which made the scheme that it had inherited absolutely meaningless. Of course the Labor Government had to increase the amount. In respect of those significant reforms which were introduced and the waiting time about which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was so worried, let me remind him that in the August Budget an 1 1 months’ waiting time was introduced by him. Was it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or was it the honourable member for Hughes? Certainly it was the Government of which the honourable member for Hughes was a member, and the reason why the appropriation of about $ 122.5m was not enough to cover the anticipated annual requirement for assistance under the Defence Service Homes Act in 1975-76 -

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There had previously been supplementary Budgets for defence service homes and one was to be introduced on this occasion.

Mr NEWMAN:

-The situation is absolutely clear. The waiting period of 11 months was introduced on 1 August 1975 by the last Government. That is the fact of the matter. Let us have no hypocrisy again in this place about reform and who is responsible for waiting time.

On the matter of second loans and portability of loans, I think it was the honourable member for Wimmera who raised the point. I had better make it clear that a system exists under the present Act whereby second loans may be granted. The figures show that about 470 applications a year are granted under the established policy, and that runs into an annual amount of about $2. 5m. It would be ideal if all people who applied for second loans and who wanted to transfer were granted those loans, but the policy behind not allowing the complete portability of loans is that it is simply not possible if we are to meet all our commitments in the present strictures on economic policy. I can say that the present policy of allowing second loans is being reviewed in an attempt to remove anomalies and to permit a relaxation in the existing criteria under which loan approvals are made. However, the availability of funds to permit a less rigid approach to this type of assistance will be an important factor in any consideration of it. That is all I wish to say, Mr Deputy Speaker. I summarise the legislation once again by saying that the Government has a commitment to exservicemen and women. It has met that commitment in the past and it jolly well will continue to do so in the future.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2250

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

States Grants (Advanced Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1977.

States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1 977.

States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1977.

States Grants (Universities Assistance) Amendment Bill 1977.

Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill 1977.

Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1977.

Wool Tax Amendment Bills (Nos 1 to5) 1977.

House adjourned at 12.11 a.m. (Wednesday)

page 2251

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Ethnic Groups: Western Sydney (Question No. 250)

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

am asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

How many persons in each of the 10 largest ethnic groups, as indicated by birthplace, were shown by the 1966, 1971 and 1976 censuses to reside in the Electoral Divisions of

Chifley, Macarthur, Macquarie, Mitchell, Parramatta, Prospect and Werriwa.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

Information of the type sought by the honourable member is, as yet, not available from the 1976 census. Information from the 1966 and 197 1 censuses is detailed in the following table:

U.S.S.R. Treatment of Political Prisoner (Question No. 583)

Mr Abel:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs upon notice, on 19 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to an article on page 44 of the Bulletin of 1 2 March 1 977 concerning the treatment of political prisoners in the Soviet Union.
  2. If so, can he say whether there is any substance in the allegations in the article that Vladimir Borisov has been given the ‘dry wrapper’ treatment.
  3. Can he also say whether there is any evidence that the dry wrapper’ treatment has been used on other political prisoners; if so, will he detail the prisoners subjected to the treatment and, if possible, give some idea of the period over which the torture was given.
Mr SINCLAIR:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

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

  1. Yes.
  2. There is substantial although not conclusive evidence that the ‘dry wrapper’ treatment had been used during the period of Vladimir Borisov ‘s commitment to a mental hospital.
  3. It has been claimed by Soviet dissidents who have been in mental institutions that the ‘dry wrapper’ treatment has been used on other political prisoners. I have no information on the names of other prisoners subjected to such treatment or the period of time over which it was applied.

Australian National Line: Queensland Ports (Question No. 660)

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

am asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 April 1 977:

  1. 1 ) On what date did the Queensland Government offer to take action to permit the Australian National Line to undertake the carriage intra-State by sea of cars, utilitites, trucks, tractors, caravans, boats, earthmoving equipment, agricultural implements and over-dimensional loads which cannot be carried by rail (Hansard, 19 April 1977, page 97 1 ).
  2. What decision has the Australian Government or ANL made as a result of the offer and on what date was the decision made.
  3. What were the details of the volume of cargo carried and space availability on ANL vessels engaged in the north Queensland trade which were forwarded to the Queensland Department of Transport on 20 September 1 976 (Senate Hansard, 2 December 1976, page 2485).
  4. What vacant space for paying cargo will still be available on ANL vessels between Brisbane and north Queensland if the Queensland Government’s offer is accepted.
  5. Since, as he stated on 15 February 1977 (Senate Hansard, page 43), the effect of the Queensland Government’s decision will be to limit the possibility of ANL operating more economic services and to deprive industry and consumers in Queensland of the benefit of competition and alternative services, does he still regard the Queensland Government’s offer as a favourable result, as he stated on 19 April 1977, (Hansard, page 971 ).
Mr Nixon:
Minister for Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 24November1976.
  2. I advised Mr Hooper, Queensland Minister for Transport, on 8 March 1977 that the Queensland Government ‘s offer to allow the ANL to enter the Queensland intrastate trade, subject to certain conditions were acceptable to the Commonwealth. I made it clear however, that the offer fell short of what the Commonwealth was seeking, and noted the matter was to be reviewed in 6 months.
  3. Details of cargo carried and availability of space on ANL vessels engaged in the North Queensland trade were provided to the Queensland Department of Transport on 20 September 1976 as follows:
  1. When it commences intra-State trading in Queensland, the Line will be competing with road and rail for available cargoes. Until it actually engages in the trade it is not possible to say how much cargo of the particular types that were the subject of the Queensland Government’s original offer will be secured by the Line and how much vacant space for paying cargo will still be available.
  2. The proposal which existed at15 February 1977 has been overtaken by more recent events. However, I believe now more than before that the Queensland Government’s offer in existence at that time was a favourable result. The dialogue established between this Government and the

Queensland Government prior to and following the offer of 24 November 1976 has led to a successful conclusion. On 29 April 1977 the Queensland Minister for Transport advised me that his Government had agreed that approval be given for the Australian National Line to engage in intra-State trading in Queensland on a non-restricted basis.

Mr Vincent Teresa (Question No. 661)

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

am asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 19 April 1977:

  1. 1) When was (a) his and (b) his Department’s attention 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.
  2. What have been the date, nature and purpose of his contacts with Mr McCrudden, who was the Liberal candidate for the electoral district of Mt Druitt at the elections for the New South Wales Legislative Assembly on 1 May 1976.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)I and my Department do not recall the reference in the National Times being specially drawn to attention. There had of course been references earlier in December in many newspapers to the suggestion by Mr McCrudden that Teresa might be brought to Australia for a casino enquiry.

