House of Representatives
3 November 1977

30th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.) took the chair at 11.20 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2771

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Estate Duty

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

That where whole or part of a deceased estate passes to the surviving spouse it should be free from federal estate duty.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Les Johnson, Mr Charles Jones, Mr Lusher, Mr Morris and Mr Ruddock.

Petitions 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 (a). affect our social and moral environment,

  1. b) are family media watched and heard by many children at all times, and
  2. 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 Mr Falconer.

Petition received.

Non-State Business Colleges

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

That the report of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations on Employment Prospects by Industry and Occupation, July 1977, p. 197, states that, in respect of Stenographers-Secretaries:

With the exception of new business college graduates the demand for less experienced and less skilled people in Sydney is in balance with the supply.

Business College graduates are exactly what the market wants and employers demand.

In one of the few fields of employment shown by the report to be under-supplied, the Government is effectively reducing the ability or business colleges to train enough secretaries and stenographers for the positions which are available.

The sixteen technical colleges in the Metropolitan area of Sydney which accommodate 3,220 students in day secretarial studies do not have the capacity to accommodate more than 6 per cent of the 2,435 students at non-State business colleges in the same area who will be disadvantaged by the Government’s recent decision to withdraw fees subsidies and living allowances from the end of 1977. 1977 School leavers who wish to undertake a course in Secretarial Studies and thus ensure they obtain a worthwhile position of employment on graduation are being forced to pay fees of the order of $ 1 , 400 for the year and also to forgo TEAS living allowances.

The Government’s decision is unfair, unjust, discriminatory, unreasonable and capricious.

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act immediately to undertake a thorough review of the position of non-State business colleges, guarantee interim funding forthwith and reverse its decision.

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

Petition received.

Education

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

That the freeze in expenditure on schools, universities and colleges of higher education will severely hinder the progress of education in Australia; more specifically in our state of New South Wales and the region of the Lower Blue Mountains.

This step has caused the shelving of many building and maintenance programs in schools; inadequate equipping of schools; and a pool of unemployed teachers who could be used to reduce class sizes in our schools.

Your petitioners call on the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to restore education funding to the level advocated in the 1975 Schools Commission report

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

Petition received.

Commonwealth Grants to New South Wales

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

  1. That the grants and payments made by the Commonwealth to the State of New South Wales have consistently been less per capita than the Australian average.
  2. That although the High Court has determined that ownership of off-shore oil rests with the Commonwealth and not with the States, the Commonwealth has made arrangements which deprive New South Wales of its fair share of the benefits from such oil.
  3. That New South Wales has thus suffered adverse discrimination at Commonwealth hands.

Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will cause these matters to be investigated and ventilated without delay, so that due restitution can be made to the people of New South Wales.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will for ever pray. byMr.Wentworth.

Petition received.

English Classes for Migrants

To the honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens and/or taxpayers of Australia, speaking for ourselves and on behalf of the many who cannot become citizens because of their inability to speak English, request the House of Representatives to give immediate attention to the totally inadequate provision of English classes for migrants by the Australian Government.

Our intention is to impress upon the House that inability to speak English means discrimination- discrimination in the field of employment, in education and in social and political life.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMr.E.G.Whitlam.

Petition received.

page 2772

COBAR MINES PTY LTD: FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Notice of Motion

Mr FitzPATRICK:
Darling

-Prompted by the Government’s generosity in relation to the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd, I give notice that at the next sitting I shall present a Bill for an Act to grant financial assistance to New South Wales in relation to Cobar Mines Pry Ltd.

page 2772

SOCIAL SERVICE BENEFITS FOR LONE FATHERS

Notice of Motion

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

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

That this House congratulates the Government for recognising the very real problems which many single parent families face in bringing up children and commends it for its humanitarian decision to grant single fathers full social service benefit equivalent to that now being paid to supporting mothers, and further commends the honourable member for Franklin, Mr Bruce Goodluck, and the other members of this House who supported him in his forthright support for the grant of full social service benefits to lone fathers.

Furthermore, this House endorses the view that support for the continued viability of the family remains an integral prerequisite for the future welfare of this nation.

page 2772

ECONOMIC POLICIES OF THE GOVERNMENT

Notice of Motion of Censure

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

-I give notice that at the next sitting I shall move:

That this House censures the Government for its economic policies which have caused the serious deterioration of the economy during 1977.

page 2772

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2772

QUESTION

MANNING OF POLLING BOOTHS BY UNEMPLOYED PERSONS

Mr YOUNG:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Will the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations consider a scheme whereby unemployed people could receive a day’s wages by the Government inviting them to man the polling booths for the various political parties on 10 December?

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

– I shall bring the honourable member’s suggestion to the notice of my colleague, the Minister for Administrative Service.

page 2772

QUESTION

REPATRIATION BENEFITS

Mr DOBIE:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask a question of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. I preface it by referring him to the representations I have made on behalf of my constituents in Cook, and in particular the Miranda sub-branch of the Returned Services League, who have expressed concern and some apprehension about recent variations to repatriation benefits. I ask the Minister whether he can inform the House what the real position is regarding the Government’s record concerning repatriation benefits since coming to office two years ago.

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am glad to have an opportunity to comment on the matters raised by the honourable member, because I have received a few letters along the same lines. Clearly, some groups are not fully aware of the whole position. Although there has been some rationalisation in three or four areas in the last two years, I emphasise that it has been handled with humanity and restraint. The Government’s whole two-year record has to be recognised. It is a good record. Total expenditure on repatriation benefits has risen from approximately $690m in 1974-75 to $ 1 , 1 00m in the current year.

Further, as promised, the Government has committed itself to a continuing and separate government department for repatriation matters, expanding it to include the defence service homes scheme and war graves functions. Whether there would remain a separate department was of considerable concern to many people. The Government has committed itself to keeping the repatriation hospital system separate. Much concern has been expressed in recent years about the need for that. There has been a considerable work program. In the current year $23m has been made available for hospital development in the States and $28m will be available for smaller works, repairs and maintenance.

The biggest benefit of all is that for the first time disability pensions and service pensions have been automatically indexed to increases in the consumer price index, with the result that the rise in pension payments has been from $477m in 1974-75 to $766m in the current year. In other words, because of this automatic indexing of these two categories of pension, over the period there will be a 60 per cent increase- an increase of no less than $289m. There is a need to keep an eye on the big things, because much has been done. I will write to the honourable member setting out details of further benefits and will confirm policies adopted by the Government during that period. Mr Speaker, I have a schedule of expenditure programs of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs over this two year period. To make the position clear to all I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The table read as follows-

Mr GARLAND:

– I thank the House. There is no other field of government activity in which the Government and the interested national bodies enjoy closer consultation than the field of repatriation.

page 2773

QUESTION

OECD FORECAST FOR AUSTRALIA

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask a question of the Prime Minister. I preface it by reminding him that about this time last week I asked a question of the Treasurer about the successful suppression of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development publication ‘Review of Australia’ due in December this year. Is it a fact that that review has been completed? Is it a fact that the review shows the gross domestic product deflator for 1977 at 1 1 per cent, it being higher than the 9 per cent that the Prime Minister has been quoting recently for an earlier 12-month period? Is it a fact that the review shows the GDP deflator for 1978 at 10 1/4 per cent, only a marginal improvement over 1977? Does the review also show growth in the economy in 1978 at 2Vi per cent? If so, is the implication of growth of that order, allowing for productivity of about 2 per cent and a labour force growth of about 2 per cent, an increase in unemployment of about VA per cent? Is it because of the consequences which would flow from the publication of such unpleasant information that the Government sought the suppression of and was successful in having suppressed the publication of this review from its normal period in December and having it held over until the middle of next year?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I will see what information additional to that which the Treasurer provided last week is available and whether it can be provided to the honourable gentleman. The potential Minister for Foreign Affairs, Defence, Economic Development or Control, or whatever happens to be in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition at the moment, is continuing on the path he has pursued quite consistently over the last 1 8 months. I am afraid one can only say that that is a path of instability and utter irresponsibility. It was not long ago that most of the major editorials in this country were attacking the honourable gentleman for trying to destroy the value of the Australian dollar. He was doing that quite deliberately and quite designedly.

I think we can see a very great transformation from the sorts of comments of the honourable gentleman now and those he was pursuing at an earlier time. At an earlier time he said that on the economic front inflation was this nation’s most menacing enemy. He said that the Labor Government aimed at curbing it. Of course it did not; it fuelled inflation. The fact that this Government has curbed it and demonstrated that very clearly over three quarters is something which I suppose the honourable gentleman very much regrets. He ought to applaud all the indicators coming out in relation to the Australian economy and at the same time he should take note of economic advisers to business who, in their newsletters, are indicating that inflation is being broken and that the Australian economy is poised for a very real recovery in activity throughout 1978. The honourable gentleman will not succeed in whatever he might try to do to destroy the record of this Government in repairing the damage he left behind.

page 2774

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr HODGMAN:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Government any proposals to increase Government spending suddenly by an amount in excess of $2 billion as certain people have been suggesting? What effect would such a proposal have on the deficit, on inflation and on taxation rates applicable to Australians?

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

– This Government has no such plans. I believe that overwhelmingly honourable gentlemen in this House will be very glad that this Government has no such plans. I think everyone in Australia would be looking with great dismay at the spending proposals that have been coming from the Leader of the Opposition and from other Opposition spokesman over last two or three months.

Since August, Labor has announced the following proposed expenditure: On hospitals, sewerage, growth centres, area improvement programs, tourist development and leisure facilities, nearly $2S0m. There is a national compensation scheme costing over $500m and an old form of Medibank costing something approaching $700m in addition. On 11 August last a spending program which would cost $800m was announced. Some of those proposals were repeated in the spending proposals which were mentioned yesterday, but the total proposal had been substantially added to. The cost of water resources, funds for hostels and accommodation is over $200m. Also the shadow Minister for immigration and community relations, the honourable member for Melbourne, committed Labor to a dramatic increase in education spending. Now what is dramatic in Labor terms? One hundred million dollars could hardly be called dramatic. Would it be $500m?

We have a situation where the Leader of the Opposition is once again suggesting that he can solve problems by throwing money at them, by running to the printing presses as he did when he had an opportunity once before. The total commitments of the Labor Party add up to over $3,000m at the present time. Again he is seeking to solve problems by throwing money at those problems. The Australian people know mat that cannot be done. Perhaps he is seeking to com- pete with a television program and would like to e called the Three Billion Dollar Man. That might be a good slogan for him in the election campaign. No wonder he wants to strip the Treasury of whatever powers it has in relation to responsible economic financing. I think it would be well to remember the words of the honourable member for Oxley when he said:

It would take the total deficit to more than S4,600m and would be a prescription for roaring inflation, with devastating monetary measures and high interest rate hikes leading to widespread corporate failures and unprecedented unemployment levels.

One could hardly have a better description of the sum of the policies of the Leader of the Opposition.

page 2775

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF LAND FOR OMEGA BASE

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Transport, relates to the 308 hectares of land at Darriman in the Minister’s electorate purchased by the Government for the Omega base. I ask: What was the price paid for the land? Is it a fact that the price paid for the land was above prices for comparable land in the area and well above the value of the land having regard to its usage at the time of purchase? Further, is the vendor known personally to the Minister and his family and is it a fact that the vendor is that well-known supporter of the National Country Party, Mr John McDonald of Sale?

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

– It so happens that the vendor of the land in Darriman is known to me, as are most of the landholders in the area. By some chance most of the landholders in the electorate of Gippsland know me personally and I know most of them personally. I just happen to have a happy relationship with my constituents. That might sound strange to the honourable member for Shortland who looks for conspiracies in these sorts of matters. To lay the matter properly at rest let me tell the honourable member that the land was purchased for the sum of $ 190 per acre. That can be converted to hectares if somebody would like to do it; I am an old fashioned farmer and I still talk in terms of acres.

Four properties were offered to the Department of Administrative Services which handled the matter and I understand that this was the cheapest of the four properties. The price finally agreed upon was not the price Mr McDonald asked for but the price that the taxation valuer recommended to the Department of Administrative Services ought to be accepted. I know that implicit in the honourable member’s question is a suggestion that I have some personal interest in this matter. Let me assure the House that I have no knowledge of the activities of the Department of Administrative Services. That Department is totally independent of my Department. If the honourable member had had any experience in handling such matters he would have been aware of that and would not be asking stupid questions.

page 2775

QUESTION

DROUGHT ASSISTANCE

Mr MILLAR:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-I direct my question to the Minister for Primary Industry. No doubt the Minister will be aware of the serious drought conditions prevailing in several areas of Australia. Is the Government being kept up to date with advice on the position? If so, what action does the Government propose if it becomes evident that assistance is necessary?

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

– Only today I received a report from the Department of Primary Industry regarding drought conditions around Australia. It is quite tragic that, in a country such as ours, the rural sector, which has gone through such difficult labours in recovery after those other three years of hard Labor, now seems to be running into a drought which is affecting most States. In southern Queensland currently 15 shires have been declared drought areas and applications from a number of other shires are pending. In New South Wales 19 pasture protection districts, mainly in the southern and western areas, have been declared drought areas. Whilst currently in Victoria no areas are declared drought stricken and no relief measures are operating, rain certainly is critically needed there and crop yields at the moment unfortunately are declining. In South Australia the position is probably the worst of any mainland State with 85 per cent of the State drought affected, the worst areas being the Eyre Peninsula, the northern Mallee, Balaclava, Owen and Pirie. Unfortunately, the drought is expected to be worse than either the 1959 or 1967 droughts. In Western Australia 18 shires currently are drought declared and applications are pending for a number of others.