  1. To the best of my knowledge and recollection I have had no contact with Mr McCrudden.

Shipping: Industrial Disputes (Question No. 673)

Mr Morris:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) For how many days and in what ports has the Darwin Trader been delayed due to industrial disputes since entering the service.
  2. What was the prime cause of each industrial dispute and which unions were directly involved on each occasion.
Mr Nixon:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)and(2)-

Manganese Shipments (Question No. 675)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 977:

  1. 1 ) What is the basis of freight charges made to Broken Hill Pty Ltd for the shipment of manganese from Groote Eylandt.
  2. What are the tonnage rates charges to Broken Hill Pty Ltd.
  3. Is the carriage of manganese a profitable operation for the Australian Shipping Commission; if not, what is the extent of the loss per tonne incurred by the Commission.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian National Line has advised me that the basis of freight charges to B.H.P. for the shipment of manganese ore from Groote Eylandt is designed to cover costs and give a financial return on the southbound voyage with loading and discharge to B.H.P. account.
  2. The Line considers that it is not commercial practice to divulge confidential contract rates negotiated competitively for individual commodities and fixtures.
  3. I am advised by the Line that the southbound carriage of manganese ore offsets the cost that would otherwise be placed against the northbound voyage and cargo if the vessel had to return in ballast due to the absence of a back loading from Darwin.

Nursing Homes in Broadmeadows, Coburg and Brunswick Municipalities (Question No. 713)

Mr Bryant:
WILLS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many approved nursing homes are located in the Victorian municipalities of Broadmeadows, Coburg and Brunswick, and where is the location in each case.
  2. What are the names and addresses of (a) the registered owner of each home and (b) the medical practitioners who regularly attend each home.
  3. What is the number of approved beds in each home.
  4. What are the weekly charges for patients at each home.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) There are nine (9) approved nursing homes (all approved under the National Health Act) in the Municipalities of Broadmeadows, Coburg and Brunswick- viz.:

Broadmeadows

Glenlyn, 33 Finchley Avenue, Glenroy.

Glenroy, 85-87 Chapman Avenue, Glenroy.

Coburg

St Linus, 22 Delta Avenue, Merlynston.

Kulki, 14 The Grove, Moreland.

Glenora, 15 Shaftsbury Street, Coburg.

Merlynston, 1050 Sydney Road, North Coburg.

Emily Lenny, 46 Victoria Street, Coburg.

Brunswick

Kanella, 35 Mitchell Street, East Brunswick.

Blyth-Lea, 62 Blythe Avenue, Brunswick.

  1. (a) The following names, provided as the registered owners of the nursing homes, are those of the organisations or persons owning or conducting the nursing home undertakings. These organisations or persons may not own the premises. The addresses maintained by my Department are those of the nursing homes and are as shown in ( 1 ) above.

Glenlyn- Sister C. Dargan

Glenroy- M. and N. Stojanovic; M. and N. Perac

St Linus- Sister Nugent

Kulki-Wesley Central Mission

Glenora-Sister D. Bolger

Merlynston- I. L. Coxall and Bik Young Ding

Emily Lenny- I. K. and E. L. Davies

Kanella-Sisterand C. B. Black

Blyth-Lea- C. Maya

  1. The names of the medical practitioners who regularly attend each home are not available to my Department as the Commonwealth is not involved in the services and consequently does not record such information.

    1. and (4) The number of approved beds and the weekly charges at each home are as follows:

The above fees are the approved gross fees for ordinary care patients. The patient’s liability to meet these fees from his own resources is reduced by the amount of Commonwealth and nursing home fund benefits payable. For intensive nursing home care patients’ fees and benefits are $21 a week higher.

Commonwealth Contracts in Broadmeadows, Coburg and Brunswick Municipalities (Question No. 717)

Mr Bryant:

asked the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 27 April 1 977:

  1. 1 ) What is the total value of Commonwealth contracts in the Victorian municipalities of Broadmeadows, Coburg and Brunswick for which construction is expected in 1 976-77.
  2. What is the value of the individual projects mentioned in part (1 ).
  3. 3 ) What is the total value of contracts in these municipalities presently being constructed but not expected to be completed in 1976-77.
  4. What are the projects involved.
  5. Are any contracts estimated to be commenced for these municipalities in 1977-78.
Mr McLeay:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) The following is a list of Commonwealth contracts arranged by the Department of Construction in the Victorian municipalities of Broadmeadows, Coburg and Brunswick completed or currently under construction for the financial year 1976-77. Works which are not expected to be completed in the current financial year also are listed. Minor works valued at less than $ 1 5,000 have not been included.
  1. The program for 1977-78 has not been established.

Australian Forces at Butterworth, Malaysia (Question No. 748)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:

  1. Recalling that the then Minister for Defence, Mr Barnard, agreed in December 1 974 to an extension of the deployment to the Royal Malaysian Air Force base, Butterworth, of two Mirage squadrons of the RAAF, and that a further review would take place by the end of 1976, has a review occurred; if so, what were its conclusions.
  2. Have there been subsequent reviews; if so, what were their conclusions.
  3. Was one purpose of the deployment to perform a training role with the Malaysian and Singapore air forces.
  4. If so, is this role still being performed now that both air forces have put into service modern tactical fighters.
  5. Since the Malaysian Government is now using Butterworth as a base for operations against dissident forces in the Malaysian-Thai border area, does he see any risk of Australia becoming involved in an internal Malaysian security situation.
  6. Does the company of Australian infantry stationed at Butterworth conduct any reconnaissance activities outside the perimeter of the base.
  7. Is the Australian infantry company under any orders to return or not to return incoming fire such as rocket or mortar attacks.
  8. Is he satisfied with the arrangements made by the Malaysian armed forces for the physical security of the base against incursions or attack by dissidents.
Mr Killen:
Minister for Defence · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. and (2) There is a continuing review of the deployment of the two Mirage squadrons to Butterworth. There is no present intention to make any change. Under the terms of the Exchange of Notes with Malaysia of 1 December 1971, the Government would consult with the Government of Malaysia over any proposal to alter the size or character of the force.
  2. Yes.
  3. Yes.
  4. The Exchange of Notes between Australia and Malaysia (see Question 1 and 2 above) which provides the formal basis for the RAAF presence at Butterworth, was made pursuant to, and explicitly related to the Five Power Communique issued at the conclusion of the Ministerial Meering in London on the 1 6 April 1 97 1 , to consider matters of common interest relating specifically to the external defence of Malaysia and Singapore. In that communique, Ministers declared: ‘in relation to the external defence of Malaysia and Singapore, that in the event of any form of armed attack externally organised or supported, or the threat of such attack against Malaysia or Singapore, their Governments would immediately consult together for the purpose of deciding what measures should be taken jointly or separately in relation to such attack. ‘
  5. No.
  6. No.
  7. Yes.

Wage Agreements (Question No. 767)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has he indicated that the Government will not accept wage agreements made outside the indexation system.
  2. If so, will he provide details of (a) the employment agreement between all members of his Ministry, and employees, including managers, that they may have in their private activities, e.g. businesses, farms, etc., (b) what awards cover these employees and (c) any differences between the award determinations and the actual salaries and conditions applied.
Mr Fraser:
Prime Minister · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. The Government has said that wage agreements should not be inconsistent with the wage indexation guidelines of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Government has taken action to support compliance with these guidelines.
  2. No, I will not provide details of employment agreements between members of my Ministry and their employees as these are confidential to the parties involved.

Department of Transport: Melbourne Premises (Question No. 803)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 4 May 1 977:

  1. 1 ) From which addresses is the Department of Transport presently operating in Melbourne.
  2. What section or division of the Department is operating at each address.
  3. What is the cost annually of each of the premises occupied by the Department in Melbourne.
  4. What is the total annual cost of all premises presently occupied by the Department in Melbourne.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. The Cental Office of the Department of Transport occupies 10 buildings and the Victorian Regional Office occupies 4 buildings in the central business district of Melbourne. The Central Office building in South Melbourne and Victorian Regional Offices’ buildings in West Melbourne and Carlton have been included in order to give a complete picture. The address of each building is as follows:

Central Office- 1 88 Queen Street, Melbourne 499 Little Collins Street, Melbourne 486 Bourke Street, Melbourne 473 Bourke Street, Melbourne 35 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne 10-16 Queen Street, Melbourne 303 Collins Street, Melbourne 292 Flinders Street, Melbourne 497 Collins Street, Melbourne 30 1 Flinders Lane, Melbourne 20-22 Albert Road, South Melbourne

Victorian Office 108 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne 379 St Kilda Road, Melbourne 35 Wills Street, Melbourne 497 Collins Street, Melbourne 14-18 Anderson Street, West Melbourne 743 Swanston Street, Carlton

  1. The Central Office Divisions and the Victorian Offices’ Branches are located in the following buildings:

Central Office- 188 Queen Street, Melbourne Management Services, International Relations Policy, Finance and Commercial, Air Transport Policy, Flying Operations and Airworthiness, Ground Facilities, Public Relations. 499 Little Collins Street, Melbourne Management Services, Finance and Commercial. 486 Bourke Street, Melbourne Ground Facilities. 473 Bourke Street, Melbourne Management Services, Airways Operations. 35 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne Marine Standards, Roads, Land Transport Policy, Sea Transport Policy. 10-16 Queen Street, Melbourne Coastal Services. 303 Collins Street, Melbourne Management Services, Public Relations. 292 Flinders Street, Melbourne Management Services, Flying Operations and Airworthiness. 497 Collins Street, Melbourne Ground Facilities. 301 Flinders Lane, Melbourne Coastal Services, Amenities. 20-22 Albert Road, South Melbourne Finance and Commercial, Flying Operations and Airworthiness, Air Safety and Investigation.

Victorian Office- 108 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne Mangement Services, Surface Operations, Airways Engineering, Airport Engineering, Air Safety, Air Transport. 379 St Kilda Road, Melbourne Airways Engineering. 35 Wills Street, Melbourne Surface Operations. 14-18 Anderson Street, West Melbourne Surface Operations. 497 Collins Street, Melbourne Surface Operations. 743 Swanston Street, Carlton Airways Engineering.

  1. 3 ) The annual rental of each building is as follows:

Cental Office- 188 Queen Street, Melbourne, $555,922. 499 Little Collins Street, Melbourne. Owned by the Department of Transport. 486 Bourke Street, Melbourne, $28 1,639. 473 Bourke Street, Melbourne, $ 172,6 16. 35 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne, $ 1 27,450. 10-16 Queen Street, Melbourne, $95,666. 303 Collins Street, Melbourne, $48,440. 292 Flinders Street, Melbourne, $80,000. 497 Collins Street, Melbourne, $20,328. 301 Flinders Lane, Melbourne. Owned by the Commonwealth. 20-22 Albert Road, South Melbourne, $ 1 79,834.

Victorian Office- 108 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, $87,93 1 . 379 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, $72,500. 35 Wills Street, Melbourne, Owned by the Commonwealth. 14-18 Anderson Street, West Melbourne, $8,200. 497 Collins Street, Melbourne, $4,368. 743 Swanston Street, Carlton. Owned by the Commonwealth.

  1. The total annual rental for all premises occupied by the Department of Transport in Melbourne is:

Other costs to be added include telephone, power and cleaning.

Department of Transport: Melbourne Premises (Question No. 804)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is his Department negotiating for the lease of office space in Nauru House, Melbourne; if so, what space is being sought, and for what purposes.
  2. Which sections or divisions of his Department could be housed in the space available at Nauru House.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Negotiations had been carried out by the Department of Administrative Services for a lease of space in Nauru House for my Department; however, it has now been decided not to proceed.
  2. My Department had planned to consolidate certain of the Melbourne-based elements of its Central Office, located in a number of buildings, into one building.

Transport Expenditure in Macarthur Division (Question No. 830)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 May 1 977:

Further to his response to question No. 1825 (Hansard, 15 February 1977, page 91 ), will he now make the information available.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

As explained previously, details of departmental expenditures are recorded under functional headings as set out in the Appropriation Acts and these are readily available. Extraction from these records of expenditure relating to particular electorates is a difficult and laborious task. In view of the heavy workload in the finance area of the Department and the continuing shortage of staff I am unable to suggest when, in the foreseeable future, staff resources will be available to provide meaningful figures.

Australian National Animal Health Laboratory (Question No. 845)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that if there is no capital appropriation for the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory (ANAHL) in 1977-78, then the design team employed will have to disband.
  2. If so, what is the estimated minimum allocation required for 1977-78 to commence the project and retain the team.
  3. What is the estimated total cost and year of completion if the work commences during 1 977-78.
  4. What will be the most important function of the laboratory.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. If construction does not commence in 1977-78, the design team would be scaled down, and towards the end of the financial year members of the team would be progressively diverted to other projects.
  2. The minimum allocation required to commence construction in the 1 977-78 financial year is$2m.
  3. The estimated total cost of the laboratory is $85 m. Construction of the laboratory would be scheduled for completion in 1 985, if construction is commenced in 1977-78
  4. The most important function of the laboratory would be in providing rapid and secure laboratory diagnostic support for eradication of any exotic animal disease which may occur in Australia. Although it is important for the laboratory to make a rapid initial diagnosis, its major function in the event of an outbreak wouldbe to conduct the very large volume of testing required to achieve freedom from the particular exotic disease, and to prove that freedom to countries which normally import Australian livestock products.