With respect to the overall picture, it is certainly true that throughout Australia the present weather trends seem to be moving against the farmer. We have had quite a run of favourable seasons. This has meant that livestock numbers have crept up and there has been a climate of expectation that those good weather conditions would continue. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be true, and in a country like Australia, which has had this cyclic pattern, it is necessary that governments demonstrate their preparedness to provide drought assistance according to an established formula to ensure that the offset economic disadvantages of drought do not affect the farmer too severely. We operate federally through State governments, and when there are requests from State governments we are only too prepared to assist them. In each State there is a minimal amount which the Federal Government requires the State government to spend first on drought relief. A wide range of measures has already been approved. Where a State feels that those measures are insufficient or not applicable to the particular circumstances of drought, the Government certainly is prepared to expand the areas of approved assistance. The Federal Government stands prepared in each State to provide whatever assistance supplemental to State assistance is necessary to ensure the wellbeing of those districts affected by drought and the producers in those districts.

page 2776

QUESTION

SHOP ASSISTANTS UNION: BALLOT

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer to the ballot that is about to begin in Victoria for the Shop Assistants Union and to the fact that the challengers of the sitting officials are unable to obtain a copy of the voters’ roll. Is the honourable gentleman aware of the fact that the Electoral Officer has refused to allow the challengers to pay, at their own cost, for the computerised copy of the electoral roll which will be used in the ballot that will start on 24 November? Is he aware of the fact that when the roll was brought back to the Australian Electoral Office yesterday the Electoral Officer told the candidates concerned that they still could not have a copy of the roll because the computer company had made some mistakes? Does he know that the challengers have only the names which were published on the roll for about March of this year and that the many thousands of names which have been added since are not known to them? They are, however, known to the encumbents. Will the Minister take urgent steps to arrange for the Electoral Officer to postpone the opening date of the ballot so that all candidates will have a proper opportunity to put out their voting material? Will he take steps also to have the Electoral Officer comply with the quite reasonable request of the candidates concerned, that they be permitted to purchase at their own cost duplicate copies of the computerised account of the electoral roll?

Mr STREET:
LP

– Until the honourable gentleman brought these matters to my attention I had not been aware of them. Certainly the amendments which the Government has made to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act relating to secret postal ballots and the regulations requiring prior notification of ballots to be conducted have as their central theme the giving to all members of registered organisations of a full and adequate opportunity to have their say in who shall represent them as their leaders. As these issues have been brought to my attention by the honourable gentleman I shall look into the suggestions that he has made. I am not quite sure what the powers of the Minister are in relation to the requests that the honourable gentleman has made. I will make immediate investigations to find out and I will let the honourable member know the results of those investigations as soon as I can.

page 2776

QUESTION

SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT FOR LONE FATHERS

Mr GOODLUCK:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

-My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister receive a deputation yesterday from a representative of the Lone Fathers Association of the Australian Capital Territory? If so, can he advise the House of the outcome of the visit?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I think my colleague the Minister for Social Security has already issued a statement on this matter. A deputation was received from the Lone Fathers Association which was introduced by the honourable gentleman who asked the question. The honourable gentleman has been pressing this matter, as have other honourable gentleman in the Government parties, for a very considerable period and with a great deal of vehemence. Nobody ever doubted the justice of the case. It was a question of when the matter could be fitted into the totality of the Government’s overall expenditure commitments. But I must say that the arguments that were put by the deputation yesterday to Senator Guilfoyle and myself seemed to be so compelling that we should take advantage of the opportunity to move amendments to the social security legislation that is before the House so that lone fathers will be able to get the same benefit as supporting mothers and so that they will not be denied that benefit any longer than is absolutely necessary. The Government is acting accordingly. I believe that this action will be hailed throughout the Australian community as a measure of social justice.

page 2776

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH POLICE RAID ON CANBERRA POST OFFICE: ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUNDS

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Did Commonwealth police raid the Canberra Post Office this morning and fingerprint all employees working there? If so, by whose direction was this done and why was it done? Is the Government using the Commonwealth Police Force to investigate an embarrassment to the Federal Secretariat of the Liberal Party? Does the Prime Minister concede that the Federal Treasurer of his party was making appeals for campaign funds at a time when he was denying that there would be a Federal election?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I think the editorial in the Australian Financial Review this morning accepted that it was an appeal for the funds for the normal running of the Secretariat, which I must say is an extraordinarily efficient secretariat and is of great advantage to the Government parties and to the party organisations. Quite obviously that Secretariat requires funds for its normal annual maintenance. I think honourable gentlemen would be a little bit more nervous about this question if they knew in fact the sequence of events and what happened; they would not have rushed in quite so hastily or quite so eagerly. The matter which was referred to in yesterday’s Australian Financial Review had obviously come into the hands of the reporter concerned before it reached the Secretariat because the letter arrived in the Secretariat after the Director had read about the matter in the Australian Financial Review. The letter had been opened. It was marked ‘Opened in error’. It had not only been opened in error; it obviously also had been read and whoever had read it had clearly put it to good use. As a result of that -

Mr Young:

– What is wrong with that?

Mr Keating:

– What is wrong with that?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The honourable gentlemen say. ‘What is wrong with that?’ This shows the extraordinary attitude of Australian Labor Party supporters to any kind of morality in public life. They are saying that there is nothing wrong with opening mail, tampering with mail. If that is their standard of morality, let them stand and be judged by it.

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The members of the Labor Party are still interjecting that it is a good thing to tamper with mail and to open mail. Again let them proclaim that loudly and clearly to the Australian people because that is the thrust of all their interjections. The Leader of the Opposition is now asking them to stop interjecting in that way.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– He is not.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-He is not-oh, good.

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

-Mr Speaker, I said -

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Speaker, I am very happy to withdraw the remark.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Both honourable gentlemen will resume their seats.

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

-Mr Speaker, I said they were looking for the Utah and Ranger letters.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman will continue his answer.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The Leader of the Opposition has now put it on record that he also is in favour of tampering with mail. If he concedes that it is proper to look for certain information through other people’s mail, well let him proclaim that. The Director of the Liberal Party, acting quite naturally, having received a letter which had been allegedly opened in error and about which he had read in the newspapers that morning beforehand, called in the Commonwealth Police and asked them to investigate the matter, as I believe any other organisation would be perfectly entitled to do and ought to do. What the police do in the course of that investigation is their own business. I have had no reports on the matter. I would not expect to get any.

Mr Scholes:

– I rise to a point of order. Does that answer mean that the Prime Minister withdraws the statement he made when in Opposition that it was all right to steal documents provided it was for a public purpose?

Mr SPEAKER:

-That is not a point of order.

page 2777

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SUPERANNUATION BENEFITS

Mr HASLEM:

– Is the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and Minister Assisting the Treasurer aware of Press reports that the Government intends to fiddle with the mechanism of adjusting Commonwealth Public Service and other superannuation benefits for cost of living increases? Is there any intention to change the method of adjustment from the existing use of the consumer price index to the mechanism of either the CPI or average weekly earnings, whichever is the lower?

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The superannuation scheme for government employees is a very generous one. It is a good scheme. The benefits are to be adjusted by one times the rise in the consumer price index. During the Budget discussions the Government gave consideration to imposing a limitation which had been in that scheme before. The limitation was that if the rise in average weekly earnings was lower than the rise in the consumer price index the adjustment would be in line with the rise in average weekly earnings. It has been decided that that limitation will not be proceeded with and that benefits will be adjusted annually in accordance with rises in the CPI

page 2778

QUESTION

AIR SERVICES TO BANKSTOWN AIRPORT

Mr KEATING:

– Will the Minister for Transport assure the House, the community surrounding Bankstown airport in New South Wales and those who use the airport that no regular public transport or freight airline operations, including commuter services, will be moved to Bankstown as a result of a proposal for new flight separation procedures at Mascot? Further, will the Minister expedite plans for the establishment of a light aircraft facility in Sydney’s northern suburbs to give relief to both Bankstown and Mascot airports?

Mr NIXON:
LP

-A great number of rumours have been flying around about changes to services into Mascot aerodrome and the effects this may have on Bankstown. As I said last week, these rumours have been supported by Mr Gruzman who has a vested interest in a building at Mascot servicing commuter airlines. I understand his natural interest in maintaining the number of commuters using his building but I think he ought to be intellectually honest in putting his case before the commuter operators. The facts are that there will be no change to the commuter services going into Mascot aerodrome. There are no plans to shift the commuter services to Bankstown nor are there any plans to shift any of the major domestic or regular public transport air services out of Mascot to Bankstown. There has been a rescheduling of priorities into Mascot at busier times so that single engine aircraft drop to the lower end of the list and aircraft carrying a great number of passengers have top priority. That is the only change. Out of that change a whole whirlwind of fantasies has been dreamed up.

page 2778

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVANTS: PREPARATION OF ELECTIONEERING MATERIAL

Mr MacKENZIE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact, as reported, that public servants in some departments, including his own, have refused to prepare material which they class as electioneering material?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-During the period after which an election has been announced the business of government must proceed. The business cannot be impeded because of an election campaign. The business of the country must go on. I believe that public servants overwhelmingly know and understand that. It suddenly does not become improper to work on a matter that has been worked on for many months just because an election date has been announced. When I saw the report- especially one report yesterday which named my DepartmentI asked the Secretary of my Department whether any complaints had been reaching him or any of the other senior officers of the Department. I was told that no such complaints have1 been received. Whether some people down the line have said something or said something to the media, I would not be able to judge. I can make a judgment, and the matter can be adjudged properly, if a complaint is made to the Secretary of the Department who can bring it to the notice of the Minister concerned. So far as the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is concerned, no such complaint has been made. If the Public Service on this occasion acts in precisely the same way as it acted in 1974 I am quite certain that neither I nor any of my Ministers will have any complaint.

page 2778

QUESTION

FRASER ISLAND INQUIRY

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

– I ask the Prime Minister a question relating to the Fraser Island inquiry. Why is it taking him so long- over four weeks so far- to answer my question which inquires:

On what dates, in what form and with what results has the Government approached the Queensland Government to implement the Inquiry’s suggestion that the 2 governments should jointly undertake research into the effects on the regional economy of a decision not to approve the export of minerals from Fraser Island

I also direct his attention to another part of my question which states:

Which Federal Departments have undertaken this research.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The honourable gentleman will know that considerable funds were made available to the Government of Queensland as a result of that particular matter. In addition, substantial sums have been offered by way of compensation. I think those matters are not unrelated to any such proposed study. I . will have a look at the Notice Paper to see whether there is any information that can be given to the honourable gentleman.

page 2778

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

Mr FALCONER:
CASEY, VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Has the Government noted the recommendation in the Norgard report on the Commonwealth Employment Service regarding the role of computers in the CES? What action has the Government taken on this recommendation?

Mr STREET:
LP

-Yes, the Government has noted the recommendation in the Norgard report about the use of automatic data processing in the running of the Commonwealth Employment Service. I am pleased to be able to inform the honourable member that the Government has sent a team overseas to examine the operation of this form of assistance in the employment services in the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. The team is being led by an Assistant Secretary of my Department It also includes an official familiar with the CES operations and two other officers- one from the Public Service Board who is expert in automatic data processing. They will investigate, as I said, the use of ADP in the employment services of the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada to see whether its application in those places could have application in Australia.

Mr Norgard made the comment that the introduction of such a scheme would be expensive. He recommended that we look at the experience of other countries to see whether it would be feasible to introduce an existing system into the CES. The team will be away for a couple of months. It will report to the Government on the feasibility of using ADP in the CES on the lines of one of these overseas countries. The Government looks forward with a great deal of interest to receiving this report.

page 2779

QUESTION

DOCTORS’ FEES

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Does he recall that Mr Justice Ludeke, in his recently concluded inquiry into doctors’ fees, assumed a 3.2S per cent increase in the consumer price index for the September quarter and based his findings, in part, on this assumption? He is no doubt aware that the consumer price index rose in fact by only 2 per cent. When will the Minister therefore ask Mr Justice Ludeke to re-open the inquiry and save Treasury and the contributors to private health funds a significant proportion of the $65m increase recently wrongly awarded to the medical profession?

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

-The figures used by Mr Justice Ludeke were only indicative figures, as indeed they only could be when the inquiry was being held. If there is any over-estimate on the part of Mr Justice Ludeke, these over-estimates will be taken into account in the inquiry that will take place next year for the setting of fees for 1979. The amount involved is not terribly great over the course of a full year. It was a quarterly figure-an indicative figure-rather than a full year figure. Both the Government and the Australian Medical Association agreed that they would abide by the determination of Mr Justice Ludeke with respect to medical fees. So there will be no re-opening of the inquiry, but the figures will be taken into account in the inquiry that will ensue next year.

page 2779

TARIFFS

Mr BAUME:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Prime Minister indicate whether his Government has ever considered cutting tariffs by 25 per cent, similar to the cut introduced by the Labour Government which brought unemployment in my electorate in 1974 and 1975 -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will not recite facts. He will ask for information.

Mr BAUME:

– Can the Prime Minister inform the House what recent experience would tell us about a tariff cut of that order?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The Government has never considered such an action. It would not consider that kind of action because of its implications for employment. I think that the concern for employment of the previous Administration can be shown very clearly by the report on possible ways of increasing imports. In other words, it was also a report on possible ways of exporting Australian jobs and of reducing Australian employment. That would have been a more proper title for this report because it indicates how additional imports could be encouraged to come into this country. For every additional car, every additional washing machine and every additional television set that comes into Australia, Australians are being put out of work. For additional textiles that come into this country Australians are being put out of work and Australian investment is being destroyed.

I think it should be noted that in a letter dated 27 June Mr Whitlam asked a committee, on behalf of the Minister for Overseas Trade and Minister for Secondary Industry and himself, to report on tariff or other action which could stimulate a significant inflow of imports. The then Prime Minister asked Mr Rattigan to advise him how to increase unemployment in Australia. The letter was written on 27 June. There was obviously a very great urgency attached to the matter because the report was received on 15 July and the date of the announcement of the 25per cent across-the-board tariff cut was 18 July. That was only three days after the receipt of the report, the committee concerned having been allowed very few days to examine these matters. That committee included in its membership Mr Rattigan, Mr Taylor, Mr Harris, Mr Gruen, Mr Brogan and Mr Bennett. Part of that report stated:

The following table lists those industries where it is estimated that a 25 per cent reduction in tariffs will reduce employment by more than S per cent.

The report pointed out that employment would be reduced in those industries as follows: Women’s and girls’ blouses and frocks, 8 per cent; women’s and girls’ outer wear, 7.6 per cent; hosiery, 6.9 per cent; household textiles, 5.9 per cent; textile floor coverings, 4.6 per cent; men’s trousers and work clothing, 8.1 per cent; men’s suits, coats and waterproof clothing, 9.6 per cent; and underwear, nightwear, shirts, 7.7 per cent. It goes on to mention footwear and other elements of textiles. In spite of having that report and the advice that employment in those industries would be reduced, the Government acted on the report three days after it was received. I wonder whether all members of the Cabinet of the day had the report and were allowed to see it, or whether the then Prime Minister kept that advice to himself so that his colleagues would not see it and would not know what was going to happen to employment.