Plant and Animal Quarantine (Question No. 846)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. Did the last Agricultural Council meeting held in Launceston, Tasmania, favour the transfer of plant and animal quarantine from the Department of Health to the Bureau of Animal Health, within the Department of Primary Industry.
  2. If so, what other agricultural or veterinary organisations are also in favour of the transfer.
  3. 3 ) Do they include the Australian Veterinary Association, the Animal Health Committee of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, the Standing Committee itself, and all the State Government Departments of Agriculture.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. See answer to (3).
  3. Yes.

Materials Research Laboratories: Aircraft Weighing Kits (Question No. 858)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that the Material Research Laboratory at Maribyrnong, Victoria, is the only establishment in Australia capable of carrying out calibration tests on electronic weighing kits used for the weighing of aircraft.
  2. Does the Government intend to cease the operations of this laboratory as part of the cut back in Federal Government expenditure.
  3. If so, what alternate arrangements are to be made to enable these necessary calibration tests to be carried out on the electronic weighing kits, which are required to be carried out every 12 months.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Materials Research Laboratories (MRL) Maribyrnong Victoria is currently the only establishment in Australia capable of calibrating aircraft weighing kits to the accuracy of 0. 1 per cent required by the Department of Transport.
  2. and (3) An investigation is being made into the desirability of transferring responsibility for certain high level standards and calibration work, including aircraft weighing kits, from MRL to the National Standards Laboratory of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. This function is only a small part of the present work of MRL. No dismantling of any nationally important capability is contemplated.

Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education: Engineering School

Mr Viner:
LP

- Mr Simon asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education the following question, without notice, on 25 May 1977:

He will be aware that Parliament has passed legislation providing funds for construction of the engineering school at the Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education and that a decision has been made to defer commencement of the works pending the outcome of the inquiry in Victoria into post-secondary education. I ask: Is the Minister aware of the adverse effects being experienced by the Institute, and in particular by the students, resulting from the delay in construction of the engineering school? Will the Minister advise the precise timetable leading up to the construction commencement date to ensure that the doubts which presently exist are removed? Will he confirm that the sum of $2. 5m scheduled in the relevant Act is in no way in jeopardy pending the decision of the Newman committee and the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission? Finally, will the Minister confirm that additional moneys will be available to cover the increased construction costs caused by the delay?

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

I share the honourable member’s concern about delays in settling this matter and I recognise the need for firm decisions to be taken as soon as possible.

As soon as material becomes available from the Newman Review of engineering education throughout Victoria the new Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (or its interim committee) will present its advice urgently.

Ethnic Groups in Perth Electoral Division (Question No. 14)

Mr McLean:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. How many persons of each of the 10 largest ethnic groups in Western Australia are estimated or known to reside in the electoral division of Perth according to the latest available figures.
  2. What other ethnic groups are represented in the electoral division of Perth.
  3. What percentage of the total electoral population of the electoral division of Perth is of migrant origin in terms of the definition used in part ( 1 ).
  4. Which Federal electoral divisions have a higher migrant population concentration than that of Perth in terms of migrant population expressed as a percentage of the electoral population of the division.
  5. Is the definition of the persons referred to in part ( 1 ) on the basis that they were born outside Australia; if not, on what basis is the classification made.
  6. Does the classification include Australian-born children of persons born outside Australia.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) On the basis of 1 97 1 Census tabulations on birthplace, the 10 largest ethnic groups in Western Australia are persons born in:
  2. U.K. and Ireland
  3. Italy
  4. Netherlands
  5. Yugoslavia
  6. New Zealand
  7. India
  8. Germany
  9. Greece
  10. Poland, and (10) U.S.A.

The numbers of each of these groups residing in the electoral division of Perth, as at the 1971 Census (which is the source of the latest available information), were as follows:

  1. Other ethnic groups represented in the electoral division of Perth at the 197 1 Census were those with birthplaces described as follows:
  1. 3 ) The percentage of the total population of the electoral division of Perth which is of migrant origin was 36.7 per cent at the time of the 1971 Census.
  2. The following Federal electoral divisions had a higher migrant population concentration than that of Perth at the time of the 197 1 Census:
  1. The definition of the persons referred to in all pans of this answer is on the basis that they were born outside Australia.
  2. The classification does not include Australian-born children of persons born outside Australia.

Refugees (Question No. 45)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March, 1977:

  1. What is the estimated number of refugees from (a) Vietnam (b) Cambodia (c) Laos (d) East Timor (e) Lebanon (f) Israel (g) Cyprus (h) Malaysia (i) Singapore (j) South Africa and (k) Chile.
  2. How many refugees from each of these countries have been admitted to Australia.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

It is not possible to answer this question without first defining a ‘refugee’.

For many years victims of many different circumstances have been called refugees. These have included displaced and stateless persons, those seeking political asylum, defectors, members of oppressed minorities and victims of natural disasters.

In 1951 the United Nations adopted a Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. This included a definition of a refugee as ‘any person who, owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political group, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. ‘

Using nationality, rather than country of last residence, as the basis; the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has advised that approximately 2000 Vietnamese, 8000 Cambodians and 10 000 Laotians are registered with them in Thailand. In addition, there are people from these countries living in refugee-type situations in adjoining areas but the exact numbers are not known. The Office of the UNHCR also estimates that there are approximately 1 4 000 Chilean refugees awaiting resettlement.

As of 1 May, 1977, 2061 Vietnamese, 285 Cambodian, 461 Laotian and 728 Chilean refugees have arrived in Australia. In addition, 387 Chileans under political duress have been accepted direct from Chile and other arrivals include some refugees who have been classified for statistical purposes under normal migrant entry categories.

The Office of the UNHCR has advised that nationals of the other countries listed are not regarded as refugees according to the Convention definition.

Australia, however, has also regarded Cypriots who were displaced by events in their country as ‘quasi-refugees’ and has accepted some 6500 Cypriot nationals under special arrangements.

In addition, Australia has accepted 258 1 people evacuated from East Timor, of whom 1850 remained in Australia.

The Government has also adopted special measures involving the approval, under relaxed criteria, of Lebanese migrants nominated by close relatives in Australia. During the current financial year an estimated 7365 have arrived under this program up to 3 1 March.

Invitations to Official Functions (Question No. 56)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 March 1 977:

  1. 1 ) How many persons have been invited to Canberra to be present at official functions for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
  2. Who are they, whom do they represent and who selected each of them to be invited.
  3. ) What will be the cost of this exercise.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
Prime Minister · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3). From the records about 2300 persons including spouses, would have received invitations to the Government’s official functions.

Invitations are not issued without Government approval and the categories of persons invited included the following:

Senators

Members of the House of Representatives

Heads of Diplomatic Missions

Former Governors-General and former Prime Ministers

Representation from Federal and A.C.T. Courts

Members of the A.C.T. Legislative Assembly

Senior Government officials and senior members of the Defence Force

Representation from National and A.C.T. Organisations, from the Parliamentary Press Gallery, Ethnic Groups, the Aboriginal Community and from the Torres Strait Islanders.

The total cost is not yet available. See also answer to Question No. 391.

Narcotic Drugs (Question No. 341)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. What quantities of each narcotic drug have been confiscated by Commonwealth and State officers in each State and Territory in each of the 3 years to 31 December 1976.
  2. How many persons in each State or Territory have been (a) charged with and (b) convicted of importation of drugs, and what penalties have been imposed on each person convicted in each of those years.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Statistics on drug seizures, arrests and the detail of the disposition of offences are published annually in the following documents:

Drug Treaties Operation (Australia’s report to the United Nations).

Drug Abuse in Australia (a statistical survey published by the Commonwealth Police).

I have arranged for copies of these reports for 1 973, 1974 and 1975 to be forwarded to the honourable member. The reports for 1976 are currently being collated and as soon as they are available they will also be provided.

To provide statistics in more precise detail than contained in these reports would involve officers of my department in a very considerable workload.

Withholding of Passports (Question No. 390)

Mr McLean:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 16 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Under what circumstances can a person be denied a passport.
  2. ) What requirements must be satisfied before a person is denied a passport on mental health grounds.
  3. Does he have discretion to refuse the issue of a passport.
  4. If so, has it been used in the past and in what circumstances was it used.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Under the provisions of the Passports Act 1938-73 the Minister for Foreign Affairs has discretionary power to approve or reject any application for an Australian passport.
  2. A person may be denied a passport if he or she is of unsound mind.
  3. 3 ) See answer to question 1 .
  4. Successive Ministers responsible for the Administration of the Passports Act have used their discretionary powers. It has been the practice not to give reasons with respect to particular cases. Accordingly it would not be appropriate to explain the circumstances in which this discretion was used in the past.

Her Majesty’s Jubilee Visit to the Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 391)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 16 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total cost to the Australian Government of the recent visit by The Queen to the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. Can he provide details of the cost of the various functions such as (a) theOpening of Parliament; (b)thereception at Parliament House on the evening of 8 March 1977, (c) the investiture, and so on.
  3. In each case, what was the proportion spent on alcoholic drinks and their dispensing.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)-(3) A final figure is not yet available. The expenditure on the Visit for the A.C.T. will be included in the overall Visit expenditure as indicated in the Budget papers.

Commonwealth Employees: Capricornia Electoral Division (Question No. 475)

Mr Carige:

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many Commonwealth Government employees are at present employed in the electoral division of Capricornia.
  2. In which departments, and in what numbers, are they employed.
  3. 3 ) How do these figures compare with 1 974.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1) At 28 February 1977, 1 10 Public Service Act staff, 163 Postal Services Act staff and 472 Telecommunications Act staff were employed in the electoral division of Capricornia. Similar information in respect of other Commonwealth staff is not centrally recorded and maintained. To obtain such information would require considerable effort and man hours, which I am not prepared to authorise. In any event, I would not expect these numbers to be great.
  2. These staff were located as follows:
  1. The figures for Public Service Act staff were obtained from a special survey of departmental office users by location as at 28 February 1977. Comparable figures are not available for earlier years. However, it is known that the number of staff employed in the electorate on postal and telecommunications functions at the end of February 1 974 was 634.

Nursing Homes (Question No. 544)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 30 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has he received complaints that the deficit financed nursinghomesarecatering for the well-to-do rather than the poorer members of the community; if so, will he check the accuracy of this allegation.
  2. Should priority be given to the poorer members of the community for admission to the deficit financed nursing homes.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Mr John Gillroy, then Executive Director of the National Standing Committee of Nursing Homes, in a letter to me dated 8 March 1977 wrote as follows-“ From our observations of the deficit funded nursing homes it would appear that only a very small minority of nursing home beds in those organisations are made available to pension only’ patients . . . “ I do not know whether those allegations are true or not; to undertake a check would require extensive use of departmental resources which I would not commit for such a purpose.

However a Central Working Party of the Australian Affiliation of Voluntary Care Associations was established to review the operations of deficit financed nursing homes and as part of that review considered admission policy. It reported to me during February, 1977 that priority of admission to deficit financed nursing homes should be on assessed total need without regard to the individual’s capacity to cover the cost of the facilties and services provided.

In view of the objectives of the religious and charitable organisations and the nature of the deficit financing arrangements I consider that this policy would be applied in general notwithstanding that some organisations express priority responsibility towards particular sectional groups.

The Working Party also reported to me that those persons with the financial capacity to cover the cost of necessary care should be charged with the responsibility of meeting same. It recommended that patients with the ability to pay should contribute more than the statutory fee and should be able to receive nursing home benefits from their hospital benefits fund. This recommendation is closely allied to recommendations in the Report of the Committee on Care of the Aged and the Infirm that the Government is examining.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Television Transmissions (Question No. 550)

Mr Abel:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 30 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Have the Australian Broadcasting Commission Channel 2 in Sydney and the ABC Channels in other cities ceased transmission much earlier each evening during recent months than other channels.
  2. 2 ) If so, and if the ABC is keen to be an active competitor, why has it abandoned this period of evening viewing.
  3. What are the estimates of audience sizes at this hour of night.
  4. Would it be considered a suitable time for some of the more specialised areas of programs.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. The format of night program schedules of ABC television has not changed recently.
  2. Not applicable.
  3. There is a marked decline in audience numbers after 10.30 p.m.
  4. Specialist programs are frequently scheduled by the ABC towards the end of daily transmissions.