I wonder what the honourable member for Hindmarsh would have thought about this. I cannot believe for one minute that he would have supported the implementation of this report, designed as it was to increase unemployment in Australia, because I know that he is concerned for employment in this country. I know that. The Leader of the Opposition certainly showed his lack of concern, by the speed with which he wrote a letter, the speed with which the committee was compelled to provide the report and the indecent haste with which it was acted on- a mere three days after it was presented. For the Labor Party to pretend that it is a party concerned about employment is the greatest hypocrisy I have seen in my life. Mr Speaker, I ask for leave to have this report incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

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

-No. It was tabled four years ago.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Copies are available for all members of the public. We will get it re-printed so that members of the Labor Party can be known for what they are.

page 2780

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT: SCHOOL LEAVERS

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer to the advertisement in today’s Australian which includes a notation from him and his signature. The advertisment is entitled ‘This year’s school leavers are next year’s future’. How many school leavers will there be at the end of December? How many jobs will be available for them by the end of January? If the answer is that the greater proportion of them will be out of work, is not the theme of that advertisement misleading and an unethical use or a misuse of public funds as part of a political campaign?

Mr STREET:
LP

– I find it strange that the honourable member should apparently take objection to the Government trying to find jobs for school leavers. In view of the answer by the Prime Minister to the last question, the honourable gentleman does exhibit an entirely consistent line of argument with those of other members of his party.

Mr Bryant:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Perhaps I should clarify the question. The question is: How many jobs will be available for school leavers at the end of January?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order is involved. The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I call the Minister.

Mr STREET:

-The number of school leavers entering the work force, of course, never can be given precisely, because some young people leave school at the’ end of the year, indicating that they will join the work force, and return to school at the start of the next year. I think the experience in this coming year will be roughly comparable with the experience in the last few years. I would like to illustrate that. It will not be exactly comparable because of the extra job opportunities which will be created by the advertising campaign to which the honourable gentleman has just referred. He may be interested to know that employment offices are now starting to get extra inquiries from employers as a result of the campaign which has been launched.

The experience of the last few years has been that roughly less than half the school leavers actually register for employment. More than half find jobs for themselves. Another interesting fact is that approximately 80 per cent of school leavers are in employment by the middle of the year. The remaining 20 per cent are the ones who are difficult to place, who left school at a minimum age within minimum qualifications. The training programs which the Government has instituted have been successful in absorbing into employment a considerable proportion of those. That proportion will be greater in the coming year as a result of the substantial improvements to the training programs that we have instituted.

page 2781

QUESTION

TELEVISION RECEPTION IN OUTBACK AREAS

Mr KATTER:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question, which is addressed to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, with a brief comment. As many areas throughtout Australia are still deprived of television reception-centres such as Pentland and Greenvale, with hundreds of meat and mining workers and their families, Aramac, Muttaburra, Jericho, Isisford, Tambo- and as the people in those areas are already underprivileged in so many ways -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! The honourable gentleman should ask his question.

Mr KATTER:

– I will put the question now, Mr Speaker. After 23 years these people do not even have an indication as to when they may receive this amenity. I again ask the Minister to advise when television reception will be available to these areas?

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Let me reassure the honourable member for Kennedy that, as I have indicated before to him and other members of the Parliament, the Government is determined to see that television viewing facilities are made available to all Australians. There are expenditure difficulties and a limitation to the engineering capacity of the Postal and Telecommunications Department and Telecom Australia to satisfy all the requirements as quickly as we would wish.

I cannot give the honourable member a definite time-table today for the area of Pentland in his electorate. I can only say that the Department and I are looking very closely at a number of short term and long term schemes that might ease and, I hope, solve the majority, if not all, of the problems that exist. We are committed to assisting communications generally, whether they apply to postal services or telecommunications services. I am working closely with my colleagues to ensure that the television viewing services that the honourable member wants for his constituents are provided as quickly as possible.

page 2781

QUESTION

DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I direct a question to the Prime Minister in view of the public disquiet about the interruption to normal business and commercial activity cause by the frequency of elections, the next one being the fourth m the last five years, and in view of the announcement by the Governor-General in India in 1975 that there was no need for premature dissolutions of Parliament if the government had a workable majority. Will the Prime Minister table in the House his request to the Governor-General for an early dissolution and his reasons? Will he also table the Governor-General’s letter of acquiescence and his reasons for granting a dissolution?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I am not sure whether the honourable gentleman was in the House when I announced the dissolution, but that announcement gave the reasons. They are substantial. They are similar in many ways to the reasons that were advanced to Sir William Slim on an earlier occasion. I think the honourable gentleman would accept that it does not make a great deal of sense to have the Senate elections and the House of Representatives elections held separately. That in itself is a substantial matter. If the elections for both Houses are to be brought together, obviously the options for election dates are somewhat reduced.

The honourable gentleman knows that he supported a referendum designed to see that the House and the Senate were elected at the same time, and that that referendum failed because in some States more support was needed. There is a great deal of contradiction in the Opposition’s attitude to this matter. In November 1975 the Leader of the Opposition proposed to resolve the Supply crisis by having a half Senate election. After such an election he could not have got Supply through the Senate. It would not have changed the numbers in the Senate for another six or seven months. That being so, how the honourable gentleman could suggest that the proposal for a half Senate election could alter the circumstances at all or resolve that situation I utterly fail to understand.

The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith seems to be taking a view that is contrary to that of his leaders, but maybe a large number of people on the front bench of the Australian abor Party at the moment say, as Senator Button did, that what the Leader of the Opposition says is irrelevant.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

-Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked whether the Prime Minister would table the Governor-General’s reply. He did not seem to answer that.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– I thought he might have overlooked the fact.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I will check whether there are any precedents for tabling such correspondence.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– I assure you there are.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I will look at the precedents, but I indicated- this was meant to be the substantial part of my reply to the honourable gentleman- that the reasons advanced in the House were substantially the reasons I advanced to His Excellency.

page 2782

QUESTION

NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION

Mr MOORE:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Australian Government taken any particular initiatives in pursuit of a safer nuclear proliferation environment?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The Australian Government, amongst others, has taken initiatives in this matter. Out of discussions that the Foreign Minister and I have had with the Ambassador-at-Large and out of our own examination of the matter has grown a proposal for international control over possible reprocessing facilities. Honourable gentlemen will know that the United States had advanced policies designed to stem the moves towards reprocessing. Those moves are already under way in some countries and already reprocessing is being undertaken in some countries.

Against that background, how does one establish the safest possible international environment? In his speech at the planning conference for the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation program, the Ambassador-at-Large indicated that we would be exploring the possibility of the internationalisation- I think that was the word used-of reprocessing plants. That is one initiative that I believe is certainly well worth examination and on the advice available to me is one which is being pursued and is attracting interest by people expert in these things from a number of other countries. That again just shows the advantage of having an Ambassador such as the Ambassador-at-Large overseas and working in Australia’s interest and in the interests of nonproliferation generally.

I think it ought to be noted that the last sentence of the document that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition somehow found yesterday, reads:

We were ‘clean-skinned’ and were now in a position to exert influence.

I repeat the words ‘were now in a position to exert influence’. That is a very substantial phrase in the minute, and we are doing just that. It also indicated there that this proposal for internationalisation had been suggested. Earlier the document indicated some reservations about some aspects of policies of other countries, including the United States. The Ambassador has written to me in recent days and I have spoken to him this morning. He is happy for me to quote one sentence out of the letter to indicate the circumstances of the current situation, because it is a moving scene. It ought to be noted that since this minute was drafted by the Department of Foreign Affairs as a record of discussion, there have been many discussions between Mr Justice Fox and experts overseas about these matters and I know he has put views forthrightly and constructively, seeking a better and an eversafer international environment. In relation to this, in indicating some shift in the views held by some United States officials, he wrote:

Whether my arguments and the changes were casually related I cannot tell but I find myself now in almost complete harmony -

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

-I think he said ‘causally related’.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

- Mr Speaker, the letter happened to have in it the words ‘casually related’. If the honourable gentleman can see through about five brick walls and know what was in that letter, then he has some capacities which I had not regarded as being available to him. The letter reads: . . . but I find myself now in almost complete harmony with the views of leading United States officials.

I think that again indicates the importance of Australia being involved in these forums overseas where Australian views can be responsibly put to the advantage of a safer regime for Australia and for the world. The alternative, of just pretending that these matters do not exist, of pretending there are no problems, of pretending that countries like Britain do not need uranium for peaceful purposes, is an idle and foolish policy and one which would be doomed to disaster and to destroy whatever influence Australia might have in forums which are important to all of us.

Mr Uren:

- Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that the Prime Minister table the parts of the document from which he quoted. Better still, he should incorporate the whole document in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Did the Prime Minister quote from a document?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-No, Mr Speaker. The document is not in the House. I spoke to His Honour this morning and I indicated that, for clarification of the concern that could have been expressed in relation to the United States, there would be advantage in having that one sentence made available publicly. Mr Justice Fox readily agreed with that. Otherwise it is a personal and confidential document.

Mr Uren:

- Mr Speaker, he has misunderstood me. I am talking about a leaked document that I received. The Prime Minister quoted from that document the portion that suited his own ends. I am asking that the document be either tabled or incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I asked the right honourable gentleman whether he was quoting from a document and he told me that he was not.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Speaker, the honourable gentleman has a point in relation to the minutes of that other discussion but he has had a copy of that document. It is one which in normal circumstances would have been confidential. That being so, I do not believe that, even though it has appeared in the Press, that should alter the judgment that it is a confidential document.

Mr Uren:

– I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is seeking leave to have a document incorporated in Hansard. Is leave granted?

Mr Peacock:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

page 2783

CONFERENCE OF PRESIDING OFFICERS AND CLERKS

Mr SPEAKER:

-I present a report in substitution for the report presented earlier this year of the seventh conference of Presiding Officers and Clerks of the Parliaments of Australia, the Cook Islands, Fiji, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Papua New Guinea and Western Samoa. In its compilation of the original report the conference secretariat of the Cook Islands omitted part A of agenda item 2, an introductory paper on one of the conference topics. The substitute copy includes that paper previously omitted.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) agreed to:

That the report be printed in substitution for the paper ordered to be printed by the House on 1 6 March 1977.

page 2783

DAIRYING RESEARCH COMMITTEE

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

– Pursuant to section 16 of the Dairying Research Act 1972 I present the fifth annual report of the Dairying Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1977.

page 2783

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

-Pursuant to section 39(4) of the Australian Shipping Commission Act 19S6 I present the annual report 1977 of the Australian National Line.

page 2783

URBAN TRANSPORT

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

-For the information of honourable members I present the report on ‘Urban Transport: Capital Requirements 1977-78 to 1979-80’.

page 2783

PORT PIRIE BOGIE EXCHANGE

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a study of the Port Pirie Bogie Exchange.

page 2783

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Special Trade Negotiations · Bennelong · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Department of Industry and Commerce for the year ended 30 June 1977. The report also includes some subsequent developments.

page 2783

DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a review of the activities of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to 30 June 1 977.

page 2783

DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Department of Science 1976-77.

page 2783

COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION

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

– Pursuant to section 30 of the Science and Industry Research Act 1949 I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 1976-77. When bulk supplies become available copies will be sent to all honourable members. In the meantime copies of the report will be held in the Parliamentary Library and the Table Office.

page 2784

GEOSTATIONARY METEOROLOGICAL SATELLITE PROGRAM

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

– For the information of honourable members I present an exchange of notes between Australia and Japan on the Japanese Geostationary Meteorological Satellite Program together with the text of a statement made by the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) in presenting the paper.

page 2784

AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Pursuant to section 99 of the Telecommunications Act 197S I present the annual report of the Australian Telecommunications Commission for the year ended 30 June 1977.

page 2784

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Farrer · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the Temporary Assistance Authority annual report 1976-77.

page 2784

CONSUMER AFFAIRS

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

-On 27 October 1977, pursuant to section 17 of the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Ordinance 1 973 -

Mr Young:

- Mr Speaker, does the Minister need leave to make a statement?

Mr STALEY:

-I am tabling a report which is a corrected report because an earlier report had a most unfortunate mistake in it. I am just explaining it.

Mr Young:

– We would like to say something about it as well.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Port Adelaide should contain himself and allow the procedures of the House to unfold.

Mr STALEY:

-On the date I mentioned, I presented the annual report of the operations of the Consumer Affairs Council and the Consumer Affairs Bureau of the Australian Capital Territory for the year ended 30 June 1977. On the same day the House agreed that the report be published in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908 and that the report be printed. Subsequent to this it was discovered that an error was made in the report in naming Des Cooper Constructions Pty Ltd of 8 Beltana Road, Pialligo, on pages IS and 16. The company which should have been named was

Cooper Conversions Pty Ltd of 5 Perkins Place, Torrens

I deplore the fact that Des Cooper Constructions Pty Ltd has been wrongfully named in the Council’s report. The House should be aware that every effort is being made to remedy the consequences of this mistake and to make sure that similar errors do not happen again. In this regard the following action is to be taken or has been taken: All unsold copies of the report have been withdrawn from sale; all copies of the report which have been distributed gratis are being retrieved; all copies of the report will be destroyed; and a public apology will be issued by the responsible authority. Because of the error it is necessary to submit a substitute report of the Council with the appropriate corrections. I now present that substitute report.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair)- by leaveproposed:

That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of a substitute report of the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Council and the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Bureau for the year 1976-77, and that the report be printed in substitution for the paper ordered to be printed by the House on 27 October 1977.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-It is necessary for the Australian Labor Party to dissociate itself from the damage that has been done to Des Cooper Constructions Pty Ltd. It is obvious to all concerned in this Parliament that, now that we are legislating by saturation, mistakes will be made. The Notice Paper today is filled with Government mistakes. This is the first of them and there are others to come. This Government has been the laziest in the history of parliament. For three months we have sat here doing nothing. The Senate has been rising early every week because it has had no business to deal with. Grave damage has been done to the firm mentioned in this report because of the mad rush that has been contemplated by this Government.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman must remain relevant to the motion.