Defence Forces Retirement Benefits: Income Taxation (Question No. 574)

Mr Neil:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 31 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the recent High Court ruling that Defence Forces Retirement Benefits pensions earned as a result of incapacitation outside the arena of war are no longer to be subject to income tax.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to previous statements that the basic principle of our income tax system is that income tax should be levied in accordance with capacity to pay and that the granting of privileged treatment to one group in the community on the basis of age and without any regard to need would not be a particularly satisfactory approach.
  3. Will the exemption of DFRB pensions from income tax strengthen the case for a more sympathetic approach to the taxation problems of old age pensioners who are now suffering as a result of the previous Government’s decision to (a) make age pensions taxable and (b) abolish the age rebate.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. to (3) The High Court ruling referred to by the honourable member was to the effect that an invalidity pension paid to a former officer of the Navy under the DFRB scheme on his premature retirement following an accident sustained in the course of peace-time duty was exempt from income tax under a longstanding provision of the income tax law which exempts pensions similar in nature to repatriation disability pensions. Since 1948 when the DFRB scheme was introduced people have acted on the basis that all DFRB and DFRDB pensions are subject to tax and they have been paid at a level that assumes this to be the case. The Government has taken the view that it would not be equitable for pensions affected by the High Court decision to be exempt from tax while tax is levied on other pensions including pensions paid under other occupational superannuation schemes. On IS April 1977 the Government s intention to amend the income tax law to ensure that pensions covered by the High Court decision would in future be liable to income tax was announced by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Honourable R. I. Viner M.P., in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Treasurer. The relevant amendments have since been introduced into the Parliament in the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1977 and are to apply to pensions paid after 2 1 April 1977. 1976 Census Data (Question No. 575)
Mr Neil:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 31 March 1977:

  1. Will the 1976 Census statistics be included in similar bulletins to those of the 1 97 1 Census.
  2. What is the timetable for the release of census information.
  3. When will statistics be available for Commonwealth electoral divisions.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The following reply is provided to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Statistics from the 1976 Census of Population and Housing will be published in bulletins similar to those published after the 1971 Census.
  2. Population and dwelling data for each Local Government Area were progressively released between August and December 1976. Preliminary characteristics data, i.e. age, sex, marital status, birthplace (Australia, Great Britain and Ireland, other countries) will be published shortly. The detailed processing of the Census will commence in July 1977, following deferment for budgetary reasons, and final data are expected to become available for certain States from the end of March 1978.
  3. Preliminary population figures for the various Australian electoral divisions were made available to the House on 24 March 1 977 in answer to Question No. 200. A copy of data is held by the Parliamentary Library. A crossclassification of preliminary characteristics data for Australian electoral divisions will be sent to all members of Parliament later this year.

Citizen Band Radio (Question No. 580)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 31 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did departmental officers confiscate citizen band radio equipment from premises at Enmore Road, Newtown, New South Wales, operated by the Citizens’ Radio Emergency Services team
  2. If so, what was the purpose of the confiscation.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. To prevent any further illegal use of the equipment such as has been alleged and to facilitate the presentation of the equipment as evidence in any subsequent legal action arising out of the incident.

Northern Territory Electoral Districts Population (Question No. 621)

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

am asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:

What are the preliminary population figures for the electoral districts in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly as enumerated at the 1976 Census of Population and Housing.

Mr Lynch:
LP

– The following reply is provided to the honourable member’s question:

The preliminary population figures for the electoral districts in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly as enumerated at the 1976 Census of Population and Housing are tabulated below:

The figures have been determined by allocating each Census collection district to an electoral district. The boundaries of electoral districts occasionally do not coincide with those of collection districts, and in such cases the total population of the collection district has been allocated to the electoral district in which the greater part of the collection district’s population was located.

Medibank Hospital Patients: Pensioner Medical Service (Question No. 628)

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

am asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many patients have been treated free of charge in standard wards in State public hospitals since each State signed the Medibank hospital agreement.
  2. How many were pensioners eligible for medical treatment under the Pensioner Medical Service.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The number of patients treated free of charge in State public hospitals since each State signed hospital agreements was 1 708 900 up to 3 1 March 1 977 as under

Notes-

  1. Due to the lag time associated with lodgement of returns by hospitals and processing by the Health Insurance Commission, this figure for the period from 1 . 1 . 77 to 3 1 . 3.77 is to a relatively slight extent, an understatement.
  2. b ) Dates of entry of each State into Medibank were:

S.A., Tas., A.C.T. and N.T.. 1.7.75; Vic. and W.A., 1.8.75: Qld, 1.9.75; N.S.W., 1.10.75.

  1. Since the introduction of the Medibank hospital arrangements, each State has restricted patient classification in such a way that the information sought on the number of pensioners with PMS entitlements treated is not available.

Corporate Crime (Question No. 637)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a report headed ‘Corporate Crooks may face summary justice ‘ appearing on page 2 of the Sydney Morning Herald of Wednesday, 30 March 1977.
  2. If so, does he have under consideration similar proposals to those of the New South Wales Attorney-General for persons accused of corporate crimes to be tried before a Supreme Court judge sitting alone.
  3. Will similar provisions be included in the companies and securities legislation which he proposes to bring before this Parliament.
  4. Will he give an assurance that the Federal Government will strongly urge acceptance of these provisions by the States.
  5. What will be the effect if the Commonwealth legislation does not contain provision for summary trials for corporate criminals but such a system is operative in New South Wales.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. to (5) See reply to question 158 (Hansard, 3 May 1977, page 1500).

Income Tax: Interest on Housing Loans (Question No. 640)

Mr Neil:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) Are persons claiming housing interest deductions on their PA YE income tax required to furnish a statement from each lender to be attached to the form.
  2. If so, is a specific form provided for the lenders to furnish the information; if not, why not.
  3. What information is required to be provided by the lenders.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes.
  2. No. It would be impracticable to provide a standard form that would suit the wide range of accounting systems used by lenders of housing finance.

  3. At the request of an employee, a lender is required to furnish a statement setting out:

    1. the name of the lender,
    2. the name and address of the employee or, if the loan was made to the employee and another person, the names and addresses of the employee and that other person;

Enrolments in Victorian Municipalities (Question No. 706)

Mr Bryant:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many persons are enrolled in each subdivision in the Victorian Municipalities of Broadmeadows, Coburg and Brunswick.
  2. What were the corresponding figures at the end of 1976, 1975, 1974, 1973, 1972, 1971 and 1970.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2 )-Enrolment statistics relating to municipalities are not maintained by the Australian Electoral Office.

Should the honourable member require any enrolment statistics relating to any division or subdivision during the periods available to persons to make suggestions and comments to the Distribution Commissioners,he should write directly to the Australian Electoral Officer in the State concerned.