Mr YOUNG:

-It is relevant If Des Cooper -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will remain silent while I give him a direction. He will resume his seat The question before the House is the printing of the substitute document and the authorisation of its publication. The honourable gentleman is entitled to talk about that but there is no relevance to the rate at which legislation goes through this House. He must remain relevant

Mr YOUNG:

– I am speaking in relation to the damage that has been done to Des Cooper Constructions. The people who represent that firm do not have an opportunity to speak in this Parliament. It is a fact that the Government is responsible for the damage that has been done. No mention is made in the statement by the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) of any financial remuneration for the firm concerned. It is relevant to say that the Government is making a mess of the way in which the business of this House is being conducted and Des Cooper is just the first victim. I cannot see that it is irrelevant to talk about other matters that have come before this House as a result of the way in which the business of the House has been conducted. If time had been taken to look seriously at these matters over the last three months these events could have been avoided. But for three months we sat here doing nothing. Now that the election has been announced in two weeks we have to deal with every document, every report and more legislation than has been introduced in two years. As the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) pointed out yesterday, it is relevant to what is happening in this Parliament that the members do not know what is going through the House. The laws that are being made in this House now are a farce. Des Cooper Constructions Pty Ltd is just one of the victims. Later the electoral boundaries in New South Wales will be shown to be the second victim. Then, there is the Scotch whisky industry, to which great damage was done a little earlier. Honourable members can see the effect on some prominent figures in Australia since the duties have been reduced.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I ask the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) to listen to what I am about to say. My understanding is that a report was formulated by an independent body and was tabled here; that there was an error in that report; that the error has been discovered and that the independent body is now asking the Minister to table a substitute report. On that basis the Leader of the House has moved:

That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of a substitute report of the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Council and the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Bureau for the year 1976-77 and that the report be printed in substitution for the paper ordered to be printed by the House on 27 October 1 977.

I will not permit the honourable gentleman to continue making remarks which relate to the pressure of legislation and relevance to other issues. He will speak solely to the motion.

Mr YOUNG:

– It is necessary for me to reiterate the Labor Party’s dissociation from the mistake that has been made. Responsibility for the mistake regarding Des Cooper Constructions Pty Ltd must rest with the Government. Whilst we rush the business and reports through the House in this manner there may be other mistakes that will be found after 10 December or after this House rises when we cannot repair the damage that has been done, as it has been done in this case. There are so many mistakes being made by this Government -

Mr Sinclair:

– I rise to a point of order. The mistake in this instance was made not by the Government but by an independent body, the report of which is being tabled. The mistake is not by the Government but by a body entirely independent of the Government. The body, having found its mistake, has asked the House to take note of that mistake. If the Opposition wishes to be dissociated from the mistake, I suggest that the comments of the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) be relevant to the motion related to the Consumer Affairs Council of the Australian Capital Territory. It is not the Government that made the mistake.

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

- Mr Speaker, on the point of order, the original faulty document only came before the Parliament because a Minister tabled it. A Minister took responsibility for it. The faulty document would only have been protected in its defamatory references because a Minister asked the House to make it a parliamentary paper and give it immunity. Sure there are faults in the document but somebody must take responsibility. The Minister must take responsibility. My colleague is making the point that Ministers are giving insufficient attention to their responsibilities. Faulty the document is. Protected the document is. But we would not have the document; the document would not be protected but for an overburdened or negligent Minister having tabled it and sought protection for it. My colleague’s remarks are completely in point.

Mr Groom:

– On the point of order, I seek clarification of one point. Is it proper for members opposite to speak as they are now, criticising the action being taken, when they in fact supported the publication and printing of the original report?

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no substance in the point of order raised by the honourable member for Braddon. I will permit the honourable member for Port Adelaide to proceed. If he goes beyond my ruling, I will require him to resume his seat.

Mr YOUNG:

-Again, let me say, in dissociating the Labor Party from this mistake, that it did not receive the report before it was tabled in the Parliament. In no way can the Opposition be held responsible for the damage that has been done. I think insufficient explanation is given in the Minister’s statement. We are not quite sure what damage has been done to Des Cooper Constructions Pty Ltd because it was named incorrectly. Was the mistake overlooked because the Minister’s staff has been cut and reports cannot be checked sufficiently well? In no way can the charge be laid against the Opposition that it had an opportunity to read the report before the damage was done because that is just not the way Parliament operates. This, again, is a result of the most incompetent, lazy, inefficient government that we have ever had.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2786

JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE NEW AND PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Mr SPEAKER:

-I present the second report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House, together with minutes of the proceedings. The Committee’s first report, which was presented on 3 May 1977, indicated that the Committee had agreed to a program which would enable a fully functioning, Stage I, Parliament House to be constructed and occupied by 26 January 1988-the 200th anniversary of European settlement in Australia.

The purpose of this second report is to inform Parliament of the progress which the Committee has made in preparing a design brief for the new Parliament House. The report also recommends that a similar committee be appointed early in the life of the next Parliament so that the program of work leading to construction of a new building will not be delayed. The Committee reiterates that it remains feasible and practical to achieve occupation of the first stage of a new building by 26 January 1988.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2786

QUESTION

SELECT COMMITTEE ON TOURISM

Mr BONNETT:
Herbert

-On behalf of the Select Committee on Tourism, I present the interim report of the Committee, together with the minutes of proceedings. A limited number of copies is available from the Table Office and copies have been placed in the Parliamentary Library. Additional copies will be available for general distribution in the near future.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr BONNETT:

-by leave-Since it was first appointed in December of last year, the Committee has become acutely aware of the problems and potential of the Australian tourist industry. One hundred and sixty-two witnesses representing 73 organisations have appeared before the Committee. Twenty-seven public hearings have been held in 14 cities around Australia and the transcript of these hearings now runs to almost 5,000 pages. Because of the calling of an early election it has not been possible for the Committee to conduct all the hearings it had planned or to present a final report. This interim report covers a number of the issues which have arisen during the course of the inquiry.

The Committee found that, whilst there is a general acknowledgement of the economic importance of tourism, there are few statistics which indicate that importance. The specialist advisers to the Committee, Dr Pigram and Dr Cooper, prepared a paper for the Committee on the economic significance of tourism to Australia. The estimates made by the advisers are more in the nature of indicators of magnitude than absolute distributions of economic activity. It was estimated that the contribution of tourism to gross domestic product in 1974-75 was $3,300m. In addition to its direct effects, tourism also has indirect effects on the economy. In 1974-75, governments are estimated to have gained 172m in indirect tax, $165m in company tax and $355m in income tax. The advisers also estimated the multiplier effects of tourism. For every dollar generated by tourism a further 25c is generated in the rest of the economy. Similarly for every two direct jobs in tourism one further job is created and an increase in tourism turnover of $10,000 creates 1.2 1 jobs.

It was estimated by the advisers that tourism provided direct fulltime employment for 263,000 persons and indirect employment for 136,760 persons. Tourism also makes a significant contribution to Australia’s balance of payments as well as increasing the community’s knowledge of Australia and the Australian heritage. There is no hard evidence available as to the benefits of holidays to community health and welfare. The Committee recommends that the Department of Health should make a study of this matter.

The tourist industry can play a positive role in regional development and decentralisation. It is a relatively low cost industry with distinct growth prospects. The motor vehicle is expected to remain the dominant mode of transport and retain its 90 per cent share of recreational trips. The role played by the air transport mode is expected to increase while that played by sea and rail transport will decrease. The role of the Australian Tourist Commission was considered by the Committee. The Committee attaches considerable importance to that organisation and trusts that it will be given sufficient funds to promote Australia effectively overseas.

The Committee has commented on the need to create an awareness of the holiday opportunities available to Australians within Australia. The Committee is aware of a proposal by the Australian National Travel Association for a government industry program to generate employment in national tourism areas. Representatives of that organisation appeared before the Committee on 20 October ana were questioned on the proposal. The Committee sees considerable merit m the proposal and recommends that should the industry commit itself to raising $2m over two years then the Commonwealth Government should grant $2m over two years to the Australian Tourist Commission to allow it to conduct a joint promotional campaign with the Australian tourist industry. The Committee supports the view that visitation to environmentally significant and sensitive areas should be controlled and in some cases restricted. It recommends that the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development identify those areas requiring long term management plans to protect them.

The Committee sees a need for the registration of travel agents and recommends that the Minister for Industry and Commerce introduce legislation to register travel agents. The problem of seasonality is one in which little progress has been made in recent years. The Committee recommends that each State and Territory should establish committees to consider the introduction of staggered holidays. During the course of the inquiry particular reference was made to the training needs of the industry. The Committee recommends that a survey of the training requirements of the industry needs to be carried out as soon as possible.

Many of the submissions received by the Committee referred to the problem of penalty wage rates. The Committee notes that wages and conditions are determined within an industrial framework which includes the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Committee has recommended that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations establish a tripartite working group to consider the terms and conditions of employment within the industry and that any changes agreed to by that working group be submitted to the Arbitration Commission. There are a number of financial incentives where the tourist industry is at a disadvantage when compared with other industries. The Committee recommends the introduction of a depreciation allowance for income producing buildings and amendments to the investment allowance and export market development grants scheme. Recommendations have also been made in relation to access to finance, the Brisbane airport, regional routes for domestic airlines and intrastate pick-up and set-down rights for longdistance coaches.

As it has not been possible to consider all the parts of the terms of reference nor all the issues raised during the course of the inquiry, the Committee recommends that it be reappointed in the next Parliament and given access to the records of this Committee. The Committee welcomes the establishment of the Travel and Tourist Industry Advisory Council and recommends that its membership be announced and its first meeting held as soon as possible. Should the Committee be reappointed it recommends that the Minister for Transport make available to it the reports of the steering committees of the Department on international civil aviation policy and domestic air transport policy. In conclusion, the Committee considers the long term future of the industry is a prosperous one. I also pay tribute to the cooperation the Committee has received from the State governments, Commonwealth departments and the industry.

Finally, I would like to pay a sincere tribute to the members of the Committee, especially my Deputy Chairman, the honourable member for Lang, Mr Frank Stewart, whose assistance to me personally has been invaluable. And to the secretariat of the Committee Mr Phil Bergin, Mr Alan Kelly, Mrs Anne Marie Nagle and Miss Virginia Greville, I would say a special thanks. The Committee members and the staff have worked over and beyond the normal work of committees, and I would like to record my appreciation of their co-operation.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-by leave-It was my privilege to serve for some time as a member of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism whilst I was responsible for the area of tourism as the shadow Minister. It was a privilege because the findings of the Committee have vindicated the Opposition’s view that tourism should be given far greater emphasis in government policies than is given today. Australia has an enormous amount to offer the people of Australia. It is a great tragedy that so many people are unable to take a holiday in this country of ours. Some times the number of people who do not have holidays in Australia is submerged by the fact that as parliamentarians we do so much travelling and have access almost any day to some of the best spots in Australia when we are carrying out our parliamentary duties, but that is not the case for all Australians. I think this Committee has unravelled many of the problems which are confronting the average Australian citizen.

I rise not only to mention these things and the importance of the Committee, which I hope will be able to continue in the next Parliament- it certainly will because we have already made up our minds to reconstitute the Committee- but also because I want to pay a tribute to the Chairman of the Committee the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett), because he has announced his retirement from Federal politics. He was a perfect public relations officer as far as the National Parliament was concerned and a great judge of places to go for hearings. I do not think that we missed any of the good spots. I think that the evidence that was given was always given in very pleasant surroundings. The Chairman was always held responsible for making those f feasant speeches in response to mayors, councilors, aldermen and the chairman of local tourist associations and he did it with great style and dignity which served all in this Parliament very well.

While the inquiry may not have been concluded it has not been a waste of time and those honourable members who served on the Committee have served in an area which is extremely important. It is a great pity that the travel agents legislation which passed through the House of Representatives some years ago under the Labor Administration, in 1975 1 think, was not brought into law in this country. It is sadly needed. I am sure that when the final evidence of any committee is brought before this House that aspect certainly will be in the top priority of its recommendations. Tourism is an extremely important area. I was privileged to serve on the Committee, especially under such a gentleman as the honourable member for Herbert.

page 2788

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

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

-I wish to make a personal explanation. I was misrepresented by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser).

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition may proceed with a personal explanation.

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

– In Question Time today the Prime Minister said that in November 1975, at a time when the Senate was refusing to vote on the Hayden Budget, I had proposed that there should be an election for half the members of the Senate although the Senate as it was constituted then would continue until the end of June 1976. The Prime Minister apparently forgets that Acts which had gone through at the Joint Sitting in 1974 provided that on the first general election for either of the Houses there should for the first time also be elected senators for the two mainland Territories. Accordingly, if an election for half the members of the Senate had been held in December 1975 the senators elected from the States would have taken office in July 1976, but the senators elected for the two mainland territories would have taken office forthwith. The Prime Minister ought to remember that it was the possibility of getting two Labor senators from each of the mainland Territories in the circumstances of that time that so disturbed him and prompted him to continue the Senate obstruction to the Budget.

I also take the opportunity to point out that last Thursday the Prime Minister disputed the truth- and in Hansard the word ‘truth’ appears in inverted commas- of what I had said in answer to a question on This Day Tonight the previous night. He also said that I had misled all the people watching the TDT program that previous night. I made no point at the time of his mis-statement because, at my suggestion, the transcript of the TDT program was incorporated in the Hansard of last Thursday. I have noticed, however, that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) has similarly misrepresented me in respect of this matter. The misrepresentation is this: The Prime Minister quoted a question from the TDT program in these words: . . . two years ago you signed a statement that you’d like to see uranium mined . . .

Then I gave a reply the accuracy of which the Prime Minister has challenged. In actual fact the question I was asked on TDT appears on page 2542 of Hansard. The third line gives the name and address of the person telephoning in with a question and reads:

She was listening to the Senate today and heard a senator say that in Perth two years ago you- that is myself- signed a statement that you’d like to see uranium mined and she would like some clarification from you on that.

The Prime Minister last Thursday omitted the crucial words ‘in Perth’ and I regret to say that Senator Withers omitted those crucial words in statements he made in the Senate on that and subsequent days. The documents which have been incorporated in Hansard, the Press statement I made at that time on 28 October 1975, the memorandum which appears on page 2489 of Hansard and the memorandum of understanding signed by me and the Ranger partners which appears on page 2491 of Hansard, support completely the answer I gave on TDT. I rise on this occasion because in the Senate, I regret to say, as well as in this House, the leaders of the Government have omitted the crucial words that the statement I was alleged to have signed was ‘in Perth’. As I said, I have never signed such a statement.

page 2789

URANIUM

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received letters from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth), the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by Standing Order 107, 1 have selected one matter; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Mackellar, namely:

The implications for Australia’s policy on uranium production and nuclear safeguards of the views of Mr Justice Fox released yesterday.

I therefore 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 WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– The text which has been released has been regarded as an authentic text. I will not therefore go into the question of how it was released. I want to go into the question of its implications. It has been stated in the Press and I think by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) that the statement is opposed to the Government’s policy. It seems to me, on the contrary, that implications of this statement support the Government’s policy.

I will speak on a very limited front. The statement itself is concerned with the investigation of the proliferation problems. There have been many doubts and heartbreakings about the nuclear energy program and the whole matter of the atom. Some of these have been of small consequence, but some are of the very greatest consequence. The one that Mr Justice Fox is speaking of is the most vital. A nuclear war, if one should ever come, could destroy not just the whole fabric of our society but indeed the whole fabric of the world. There is no doubt as to the terrible nature of the weapons which are being evolved. Mr Justice Fox describes what has happened and suggests a positive policy. Unhappily there is now no watertight proposal which can prevent the possibility of nuclear war. The chance of having that kind of safeguard is now gone. All we can do is reduce the probability of nuclear war. We cannot get rid of the possibility entirely. That does not mean that we should not be doing our best in every way to reduce the probability of this ultimate disaster.

I speak now of President Carter’s policy to which Mr Justice Fox directed his first remarks. That policy, which Mr Justice Fox said was now becoming ambiguous, had two main points: Firstly, the prohibition of the processing of the nuclear fuel from reactors and, secondly, the suspension of the program for what is known as fast breeders or power breeders which make more fuel than they consume. Doubts have been raised on this matter in two ways. First it is said that the Carter policy has been counterproductive because it is raising resentments among other countries which want to produce their own nuclear programs. It has been said- it was said to me by experts in the United Kingdom when I was there recently- that it is all very well for President Carter to suspend reprocessing when as a matter of fact the United States is having technical difficulties about reprocessing and other countries are not having technical difficulties. Reprocessing plants in other countries are working perfectly satisfactorily. I put that aside. There is no doubt, as Mr Justice Fox has said in the conference which has been reported, that other countries are resentful of what the United States is doing and they think that this is spragging their own nuclear development and doing them harm. If this is so, these aspects of President Carter’s policy are in fact counter-productive. But there are more important things than this. If nuclear energy is denied to the world there will be an energy crisis and a starvation crisis and all the tensions which can lead to war. Honourable members should not think for one moment that in the ultimate consequence there is no possibility of a nuclear weapon being drawn. There is.

A policy which denies nuclear energy is a policy of making nuclear war. Let us be quite clear about this. I know that a number of wellintentioned but rather ill-informed people are going around saving that by cutting out a nuclear program of peaceful development some kind of security is being given against nuclear war. This is exactly the opposite of the truth. The people who are against a nuclear program are in point of fact the warmongers, although their intentions in many respects may be good.

Here is the dreadful truth. Let us face it. There is no restriction upon mining and supply of uranium which can give the slightest security against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I speak as somebody who knows the techniques, have seen them and known them for years.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.1S p.m.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Before the suspension of the sitting I was saying that no denial of uranium would possibly prevent the dangers of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, no attempt to stop the development of nuclear power will be in the slightest way effective in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons. This is the dreadful danger which certainly overshadows every other kind of nuclear danger. It is so much greater than any other nuclear danger that in comparison the others are really not worth talking about I remind the House that countries such as France, Communist China, South Africa and Israel, which are now believed to have nuclear weapons capacity, did not get that capacity in any way through nuclear power.

If one wants to make plutonium, one would not use power reactors. One would use a simple reactor of the old Calder Hall type with which it would be much easier to make plutonium. Indeed, if one is talking about nuclear weapons, one is not bound to plutonium. The concentrated uranium isotope 235 will be equally, or perhaps even more, efficient for that purpose. I will not go into the technical details of this, although I know them. I have been through the various plants in Europe and know the details of these processes. I can assure the House that anybody who thinks that by stopping the mining of Australian uranium or by stopping the development of nuclear power he is thereby impeding the processes of proliferation of nuclear weapons is very much astray.

It is much more than that Those people are acting in a way which makes nuclear war more likely to occur. I am not saying that they are doing that deliberately. I believe that most of these people are naive and well intentioned. They are perhaps a little foolish, thinking that they know more than they do, but what they are doing when they go out on a campaign to stop nuclear energy is making nuclear war more likely to occur. In that regard they have a very heavy burden on their consciences. If we deny to the world nuclear power, if we deny to it energy, we are going to have the tensions created by starvation and the elements that make for war.

I know- this report of Mr Justice Fox makes it very plain- that no system is or can be watertight in regard to nuclear material. It cannot be. What we have to do is not just to wring our hands and say that nothing can be done. We have to think out the best system which gives us the best chance of avoiding nuclear war. It is in that regard that the positive contributions of Mr Justice Fox, as outlined in this report now before us, are most important. He says firstly that although the plans of President Carter are not without their doubts, difficulties and ambiguities, nevertheless we should try to make them work as far as possible and to help President Carter in his efforts to prevent nuclear weapon proliferation and prevent nuclear war. For that purpose, we have to ensure, as President Carter himself points out, that there are ample uranium supplies. If we are not going to process the spent fuel rods- if we are going to store them- in the interim we will need much more uranium.

Secondly, if we are to have a proper plan to give nuclear energy to those people who will starve without it- the world s population is doubling every 35 years- we will have to make available the necessary uranium for the nuclear energy program to proceed. Even if President Carter’s plan is faulty, we should at least be helping. We should be helping to remove or minimise its faults and helping as far as we can to make it successful. The plan is directed to what we want, namely, the security of the world from nuclear war.

One of the things which has been suggestedAustralia can give a lead in this area- is that as the elements of President Carter’s plan become out of date and are superseded, there should be a plan for the reprocessing of spent fuel elements m a way which gives a multinational responsibility and the maximum of control. Do not let us think that any plan can be perfect. It cannot. But it is much better to have an imperfect plan than no plan at all.

If the kind of nonsense that has been spoken by the Opposition is allowed to proceed, all that will happen is that we will be putting the world into nuclear anarchy. I do not suggest for one moment that the Opposition intends to do that. All I am saying is that it does not understand what it is doing. The course it is putting before us is one which- I was going to say ‘is calculated’ but it is not calculated- will achieve exactly the opposite consequence to that which it intends to achieve. This is something which the House has to consider. I think in a way it is fortunate that the report has now been leaked- the circumstances of its leaking are reprehensible enoughbecause these rather sound views of Mr Justice Fox will now be able to be considered by this House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Uren:

– No, the call goes next to the Government side. It has got to answer that charge.

Mr Peacock:

– Answer what charge?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The matter of public importance brought forward by the honourable member for Mackellar was sup- ported by honourable members on my right. The honourable member for Mackellar was then called. According to my list, the next honourable member to be called is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. If no one rises, the Chair will declare that the discussion is concluded, and that will be it.

Mr Peacock:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr Uren:

– There you are; he has got to his feet. He is the gutless wonder.

Mr Peacock:

– He is not the gutless wonder. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to talk -

Mr Uren:

– I will answer you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, rather than allow this debate to lapse, I naturally take the second call. I assume that I take the 15 minutes that is allocated normally to the Opposition. So not only has the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) run away from the extra five minutes allocated to him, and from asking any questions this morning, but he has revealed himself as having joined that equivocal band of hand-wringers- Hayden, Hawke and Whitlamwho have refused to debate this topic previously. On this’ occasion, as in the past, I assume the same ideological line will be poured out now that the speech has been delivered to the honourable gentleman by bis writers. We have heard it previously.

I support the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) on this matter of public importance. As a consequence of the honourable member for Reid receiving and distributing the document to which the honourable member for Mackellar referred, the honourable member for Reid could be, prima facie, a felon. We have no problems in supporting the matter raised by the honourable member for Mackellar. The contents of that leaked document support the viewpoints put forward by the Government. I agree with the remarks made by the honourable member for Mackellar, particularly when he said that a policy, I think he put it, of denying nuclear energy was a policy leading towards nuclear war. Honourable members will recall the statements of the Government along this line. The people opposite who proclaim themselves the moral spokesmen of the Parliament are the ones who are not only lacking direction politically and lacking determination intellectually but who are in reality lacking any moral basis for the stand that they have taken.

Moral principles alone do not determine how one acts on questions such as these. They are multi-faceted ones. Moral principles, intellectual determinations and realistic assessments- all these aspects- are combined. Honourable members opposite are mouthing moral principles, as they frequently do, as if they are the ones who are putting forward a moral argument. To do so is to deny the reality that nuclear power is now adopted as a growing, major and significant force of energy in the world. They are denying people the opportunity not only of having jobs and having factories operating but of developing their own countries.

I have pointed out previously in this place what British trade unionists, for example, have said. On Tuesday I quoted the General Secretary of the Electronics Union in Britain who, in supporting the development of Britain’s nuclear industry, said that death from starvation, cold and wars of conquest would be the fate of the world if energy supplies ran out. Joe Gormley, the well known and oft quoted British miners’ leader said that an anti-nuclear energy motion would ‘send us back to the jungle’. That attitude is not for the hand wringers on the other side, the cheap expedients who will grab those fringe operators who want to propagate on the periphery of politics. No reasoning, no moral principle, no rational assessment can support the stand they take. The debate which they have sought to provoke in Australia is not a debate simply revolving around Australia. It is not constrained to this nation. It is part of a global debate which is taking place against the background of an impending world energy crisis of quite unprecedented and potentially disastrous dimensions.

The crisis does not lie in some indefinite future. Unless rapid action is taken it will be upon us in a decade. If it is allowed to occur the consequences will be not only economic and industrial but will have profound, social and political effects, with foreign policy implications. The consequences would be particularly great for the energy reliant Western countries and energy reliant, as they develop, developing countries. The Opposition would sweep that aside. The need for Australia to act now is a result of the ever-mounting demands made upon it by the energy deficient nations which are desperately aware of the energy supply difficulties that they face in the next few decades. It is generally recognised that, by the mid-1980s, the expansion in world demand for oil will exceed the rate of new discoveries and that thereafter the world’s oil reserves will become increasingly depleted during a relatively short period-probably only decades. So, do not tell me that the Opposition is putting forward an argument on a moral basis.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition directed remarks in a rather scatty, to put it mildly, Press statement accompanying the document that he put out yesterday, which he illicitly received during the course of the day. He implied that it denigrated the Government’s case. Why does he not look at the basic documents on which the policies of this Government rest- namely, the documents flowing from the Ranger inquiry? This Government has never denied, because it is in the report of the inquiry, that the Ranger inquiry chaired by Mr Justice Fox concluded that there are defects in the existing safeguards arrangements. Those defects, as I recall the words in the report, ‘do not render valueless the concept of international safeguards’. The Ranger inquiry reported, and the Government agreed, that it is both essential and possible to make safeguards arrangements more effective. The Government’s safeguards policy, frankly, does just that. We have always said that the safeguards are an evolving thing and that we are working to strengthen them. The fact that we probably have the tightest safeguards policy in the world today is ready evidence that we are not out on a mad grab for sales of uranium but that we want to influence people to tighten their safeguards. The safeguards have worked. They are not yet totally effective. As the honourable member for Mackellar said, we could never give a castiron guarantee about them, but we will steadily evolve and improve them.

Can honourable members opposite really justify their fanciful nonsense that by opting out of selling uranium we would have more influence over those safeguards? Twenty per cent of the Western world’s known reserves of uranium are in this country. Do honourable members opposite believe that at a time of energy crisis, which is forthcoming, they could be an influence in the international scene by abdicating from the arena? Their position can be summed up only as an amoral attitude that brings about such abdication. The bilateral measures that Australia is taking, together with the existing multilateral arrangements, will unquestionably, adequately and effectively guard against misuse of Australian supplied uranium. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has said, nevertheless, that the wider the consensus amongst nuclear supplying and nuclear importing countries concerning controls to apply to the world nuclear industry, the more effective these controls will be. The broader the consensus, the greater the control. It seems axiomatic. So this Government, with likeminded countries, will be working to have bilateral controls and multi-lateral controls strengthened.

The Ranger inquiry identified a number of defects in existing safeguards arrangements. No one has run away from those. We have never said that we live in the perfect nuclear world. The Government has overcome these defects in its own safeguards policy by introducing measures which go beyond existing multi-lateral safeguards arrangements. The Opposition, from its vantage point at the heights of confusion, represents the safeguards that would apply to all delliveries of Australian uranium under future contracts as being the same as those that the Ranger inquiry criticised. They are not. It is time for the Opposition to get the facts. It is time indeed for it to tell the truth. It is time for it to examine the facts and from that develop a policy. It is time for it to cease its criticism of existing multi-lateral safeguards arrangements and start making contributions towards the strengthening of safeguards. It is time for it to realise that this Government has strengthened the safeguards arrangements to apply to deliveries of Australian uranium under future contracts.

In the past the Opposition has claimed that the incentive towards safeguards comes not by supplying uranium but by withholding it. Frankly, it is absurd.

Mr Keating:

-That is right.

Mr PEACOCK:

-The honourable member says that is right. He is confirming an absurd proposition. By permitting exports of uranium under stringent safeguards unquestionably Australia will be in a better position to strengthen safeguards. It will be only as a secure supplier that Australia will be listened to seriously on the subject of improvement of safeguards. To leave Australian uranium in the ground until multilateral safeguards are improved, as is suggested so frequently by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is to follow me in the debate, is a policy of weakness and inaction. In fact it is turning our back on the needs of the world not merely for supplies of energy but in fact to strengthen the very element that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition attacks, namely, the safeguards. It is irresponsible and it condemns Australia to total powerlessness on this subject. It would be left to the rest of the international community to determine the safeguards.