Mr Hishamuddin Rais (Question No. 708)

Mr Bryant:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on notice on 27 April, 1977:

  1. 1 ) Why was the Malaysian student Mr Hishamuddin Rais refused political asylum and permanent residence in Australia.
  2. Will he undertake to review his decision in view of the potential threat to life and liberty faced by Mr Rais if he has to return to Malaysia in the event of his failure to obtain another adequate destination.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) On the information available to the Government from Hishamuddin himself and from other sources, Hishamuddin was not eligible for asylum according to the principles which have been widely accepted in the international community and which are reflected in the Draft Convention on Territorial Asylum.
  2. Hishamuddin ‘s inability to secure permission to travel to a destination other than Malaysia would not alter his eligibility for the grant of asylum. Should this situation arise any decision concerning Hishamuddin ‘s status would be a matter for the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

Family Allowances (Question No. 712)

Mr Bryant:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many mothers in the Victorian municipalities of Broadmeadows, Coburg and Brunswick with children aged (a) 1 to 5 years, (b) 6 to 10 years, (c) 1 1 to 15 years and (d) 1 6 years and over are in receipt of family allowances.
  2. ) How many children are there in each of the age groups referred to in part ( 1 ).
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question.

  1. ) and (2) Statistics of family allowances by local government areas are not available. However, selected information on family allowances by postcode districts is collected by the Department. The following table shows the numbers of families receiving family allowances, and the age groups of children in receipt of such allowances in certain postcode districts at 21 March 1977. The postcode districts selected are those which are either wholly, or whose major part is in the local government areas menuoned.

Tables which cross-classify ages of children by size of family and the sex of recipients of family allowances are not available.

Persons of Chinese Origin (Question No. 760)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 28 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many persons of Chinese origin were resident in Australia at the census of (a) 1966(b) 1971 and (c) 1976.
  2. Are any figures available of the number of Chinese persons resident in the electoral division of St George or the St George general area.
  3. 3 ) If so, will he provide figures for the relevant dates.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. (a) At the census of 1966, 6048 persons describing themselves as of Chinese racial origin were resident in Australia.

    1. At the census of 1971, the figure was 26 198.
    2. I am advised by the Australian Statistician that information of this nature from the 1 976 census is unlikely to be available before the latter half of 1 978.

  2. and (3) The numbers of persons describing themselves as of Chinese origin, resident in the electorate of St George were as follows:

Census 1966:606

Census 1971: 719.

The above statistics refer to Chinese as defined by racial origin, not by birthplace.

Gifts to the Wife of the Minister for Primary Industry in 1971 (Question No. 778)

Mr James:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 April 1977:

In accordance with his Government’s policy of requiring significant gifts to Ministers to be disclosed and valued (Hansard, 20 April 1977, page 1076), has he had an independent valuation made of the diamond and sapphire necklace and the diamond bracelet worth S 10,000 and $6,000 respectively which, according to the Albury Border Morning Mail of 8 June 1971, were given to the wife of the Minister for Primary Industry (Hansard, 28 October 1975, pages2512 and 2517).

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

During the previous Administration the wives of various Ministers including the wife of my predecessor launched ships. It is not my intention to investigate what gifts were received on such occasions by the wives of Ministers in the previous Government or by the wives of the Ministers in any former Government.

On 5 November 1975 I stated that under any future Liberal-National Country Party Government significant gifts to Ministers or their families received because of the Minister’s position would be declared to the Government and valued. That policy is being carried out.

Consumer Price Index (Question No. 786)

Mr Hayden:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Was the estimate of an increase in the Consumer Price Index of 6 per cent for the December 1976 quarter released at noon on 22 February 1 977.
  2. Can he say whether the Australian Financial Review, published on the morning of 22 February 1977, referred to an expected increase of 6 per cent no less than 4 times.
  3. If so, does this mean that the estimate of 6 per cent must have been available to the Australian Financial Review on the evening of 21 February 1977, bearing in mind the printing schedule of that newspaper.
  4. Can he say whether it was reported on 2 1 and 22 February 1977 on either or both of the ABC’s radio programs AM and PM that the Treasurer himself would not be officially told of the estimated increase in the CPI in the December quarter until 20 minutes before noon on 22 February when he would receive a courtesy call from the Australian Statistician.
  5. When, in fact, did he learn that the increase in the December CPI was 6 per cent
  6. How does he explain the fact that the Australian Financial Review appears to have access to the official data more than 12 hours before the Treasurer himself knew of the information.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The following reply is provided to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. No doubt the Australian Financial Review had made its prediction by the evening of 2 1 February.
  4. 1 understand that the programs included such a story.
  5. As in the past I was provided with the information on the morning of the release and not before.
  6. 6 ) In view of the lack of detail ( for example, in relation to the health services component) and some inaccuracies in the Australian Financial Review reports, there is no reason to suppose the Review had prior access to the official data.

Other newspapers carried a variety of predictions ranging between 4 per cent and 6 per cent.

Museums and National Collections (Question No. 796)

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

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 3 May 1 977:

  1. 1 ) When did the Minister receive the report of the interdepartmental group appointed on IS April 1976 to examine the report of the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections, tabled on S November 1 975.
  2. Was it the Committee’s report or the interdepartmental group’s report or both that the Minister intended the Senate to understand that he had not yet read (Senate Hansard, 27 April 1977, page 990).
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. On 8 December 1976.
  2. I am sufficiently familiar with both reports to recognise the need for close further study before policy decisions are taken.

Public Libraries (Question No. 797)

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

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) When did the Minister receive the report of the interdepartmental group appointed on 15 April 1976 to examine the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries presented on 27 February 1976.
  2. Was it the Committee’s report or the interdepartmental group ‘s report or both that the Minister intended the Senate to understand that he had not yet read (Senate Hansard, 27 April 1977, page 990).
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) As I informed the Senate on 3 May (Senate Hansard, 3 May 1977, page 1072) I have not yet received the report but expect to do so shortly.
  2. I am aware of the substance of the report of the Committee of Inquiry and its recommendations. I will study the matter further, together with the report of the interdepartmental group on the subject when received.

Animal Quarantine: Aujeszky’s Disease (Question No. 805)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. What precautions are being taken to prevent the introduction into Australia of Aujeszky’s disease in pigs being imported from New Zealand.
  2. In what way have quarantine procedures been altered since the discovery of the disease in New Zealand 12 months ago.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Under existing quarantine arrangements pigs from New Zealand are only allowed entry into Australia if rigorous quarantine certification requirements are satisfied. These include inter alia:

    1. a declaration by the owner that: the animal has been in New Zealand during the whole period of 6 months next preceding the date of shipment, and during this period the animal has been free from disease and has not been in contact with any animal suffering from disease.
    2. a certificate by a Government veterinary surgeon certifying that: the animal was apparently free from disease, after inquiry he is satisfied with the truth of the owner declaration, and

Aujeszky ‘s disease is not known to exist in New Zealand.