We have constantly said that built into our safeguards policy is a requirement for review and improvement. It is a consequence of the Government’s firm conviction not only that international safeguard standards are capable of improvement but also that increasingly effective safeguards will in fact be introduced. It is not to say, as I recall the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) said some time m September, that current safeguards are ‘completely inadequate’. If one wants to take at face value the remarks of the Opposition, one can only conclude that it regards the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards as static as well as ineffective. The Government has always said that they are evolving and they can improve. The Opposition distort the facts. We have taken the initiative in strengthening the international nonproliferation regime. We are working effectively now. It is clear that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not pause to seek to comprehend the document that he accepted and then propagated.

Unlike the Opposition, which is simply content to rely on criticising present multilateral safeguard arrangements, as I have said, the Government has formulated and announced a tough and comprehensive safeguards policy which contains stringent bilateral conditions over and above what are required by the IAEA. What is the point of conclusion of the document recording Mr Justice Fox’s views? It is that Australia is a clean skin. To use his very words, we were ‘clean-skinned’. We are now in a position to exert influence. That is the basic criterion today. We are clean. It is accepted that we have the toughest safeguards. It is indicated that we have a clear responsibility to influence.

Do not let anyone tell me that by opting out of the international community, which is what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition seeks to do, we would be able to display and execute our undertakings. No wonder the Opposition did not ask any questions about uranium this morning. It recognised that the document mirrored matters the Government has put forward time and again. It was left to an honourable member on the Government side to ask the Prime Minister a question and, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows, he was able to indicate that ten days ago, long before the Deputy Leader of the Opposition became the recipient of stolen property, that Mr Justice Fox had written to the Government indicating that he found himself in almost complete harmony with United States officials. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition latched on to the reference to the Carter policy without even comprehending the nature of the Government’s approach to the Carter energy program enunciated by the President in April of this year.

There is nothing new and nothing surprising about the fact that some countries question aspects of United States policy. They have already geared themselves to moving into the field of reprocessing. If one country unilaterally says that another country ought not to reprocess does anyone think the second country would greet that statement with relish? Come into the real world, for goodness sake. There is nothing new or surprising about the fact that final United States policy will need to await the outcome of current deliberations in the Congress. There is no doubt that United States policy has already made extremely important headway with the opening of the international nuclear fuel cycle evaluation program- a major Carter initiative to which we are contributing and in which we are playing an active role. The future will unquestionably see a process of international give and take on both sides of this question.

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

Mr UREN:
Reid

-The nuclear debate is of extreme importance. It is one of the most important debates of our time because it deals with the whole future of mankind, the whole future of the human race. Therefore I make no apologies about the document that was passed through the post to my office. That document dealt with a three hour discussion between senior government officials and Mr Justice Fox. I made that document public. I did not select newspapers. I gave it a broad circulation among all members of the Press Gallery of Canberra. I sent it to concerned people throughout the nation. I sent it to conservation and community groups throughout the nation. I sent it to every one of my Labor parliamentary colleagues so they could make up their own minds about it. So that we can get it into Hansard, I seek leave to incorporate the whole document in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Peacock:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, leave is not granted. We are not going to allow classified material to be put into the parliamentary record.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

Mr UREN:

– We know that the Government will not allow it to be included in Hansard. I will make a couple of quotations from the document. When talking to officials, Mr Justice Fox said that in the United States he had found the Carter non-proliferation policy to be ambiguous and uncertain and that there were widely divergent views within the administration. He went on to say that the United States and Canadian policies were deeply resented in Western Europe, Brazil and Japan and that there was general opposition elsewhere to the proposition that there could be no reprocessing of American supplied material without consent of the United States. He went on to talk about the countries that were deeply disturbed about it. He referred to Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, India, Argentina and the Philippines, all of which in my view want to have their own nuclear power stations and do what they want with the by-products of those stations with no restrictions whatsoever including in some cases acquiring nuclear weapons. That is the real concern. What does the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) say? He is reported as saying on PM last night:

It, in fact, endorses the very thing the government has been saying. It is, of course, only one small document of a whole host of documents . .

In other words he was saying: ‘This is right; we support it’. He was saying that the Government supports the utterances made in the report. I hope that he expresses that view to the upper echelons in Washington. He knows that diplomatic representatives of the United States and other countries of the western world in Canberra are greatly disturbed about this document of which the Foreign Minister says: ‘We support it all the way’.

Mr Peacock:

– Indeed we do.

Mr UREN:

– The Foreign Minister again says by interjection: ‘Indeed we do’. The report also states that Mr Justice Fox said there was concern about the ability of the International Atomic Energy Agency to administer the safeguards satisfactorily.

In the few moments I have, I want to deal with the so-called energy crisis and the safeguards proposals, and I want to say a few words about Australian Labor Party policy. Let us look at the phoney approach of the Fraser Government to contracts with Britain and the phoney Fraser Government so-called nuclear safeguards. The nuclear safeguards policy which the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) announced on 24 May has already been shot to pieces. To take one example, I refer to the eighth safeguard stated by the Prime Minister. It provides that in bilateral agreements between Australia and countries importing uranium the Australian government shall insist that any reprocessing of nuclear material supplied by Australia should take place only with the consent of the Australian Government. I ask the Government to think about that question and correlate what is said there with what is said in the document that I distributed to the Press yesterday. We know now that this safeguards policy is completely unacceptable to Japan. It is completely unacceptable to EURATOM. The Government can either drop those safeguards or write off any possible contracts with Japan or EURATOM or EURATOM countries.

Much has been made in the past few days of possible contracts with the United Kingdom. Let us get at this question of the hypocrisy on the part of this Government. What has been said about the British Government spokesmen, particularly by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for National Resources (Mr Anthony), is completely false and I nail it to the mast. The United Kingdom has no independent power to make contracts outside the EURATOM agreementand I stress that. What the Government has said in the past few days about its alleged negotiations with Dr Mabon is completely misleading and false. The United Kingdom cannot make bilateral agreements of this sort, and the Fraser Government knows it.

Let me quickly look at the question of the energy crisis. It has been said that our uranium is needed for transport fuel. Now that is not true because the so-called ‘energy crisis’ is due to a potential shortage of liquid propellant fuel for transport services. There is not a shortage of fuel for electric power generation. There is enough coal for that for the next 100 to 200 years. Then there is the question of conservation. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries are beginning to reduce their energy consumption. In 1975 and 1976, OECD countries did not increase their consumption of energy. In part, this was due to the international economic recession, but it also reflects increased concern for conservation. Sweden and West Germany have already announced long term energy conservation programs. The Central Electricity Generating Board in Britain suffered a drop of 14 per cent in electricity sales last year. There have been no new orders to power stations, nuclear or otherwise, in the United Kingdom for at least five years and there are unlikely to be any for several years in the future.

Let us look at the question of reduced nuclear power demand. Over the past decade official expectations of the contribution that nuclear energy will make to world energy consumption for the rest of this century have been moving steadily downwards. This process is gaining momentum. For example, at page 46 of the first Ranger report, using August 1976 figures, it is predicted that for the OECD countries, at least 400,000 megawatts of electricity would be nuclear generated by 1987. In January 1977 the OECD’s World Energy Outlook gave a comparable projection of 325,000 megawatts of nuclear generated electricity in 1985. By early May, the official OECD figure had declined still further to 253,000 megawatts. I am told by OECD sources that the figure is now 224,000 megawatts. In other words, there has been a decline of 44 per cent in the projected 1985 levels of nuclear generated power in a period of less than one year. This decline in nuclear generated electricity projections must continue.

I now turn to the Labor Party’s policy which is not a ‘leave it in the ground’ policy. The Labor Party’s policy is a policy which is concerned about the future of mankind. We are concerned about the many unresolved problems that now exist within the nuclear fuel cycle world. The first two paragraphs of the Labor Party’s policy on uranium state that we recognise that the provision of Australian uranium to the world nuclear fuel cycle creates problems relevant to Australian sovereignty, the environment, the economic welfare of our people, and the rights and well-being of the Aboriginal people. Labor believes that, having regard to the present unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental and technical problems associated with the mining of uranium, the development of nuclear power should not continue at this stage. Therefore, we are clearly saying that that is the position. We want time until these matters are resolved.

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

Mr COTTER:
Kalgoorlie

-I rise to speak in this debate because of my great interest in this matter. It is interesting to note that the Opposition threw away an opportunity to speak on this matter.

Mr Keating:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am prepared to be called to speak. The Opposition was allowed two speakers and I am still ready to jump. So we are not throwing away the opportunity at all.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I point out to the honourable member for Blaxland that it was his own deputy leader who suggested that this should be the order of the calling of members.

Mr Keating:

– On the same point, Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Mackellar is not a member of the Opposition. The Opposition did not support his raising of this matter of public importance. The Government supported it. Therefore the honourable member for Mackellar took the first call.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Evidently the honourable member for Blaxland was not in the chamber when I made exactly that comment to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I pointed out those factors. I wish the honourable member for Blaxland had been here when I made my comment from the chair. The present situation has arisen because the point I made was not accepted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Uren:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The real reason I did not accept that proposition was that when a member, whether Government or Opposition, brings forward a matter of public importance, it is for the Government to put its policy in reply to that matter of public importance. I wanted to know what the Foreign Minister would say on behalf of the Government. But all we got was ranting and hot air. We did not get any comments at all.

Mr Scholes:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Corio will resume his seat. I am not arguing the point raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I am not making any comment on it whatsoever. I have made no comment. All I am pointing out is that the member of the Opposition made his point and I called the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I then called the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Following the same process I automatically called a speaker on my right. I have made no comment on whether I agreed with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. There are times when I may agree with him and there are times when I may not.

Mr Uren:

– But Mr Deputy Speaker, you cannot argue against my logic. When there is a matter of public importance the Government should answer.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I have pointed out to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and I shall do so again slowly, that I nave not argued. I have not made any comment whatsoever. I have only said that because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made that point, the situation now is that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie is the member who receives the call. If that is not acceptable, there are Standing Orders which cover this point. I now call the honourable member for Kalgoorlie.

Mr Scholes:

– I move:

That the honourable member for Blaxland be heard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honourable member for Corio should have moved that motion at the first available opportunity.

Mr Scholes:

– I did, and you sat me down.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honourable member wants to start remembering things again. That was not at the point where I told the honourable member to resume his seat.

Mr Peacock:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. I regard it as important, because allegations have been made that if there is a discussion on a matter of public importance the Government is duty bound to put its view of the matter. I wish to submit that this is an absolute nonsense being submitted to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because what is required on a discussion of a matter of public importance is that a matter put by a member is supported by eight members. It makes no reference to Government or Opposition. It is purely and simply a matter of members. That matter having been put and the honourable member having spoken, the procedure is always that we move to someone who might oppose it. This was pointed out to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He waived his opportunity. He did not think through the consequences of his actions. He allowed me to speak second. He is totally responsible for what transpired, whereby there were three speakers in favour of the matter and one against.

Mr Uren:

– The discussion of the matter of public importance was called on by Mr Speaker. The subject of it was:

The implications for Australia’s policy on uranium production and nuclear safeguards of the views of Mr Justice Fox released yesterday.

The only person who can put the official view on that point is a Government Minister. In this case a Government Minister rose. The procedure which has been followed consistently is that the Government states its policy.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The points made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are possibly most interesting but unfortunately they are completely irrelevant. All I have said is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition took a certain stand and made a certain statement. I am not arguing with that at all and I have said that four times. The logical thing now is that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie should receive the call. The sooner we get on with the matter the better.

Mr COTTER:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker-

Mr Scholes:

– I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would enable the honourable member for Blaxland to be heard.

Mr COTTER:

-Do I have the call, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I point out to the honourable member for Corio that at this point he is not in order in moving for the suspension of Standing Orders. The situation is that we are in the middle of a speech by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie may proceed with his speech.

Mr COTTER:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Obviously this is a ruse to use up my time. Because the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) is making such a show let me cite what the honourable member said in 1975:

We are prepared to give the Japanese any amount of fuel that they need, enriched if we can do so. The only thing is that we would like to do the enriching. Instead of sending just yellowcake at bargain basement prices we want to get the profit that comes from enrichment. We do not want the stuff to be sent to the United States-

Mr Uren:

– I raise a point of order. The Government ridiculed the Fox report -

Mr Uren:

– I raise a point of order. The Government ridiculed the Fox report -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr COTTER:

-I would like to repeat what I said.

Mr Uren:

– The point of order is -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that no point of order is involved.

Mr Uren:

– There is a point of order because -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should come to the point of order instead of making a speech.

Mr Uren:

– The point of order is that the whole relevance of the Labor Party’s policy changed after the Ranger report.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no point of order. The Deputy Leader knows that, [He will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Kalgoorlie.

Mr COTTER:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to repeat what I was saying when I was so rudely interrupted. The honourable member for Blaxland said:

We are prepared to give the Japanese any amount of fuel that they need, enriched if we can do so. The only thing is that we would like to do the enriching. Instead of sending just yellowcake at bargain basement prices we want to get the profit that comes from enrichment.

Mr Peacock:

– Who said that?

Mr COTTER:

-The honourable member for Blaxland. He continued:

We do not want the stuff to be sent to the United States or the Soviet Union or any place else where Japan may choose to have it enriched. A good offer is before Japan. It can come in with Australia on enrichment if it wishes. If it wants to wait until we develop the technology and secure the capital, as we have the raw material, it will wait too long. The Japanese should get off their tails and move into this undertaking.

That was said by the honourable member for Blaxland. It is fairly significant that the main anti-uranium program is being run by the Tribune, the Australian communist weekly newspaper. It is fairly significant that it is heading the anti-uranium program throughout Australia and it is also significant that the Australian Labor Party’s policy on uranium is practically non-existent. It changes from day to day. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) and the honourable member for Blaxland are well on record-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-Mr Deputy Speaker-

Motion (by Mr Cotter) proposed:

That Business of the day be called on.

Mr Scholes:

- Mr. Deputy Speaker, is it in order for an honourable member, having attacked another honourable member, as the honourable member for-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2797

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL 1977

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

As honourable members know, one of the steps in the process of re-distributing the electoral boundaries of a State is the determination of the quota of electors for each proposed division based on the whole number of electors in each State, as nearly as can be ascertained divided by the number of members of the House of Representatives to be chosen for that State. In respect of the recently approved redistributions, the quota was determined as at 24 June 1977. The Government has just been advised that in one of the then divisions in New South Wales there was a continuing and cumulative error in the procedures for maintaining enrolment statistics. This was not an error in the maintenance of the electoral roll but in the enrolment statistics relating to it. As a result however, the enrolment statistics for the division of Berowra were, at the time of the determination of the quota, overstated by some 4,000. Consequently the State quota, on the basis of which the proposed enrolments of all divisions are fixed, was overstated approximately by 96. This in itself would not have been significant. However, all the overstatement related to the one division. In essence, the proposed division of Berowra was, on the basis of the statistics provided, thought by the Commissioners to contain some 71,000 electors. In fact, because of the divisional Returning Officer’s error, the enrolment in terms of the true June figures, was of the order of 67,000. The Government, however, believes that, having been apprised of the error, it would be improper for it not to advise the Parliament. At the same time, because the Commissioners acted in good faith in respect of their deliberations and in the application of the required criteria, the Government believes also that the Parliament would want to ensure that its approval of the redistributions could not be ruled invalid because of a clerical error.

This is the purpose of the Bill and it will apply to each of the redistributions approved by the Parliament. Honourable members will note that, apart from this special validation, the normal procedures required by the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 are being maintained and the electoral divisions determined for the States remain subject to the provision that they stand until altered in accordance with the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. 1 commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

- Mr Speaker, I understand this Bill is to be debated at a later hour this day. I wonder whether the Minister, when he is mentioning the figures again in the course of that debate, could indicate clearly the figure for the subdivision of Berowra as at 1977- that is, the figure for the total sub-division- and how in fact the miscalculation, which is deemed to be an error of 4,000, was made.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the Minister in a position to give a response?

Mr STREET:

– I am not in a position to give a response now but I will see whether the honourable gentleman’s request can be acceded to.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

- Mr Speaker, the distribution shows clearly and it is on record that the sub-division of Berowra, for example, would have had about 9,000 electors. These figures are only approximate. It shows also that approximately 2,000 electors were moved from that subdivision to the sub-division of Dundas. I am uncertain how we get an error of 4,000 when we are talking about the sub-divisions.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is that an additional matter about which you wish the Minister to give some information?

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Perhaps the Minister may be in a position to provide information at the earliest opportunity.

Mr STREET:

-Mr Speaker, if I could have from Hansard a transcript of the exchange that has just taken place, I will obtain the information from the Minister in another place.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will make sure that it is made available to the Minister.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) adjourned.

page 2798

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion (by Mr Street) agreed to:

That notices Nos 2 and 3, Government Business, be postponed until a later hour this day.

page 2798

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 3) 1977

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

Second Reading

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Farrer · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill provides for the validation until 30 June 1978 of duties collected in pursuance of Customs

Tariff Proposals Nos 1 1 to 32 introduced into the Parliament during the current session and not enacted to date. Under section 226 of the Customs Act the collection of duties in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals is protected against legal challenge for six months or until the close of the session of Parliament, whichever occurs first. The introduction and passage of a validation Bill is therefore a necessary machinery measure which takes over from section 226 pending the introduction of a Customs Tariff Amendment Bill which will formally enact the tariff changes contained in the proposals. Full details of the changes concerned were supplied to honourable members at the time of introduction of the relevant tariff proposals. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Young) adjourned.

page 2799

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 October, on motion by Mr Eric Robinson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– The Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1977 now before the House takes the establishment of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal a stage further and defines its functions. Among these functions the most significant are: To grant, renew and revoke licences, to determine program standards and conditions of advertising, and to determine hours during which programs may be transmitted. The Bill also provides that the inquiries of the Tribunal, including those related to licensing, to be public unless the Tribunal is satisfied that it is desirable that all or part of the proceedings should be private. The Bill follows up some of the recommendations of the Green report that the Tribunal should have these functions. They are an extension of those of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in that the Tribunal will exercise powers now held by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) in regard to the granting, renewing and revoking of licences for stations, translator stations and repeater stations, the licensing of public as well as commercial stations and it can hold public inquiries into licence renewals. However, and this is most important, the Bill does not follow the recommendations of the Green report on the establishment of a broadcasting planning board.

The Opposition is most critical of the provisions in this Bill and the criticism relates to so many clauses of the Bill that we propose to move an amendment to withdraw the Bill because we consider that it is a Bill that cannot be amended in such a way as to make it a good Bill. So there is only one thing to do about it and that is to move an amendment. I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘the House is of the opinion that the Bill should be withdrawn and redrafted because (a) it greatly increases the power of the Minister in relation to licensing of broadcastmg and television services and is contrary to the stated intention of the Government to “take broadcasting out of politics”, (b) the functions of the proposed Special Broadcasting Service are vague and imprecise and do not provide adequate machinery for the provision of ethnic broadcasting services, and (c) there is inadequate provision for public participation and involvement in the process of broadcasting regulation ‘.

In support of that amendment, this legislation is important legislation. It has been rushed into the Parliament. It is a matter of great public importance but there has been inadequate time for consideration on this Bill. The Minister has said again and again that he wants full public debate on and participation in broadcasting policy. This Bill was listed on the business sheet yesterday and the day before. It was listed for debate on Tuesday and then it was put at the bottom of the list for debate on Wednesday. Obviously the reason for this is that there is still conflict within the ranks of the Government as to what is required to be written into this Bill. As I said, the Bill is being rushed through. It is not in the best interests of the industry as a whole that this legislation should be pushed through in the manner in which it has been brought before the Parliament.

We make the point that the Minister is giving lip service to the claim that the Government requires full public debate on and participation in broadcasting policy because that is not happening. This is something that he has said time and time again. He said it when the report of the inquiry into broadcasting was tabled in the Parliament. He said it again when the report of the Tribunal on self regulation was tabled in the Parliament. He has said it on numerous occasions but he has given only lip service to the statement. I think he is a victim of his own Party. Nothing really has been done to implement the recommendations of the Green report on broadcasting. Nothing really has been done to implement the findings of the Tribunal and as happened in December 1976 the Minister has rushed legislation into the Parliament without adequate time for public debate.

This legislation has been criticised by representatives of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, by public broadcasters, by the commercial sector of the industry and by community interest groups concerned with broadcasting. No group associated with broadcasting is satisfied with the provisions of this legislation and no group concerned with broadcasting, if I might say so, is satisfied with the performance of the Minister as far as this legislation is concerned. When I talk of various groups not being satisfied with what is going on, I mean that it is obvious, as I said a moment ago, that the Minister is having problems inside his own party. I refer to the report in the Age of 13 October headed ‘MPs force change to new bill’. That does not mean the changes were made in the Parliament. It refers to members of Parliament in the Liberal Party room.T he statement goes on to say:

Government MPs strongly criticised the Postal and Telecommunications Department over the drafting of the bill.

When someone condemns a department he is condemning the Minister as well. The article continues:

The bill has been changed at least six times over the past seven weeks by backbench pressure.

I congratulate the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Jull) on his achievements in this regard to harrass the Minister but it hasnot been done with any honest intent. It has been done at the instigation of his former employer who wields great influence on the Liberal and National Country parties in this Parliament. The Press report goes on to say:

Yesterday’s attack -

This is dated 13 October- on the Postal and Telecommunications Department was led by Mr Jull (Queensland) and Senator Townley (Tasmania).

Incidentally, none of these statements that have appeared in the Press have yet been disowned by any of these members to whom I refer. They all have an opportunity as we all have, as you know Mr Speaker, because all we have to do is to whisper in your ear that we have been misreported and you will give us the opportunity of denying something or explaining now we have been misreported. I cannot recall the honourable member having stood up in this place and claimed to have been misreported. Therefore, I take it that this Press report is a factual report of just what has been going on as far as the Liberal Party is concerned. The article goes on to say:

Mr Jull criticised a clause in the original draft of the Bill which would have given the tribunal discretion to reissue licences for a minimum period of 6 months as a disciplinary measure.

It is believed the minimum period has been increased to 12 months in the final draft to the tabled today.

Congratulations to the honourable member; he stood over his Minister and Reg will give him a pat on the back and say: ‘Well done my man; good man. When you get tossed out on election day on 10 December I will give you your job back again with Channel 0.I congratulate him on doing his job faithfully in this place on behalf of Sir Reg. The next one referred to in the Press article was Senator Townley. He did not do as well as the honourable member for Bowman. The article reads:

Senator Townley attacked the clause giving the tribunal power to suspend stations for up to seven days for breaches of the law because of the effect it could have on their turnover. He indicated he would try to change the clause before the Bill was debated next week.

It was damned bad luck; he did not get away with it. I believe that he has been one of the sup- porters of the Government who, over the years, h ave found Sir Reginald to be a great benefactor. Senator Townley found him to be of great assistance when he stood as an independent Liberal in Tasmania. With Ansett support he was able to get out sufficient propaganda and set himself elected. So, congratulations to the honourable member for Bowman and bad luck to Senator Townley who did not get away with what he was trying to do. One of the tragedies is that Ansett has wielded such great influence in the decision making of the Liberal Party in this Parliament.

I come back to the Bill. I draw attention once again to the way in which the Minister has been treating this Parliament and to the way in which legislation has been brought in at short notice. In 1976 the Minister introduced the Government’s first amendment to the Broadcasting and Television Act. Like this Bill, they were rushed into Parliament, The Government at that time hoped to sack the Australian Broadcasting Commission without any public criticism and with the minimum of fuss. The Government also hoped to disband the Australian Broadcasting Control Board with a minimum of fuss. But public concern and pressure, I am pleased to say, saved the ABC on that occasion. Although this legislation was rushed through Parliament in 1976 some of it, such as the provisions for the appointment of a broadcasting council, has not yet been proclaimed because of the pressure of a section of the commercial industry. As I understand the present setup of the industry, it is not prepared to serve on the council and is not prepared to work with the ABC. A section of the piece of legislation that was rushed into Parliament in the dying hours of that year has still not been proclaimed. We are going through the same process again of rushed legislation, a lack of opportunity for public debate and legislation which does not reflect the reports and advice which the

Government has received. I will deal with that matter in greater length later in my speech.

The Government’s policy on broadcasting has been characterised by a series of inquiries accompanied by inadequate legislation. In other words the inquiries do not do what the Minister wants them to do. So the Government has to get around the matter the best way it can. The major refrain of the Minister has been the frequently expressed and supposed policy of the Government of taking broadcasting out of politics. If ever a government spoke with a forked tongue in relation to its policy it is this Government in relation to this aspect of its broadcasting policy. This legislation, the old two-card. trick, the thimble and pea trick, has involved the Government more heavily in broadcasting policy than ever before.

A traditional objectionable feature of the broadcasting policy over many years has been the power of the Minister to grant broadcasting licences. This traditional objection has existed since Sir Robert Menzies overruled the advice of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in order to give his mentor, Sir Reginald Ansett, the licence for the 0-10 network. It is always interesting to see, as I have said, the way in which Sir Reginald can influence this Parliament and get what he wants in regard to television stations and airline policies. Amendments to be moved later today clearly are associated in principle with the two-airline policy with which the an* transport industry is tied up. So that honourable members will be aware of what the Labor Party’s policy is I refer them to a written policy which clearly spells out the things that we believe should be done in regard to broadcasting and television. This is in contrast to the verbal statements that are made from time to time by the Minister and members of his party which, as the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has shown time and time again, cannot be believed because they say that circumstances change and that they are entitled to change their policies with the circumstances. I ask leave to have incorporated in Hansard the Labor Party’s policy on broadcasting and television as determined at the Perth Conference in July of this year.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The document read as follows-

page 2801

THE ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE OF BROADCASTING

Labor Party Policy

The establishment of a broadcasting structure comprising-

  1. A Broadcasting Advisory Council composed of representatives of the National, Commercial and Public Broadcasting sectors and community interest groups, with the functions of: assessing the needs of the Australian community and the industry in respect of radio, television and associated communication facilities. considering and commenting on planning proposals and research material for the development of broadcasting services. acting as a liaison body between the various sectors of the broadcasting system and the public and receiving and recording complaints or comments in respect of broadcasting standards. overviewing the administration of technical standards. consulting with or advising the Broadcast Licensing Tribunal in relation to overall management of the radio spectrum or on any matter relevant to the functions of the Tribunal. reporting regularly to Parliament. developing social standards in relation to broadcasting programs, particularly the elimination of sexist and racist attitudes.
  2. A Broadcast Licensing Tribunal with the function of issuing and renewing licenses in the commercial and public sector and conducting inquiries on specific matters referred to it. Proceedings of the Tribunal will be conducted in public and interested parties and members of the public will be entitled to make submissions regarding the conditions of licences and the functioning of the Stations. Reports of the Tribunal will be tabled in Parliament and be public documents.
Mr CHARLES JONES:

-I thank the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Garland), who is at the table, and the House. This Bill proposes to take the licensing function away from the Minister and give it to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. To this extent the legislation is worthy of support. But the power of renewing licences given to the Tribunal is a very empty power in view of the new powers which the Minister takes upon himself by virtue of this legislation. The Minister will decide what applications for licences he will call for and what specifications and conditions will be attached to these licences. Even during the currency of a licence, the Minister is empowered to alter its specifications and conditions. It leaves little room for confidence for a licensee who wants some security in relation to a licence. It gives little opportunity for public involvement in the licensing process. It may mean that the Minister calls for no licence at all. Effectively and theoretically at least it would enable the Minister without any public involvement to determine the nature and content of broadcasting programs in the commercial and public broadcasting sector.

In the national sector, the ABC, this Government has already shown by financially squeezing the ABC, and by attacks by prominent Ministers that it is prepared to interfere with the independence of that sector. Let us look at the case of the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) in the changeover period after the Labor Government was sacked by the Governor-General in November 1975. One of the first things that the then Acting Minister for Transport, Peter Nixon, did was to conduct a violent attack on the impartiality of the ABC. Unfortunately, Government supporters see partiality of a broadcasting system as presenting both sides of an argument. Government supporters have become accustomed to one-eyed partial points of view that have been put out in the Press, on the radio and on television. Amendments to be moved later will set out once again to protect that partiality.

The Tribunal is left with very limited real powers. Broadcasting has not been taken out of politics. It has been put in the hands of the Minister. The Minister will now have sole control over planning a broadcasting structure which will become more susceptible to political pressures and decisions and less open to public involvement. This can and may lead to intolerable political pressures in the broadcasting system which the Annan Committee in Great Britain criticised for its lack of freedom of expression and news. Rather than pass over the matter, I propose to read from the report of the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting chaired by Lord Annan. The report, which was presented to the British Parliament in March of this year, states:

Yet when London Weekend ran into difficulties, the authority seemed willing to jettison this principle and allow Mr Murdoch substantial power within the company. This was one of the reasons for public concern. In Australia, newspaper interests have gained control of television stations with very sharp repercussions upon political expression and news. Is thhere a risk of the same thing happening here?

Honourable members should not forget that the Murdoch referred to in that report is the Murdoch of Australian fame who owns so many radio, television and newspaper companies in Australia. This Committee, which was chaired by Lord Annan and which had great credibility in the United Kingdom, was concerned that the British media was not to follow the rackets that exist in Australia today and the one-eyed approach to the presentation of news.

The Government has completely ignored the proposals of its own inquiry into broadcasting that a broadcast planning board be established which would give at least some independent advice on the planning of a broadcasting system. Instead, these powers go to the Minister and broadcasting is put right in the political arena. Rather than read the recommendations of the

Government’s inquiry, I seek leave to incorporate ‘Section L: Summary of Recommendations ‘in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The extract read as follows-

SECTION L: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 48S. This Inquiry recommends as follows:

That the Australian Broadcasting Control Board be disbanded.

That the administrative structure of the Australian broadcasting system be rearranged as follows:

the planning involved in the implementation of government policy to be carried out by a Broadcasting Planning Board;

licensing and public inquiries on broadcasting matters to be the responsibility of an Australian Broadcasting Tribunal;

broadcasters to be represented in planning and regulation through a Broadcasting Council.

That the disbandment of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and the establishment of the Broadcasting Planning Board, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and the Broadcasting Council take effect upon a date to be proclaimed.

That the powers and functions of the Broadcasting Planning Board be as outlined in detail in paras 183 to 185 and summarised as follows:

undertake detailed planning for the introduction or extension of broadcasting services in the national, commercial and public sectors including:

social and economic planning, research and development

technical planning, research and development including determination of station operating parameters and the recommendation of operating frequencies for broadcasting stations; and

assemble industry data relevant to its functions.

That the Broadcasting Planning Board should consist of three full-time members, all of whom should be appointed by the Governor-General. (Paras 186 to

That if Recommendation 2 (a) is not accepted, planning responsibilities be allocated to the Postal and Telecommunications Department. (Paras 193 to 196)

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-I thank the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the House. I draw attention in this section of the Green Committee report to the fact that it recommends the setting up of an independent tribunal to consider the matter of planning and the like. As an alternative, in paragraph 6, the report states:

If recommendation 2a is not accepted planning responsibilities be allocated to the Postal and Telecommunications Department.

Yet, in this Bill, the Minister has seen fit not to accept the recommendations of the Green Committee which was set up by him especially to inquire into the broadcasting and television industry. He saw fit to completely disregard the recommendations of his Committee in relation to what it considered was the best proposition. The Minister also saw fit to treat the Committee ‘s second choice with the same contempt. He went to something which was not recommended in any way in the report. This is a clear indication of the Government continuing to keep broadcasting and television in politics, not out of it.

For example, the media is critical of what is happening and clause 25 transfers the power from the Secretary of the Department of Post and Telecommunications to the Minister. The Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters was most critical of what was going on because it wants to have this power in the hands of the Minister so that the Ansetts, the Murdochs and those people can bring pressure to bear. So, when the Government talks about taking broadcasting out of politics, that is so much rubbish. The Government is putting broadcasting and television firmly in the hands of the Government and of the Minister who will be susceptible to pressures exercised by the Government’s benefactors, the financiers of the Liberal and Country parties at election time. Incidentally, the Government is afraid to bring in legislation which will require the Liberal and Country parties to disclose that it is the Ansetts, the Murdochs and these people who are financing those parties at election time.

The principles to which I have referred are nowhere better illustrated than in the proposed special broadcasting service which is being set up as an ad hoc response to the failure of this Government to provide a satisfactory structure for ethnic broadcasting. Under the proposed special broadcasting service and the guidelines laid down by the Minister, ethnic broadcasting will be potentially subject to strict political control. It will also be subject to government financing limitations. This Government has shown by its performance that it is prepared to cut funds for any broadcasting service which has a degree of independence. There can be no independence for ethnic broadcasting, either financial or political, under the proposed structure of the special broadcasting service. That service also empowers the Minister to authorise by regulation ethnic television and radio services and to provide broadcasting and television services for such special purposes as are prescribed. This gives the Minister total power to prescribe broadcasting and television programs which are to be provided by the special service.

Under clause 15 of the Bill the Australian Broadcasting Commission is required to have regard to the programs of the special broadcasting service. It is a wide and sweeping power given to the Minister which should not be included in legislation of this Parliament. No Minister who seeks to take broadcasting out of politics should have the powers of prescription of this order. The functions of the special broadcasting service are not clear. Because of community concern they should be spelt out. The technological expansion of broadcasting which is likely to take place, should not take place in the context of statutory guidelines of this kind. In summary, this legislation means that only limited financing is available for the special broadcasting service. The level of such assistance will always be subject to the whims of the Government. The program content is subject to government guidelines and bureaucratic interference.

It is clear that there is to be one set of standards applicable to ethnic broadcasting and another set for other broadcasting services. There will be government regulation for one and substantial self-regulation for the other. The special broadcasting service is to be structured on a part time basis. It is to provide a number of other services such as education broadcasting and Aboriginal programs. The main lessons to be learnt from the experience of ethnic broadcasting to date is the need for financial autonomy and program independence. The aim of a Labor government would be to ensure that both these freedoms are guaranteed. An Australian Labor Party government would ensure that ethnic communities ran their own radio services independent of any government control, other than the overall guidelines which are applicable to all broadcasting services in Australia. The Australian Labor Party is committed to extensive development of the public broadcasting sector. We believe that ethnic radio should be encouraged to develop within the framework of the public sector. Our policy on public broadcasting was decided at the Perth conference this year and it included the following points:

A Labor Government will:

Give financial, technical and administrative support to the establishment of community radio stations in circumstances in which there is a demonstrated need;

provide funds to the Public Broadcasting Association of Australia for specific purposes and on the basis of strict accountability;

ensure that community stations are autonomous in their operations, have sufficient freedom to develop new and innovative forms of programming and reflect the social, political or cultural interests of geographical areas, ethnic groups or non-profit institutions such as co-operative societies, trade unions or educational bodies;

to develop ethnic radio as a facility controlled by ethnic communities themselves, not by Ministers;

5 ) arrange for .community stations to receive advice and assistance from the various federal departments involved in social welfare and community or regional development.

Ethnic broadcasting is an area of demonstrable need within the terms of the Labor Party’s policy. A Labor government will assist financially with the establishment of ethnic broadcasting services. Once this is done it will be open to ethnic communities to determine the content and format of programs which are provided. The other major objections to the Bill which are reflected m numerous clauses of the Bill is the fact that there is no adequate machinery for public participation in broadcasting policy and the administration of broadcasting standards. There is no adequate method of public accountability. Personal interests will have a right to appear before the Tribunal It is not clear whether this means interested members of the public or just persons with a financial interest in broadcasting. In other clauses of the Bill it is quite clear what is meant. Appeals will he from the Broadcasting Tribunal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. But those appeals will only lie at the instigation of a person with a financial interest, that is, a licensee or an owner of a radio or television station. An interested member of the public will not have the right to appeal. The Government has not yet made its attitude clear to the suggestion of the Tribunal that there should be a broadcasting information office to assist members of the public in appearance before the Tribunal.

The Government wants a closed shop in relation to broadcasting, the continuation of the old boy network and the exclusion of the public in decisions about a vital medium. The standard of Australian television and radio programs is of concern to a vast number in the Australian community. Their interest will not be reflected in any way in this legislation. No assistance will be given to those people, either financial or otherwise, to become involved in the system. No method of adequate public accountability will be required of the holders of broadcasting licences. So as to preserve the old boy network, the Bill amends the present provisions concerning pecuniary interests of members of the Tribunal which provides that a person shall not be appointed as a member if he has a direct or indirect interest in a business carried on in Australia which could conflict with his duties as a member. The amending clause provides that a member must dispose of such interests within 14 days of the date of becoming a member. This amendment significantly alters the spirit of the section which was designed to ensure the independence of members of the Tribunal.

For example, Mr Kerry Packer could transfer all his shares to his wife within 14 days and become a board member. There are even com.plaints about the present chairman of the Tri.bunal. The original Bill set out to get people who were interested in broadcasting and television and in community affairs but who did not have any financial interest whatsoever either directly or through their families so that they could carry on as was intended under the Act. That is someone who has a genuine interest and a desire to assist in that industry. The concerns of the British Royal Commission- this is very important to Australia and to the people as a whole; I read them out- are that things may develop in Great Britain as they have developed in Australia. I shall read once again, because it is a good point, one of the comments made by Lord Annan in his report:

In Australia, newspaper interests have gained control of television stations with very sharp repercussions upon political expression and news. Is there a risk of the same thing happening here?

In this case the word ‘here’ refers to the United Kingdom. That is why it is so important that the matter of pecuniary interest should not be tampered with. The integrity and the independence of these tribunals should at all times be maintained and people with a pecuniary interest should not under any circumstances be appointed to the Tribunal.

I draw attention once again to the fact that this Bill has been brought into the Parliament in haste. It has been the result of too much intrusion and too much pressure being exercised by members of the Liberal Party, who have a pecuniary interest, stating what they want to have written into the Bill. Financiers of the Liberal Party have applied too much pressure and have had too much say in the drafting of the legislation. We consider it bad legislation. It is contrary to the public interest, ill-conceived, ill-planned and, in many respects, contrary to the advice given in the Government’s own report which I read to the House earlier. For those reasons I recommend that .honourable members support the amendment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Is the amendment seconded?

Dr Cass:

– I second the amendment.

Mr JULL:
Bowman

– Someone once said that a politician who plays with trains, boats and planes is a man of whom one should be extremely careful. Someone once said of the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) that if an object does not have pistons and steam he is not particularly interested. Now that he has responsibility for the shadow portfolio of post and telecommunications, I was most interested to observe that the same attitude seems to exist in relation to the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill which we are debating this afternoon. I have never in all my life heard so much utter rubbish as that contained in the amendment which he had the hide to move this afternoon and that contained in the statements that he was prepared to make about political interference in the broadcasting and television industry. If one looks at the period between 1972 and 1975, one sees exactly what went on. I refer to the manipulations that were going on behind the scenes under the Labor Government; the establishment of the Department of the Media and the ferretting in which it used to engage. The honourable member for Newcastle talks about interference. It just amazes me.

I wish to refer in my remarks this afternoon to a number of aspects covered in the speech of the honourable member for Newcastle. However, first of all I shall deal with a most delicate area, that of the electronics media. It is one area in which we can not afford to have any political interference whatsoever. In fact, if one goes back through the history of radio and television in Australia- the first 50-odd years of radio and the first 21 years of television- I think one will realise that they have been very exciting years for that industry. From very humble beginnings we have seen it grow into a strong and viable industry that is today providing a service which would be equalled by very few services anywhere else in the world.

To a great degree the radio and television industry was left unhindered in its early years. I suppose that in many ways like Topsy, it just grew, with that free enterprise spirit about which the honourable member for Newcastle was talking. Although located in a country with a small population such as Australia has, it has certainly made its mark on world markets and is continuing to make it mark on world markets. Like Topsy it grew until that heavy hand of bureaucracy was felt in the early 1970s right through to the mid 1970s.

What we should be looking at this afternoon is the next 21 years. The mid 1970s are certainly proving to be the turning point of that industry. It is the decisions that are being made now by this

Government that are shaping what could be a completely new ball game for the radio and television industry in this country in the years to come. Evidence of what is to come is clearly available in the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill which is before this House today.

It is true that the Bill has caused a great deal of soul searching by many government supporters. Sections of the Bill have been debated, discussed and amended for more than seven weeks by the Government back bench committee. It has examined all of its contents. The committee conferred with industry representatives but it conferred also with the public and, of course, the bureaucrats who represent that area of the Postal and Telecommunications Department. It was a most refreshing and satisfying period indeed as far as reviewing this legislation was concerned.

Many people in Australia are interested in this industry. Many people welcomed the prospect of the Green report when it was initiated last year. Although I personally was quite disappointed with some of the end results of the Green committeeit was a document that was filled with a lot of bureaucratic absurdities- it did form the basis for the legislation that is before the House this afternoon. When I say that I refer to such aspects as the combining of transmission facilities. It was downright dangerous to have one organisation in control of every single transmitting device in Australia. That could have put Australia in a complete blackout situation and put our stations completely off the air in the case of industrial trouble. In time of war it could also have proved to be quite disastrous.

In any event, the Green report did lead to the establishment of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and did lead ultimately to the introduction of this legislation this afternoon. The establishment of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is a move that in principle should be welcomed by us all. It provides an opportunity to get the industry out into the public arena and away from any form of political control. Political interference in any form within the public media,’ especially the electronics media, must be stopped at all costs. The Tribunal was appointed and it set about holding public hearings.

Its report finally came “down. Once again, I think the ramifications of this report should be viewed with a very special kind of concern by everyone in this House. If nothing else, these two reports prove one thing, namely that the public has an incredibly strong interest in what it sees and hears on the airwaves and that it is not completely happy with the services that it is rereiving. That sentiment was expressed in the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal s report.

The question often asked is whether television management can in fact be trusted to cater for the demands of the Australian listening and viewing public. It is often asked whether it should be necessary that there be complete government dominance so that people can get to see what it allegedly wants them to