If all certification is in order the animal is released under quarantine surveillance on its arrival in Australia. The animal remains under quarantine surveillance for its entire period of residence in Australia.

  1. With the discovery of Aujeszky’s disease in New Zealand the quarantine certification requirements referred to above could no longer be satisfied and the importation of pigs from New Zealand ceased. A change in quarantine procedures was not required.

Hansard Index (Question No. 822)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Do recipients of daily and weekly Hansards automatically receive copies of the index.
  2. If not, why not, and when did the practice cease.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Approximately 450 copies of the index to the debates of each House of the Parliament are issued in pamphlet form. Copies are sent to all subscribers to the weekly issues. Indexes are not distributed to recipients of free weekly Hansards or of the daily Hansard but they may be purchased from the Australian Government Publishing Service Bookshops or Mail Order Service, P.O. Box 84, Canberra, A.C.T. Current charges are 90 cents for the House of Representatives index and 60 cents for the Senate index.
  2. Investigations do not reveal that the index has ever been distributed to the recipients of free copies of the Hansard. Circulation to them would involve increasing the index printing by approximately 12 000 copies for each House at a cost of about $22,000 per issue. Determination of the extent of the free distribution of the indexes is a responsibility of the Presiding Officers.

Immigration: Family Reunion (Question No. 827)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

What would be the estimated effect on net migration if family reunion provisions were to be relaxed to include brothers and sisters.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

The brothers and sisters of Australian residents are eligble for consideration as migrants if their occupations are among those currently listed as acceptable for permanent entry.

Persons seeking to migrate to Australia under the close family reunion policy are not required to meet the occupational criteria. Eligible persons are presently limited to the spouses, dependent children and parents of Australian residents.

It is estimated that a relaxation of the close family reunion policy, that is, so that brothers and sisters would not have to be in an approved occupational category, could involve a minimum of 26 000 migrants in the first year, increasing to 35 000 or 40 000 in the second and third years. It is not possible to indicate the effect on net migration since information on permanent departures from Australia is not available according to relationship to Australian residents.

Uranium: Monitoring of Public Debate (Question No. 837)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did he state in reply to a question without notice on 10 March 1977 that his Department has, under his orders, set up a task force to monitor the public debate on uranium between the release of the First Ranger Report and the release of the second.
  2. If so, who makes up the task force referred to and what are their classifications and normal functions.
  3. Was this task force opposed to the monitoring group established within his Department at the initiative of concerned officers and did it only subsequently receive his tacit approval.
  4. Does the monitoring group consist of one officer only; if so, what is the name and classification of that officer.
  5. If the monitoring group consists of more than one officer, how many officers are involved and what is the name and classification of each officer.
  6. Does the monitoring group only provide a newsclipping service.
  7. 7 ) If not, what else does it provide.
  8. On what dates has he received reports from either the monitoring group or the task force.
  9. Will he make these reports available to further the debate, inform the public and demonstrate that his Government is prepared to stimulate the uranium debate in accordance with the spirit of the First Ranger Report which stated that the final decisions on uranium rest with the ordinary man.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. My response to the question without notice on 10 March 1977 was in part:

I agree that the matter of public debate is an important element in what is happening now between the release of the First Ranger report and the release of the second Ranger report. To that end, my Department has, under my orders, set up a task force. We are monitoring that debate. I get regularly reports on what is said in the public debate. We have even gone to the extent of sending some of my staff to some of the more important public arenas to hear what is being said. We will continue to monitor that debate. When the Second Report of the Ranger inquiry is presented the Government will have put in front of it what has been said in the public debate.

  1. The Task Force established within my Department is chaired by the Director of Environment who is assisted by the Deputy Secretary (Environment Protection) and other officers with relevant expertise and experience. It is concerned with all aspects of uranium policy, not only monitoring the debate.
  2. There is no monitoring group established within my Department at theinitiative of concerned officers. A series of seminars was held with the approval of the Secretary of my Department, to permit staff discussion of the issues arising from the First Ranger report. These seminars were in no way related to the monitoring of the public debate.
  3. No. A Class 8 Clerk is primarily responsible for compiling reports on the monitonng which are submitted to me and to the Departmental Task Force. Certain other officers contribute to the monitoring directly and indirectly. For instance, the Community Relations Section provides transcripts of the major television and radio debates; references to items on uranium in learned journals and other magazines are obtained from the Media Relations Section and the departmental library. The number and designation of the officers concerned would be of little relevance.
  4. See 4 above.
  5. See 4 above.
  6. See 4 above.
  7. 21 February, 3 March, 11 March, 25 March, 7 April, 27 April.
  8. No. It would seem foolish indeed to seek to contribute to the public debate by furnishing reports of that very same debate. However, the Government’s decision in relation to the recommendations of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry will be made in the light of knowledge of the issues of major concern to the Australian community.

School Dental Scheme (Question No. 848)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What has been the total expenditure by the Commonwealth and various State Governments in each of the States on the School Dental Scheme since its inception.
  2. Of these sums how much has been spent on capital works, training costs and delivery services in each of the States, and how much of each sum has been spent in provincial or rural areas.
  3. How many students in each State have been checked by the service, and, of these, how many are provincial and rural.
  4. What is the relationship between the training of dental therapists and technical education programs and policies.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 )-(4) Some of the information sought by the honourable member is presently available. However, additional information concerning in particular, the provincial and rural areas is being sought from the States. On receipt of this information a detailed reply will be made to the honourable member’s question.

Public Libraries (Question No. 859)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries conclude that there is poor provisions of Public Libraries in Australia.
  2. Did the interdepartmental committee examining this report demonstrate that there was a need for a co-ordinated approach to information and library services in Australia.
  3. Did this interdepartmental committee at the same time recommend a freeze on public library development.
Mr Street:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided me with the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Paragraph 2.52 of the Committee’s report states in part:

Though there are some localities throughout the nation where library services are adequate, or even of a high standard, the overall picture is one of very uneven and poor standards of service. There was, moreover, evidence of lack of co-operation between libraries in making the most effective use of resources available to them.

  1. and (3)1 have not yet received the report of the interdepartmental group that is examining the report of the Committee of Inquiry.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 31 May 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1977/19770531_reps_30_hor105/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant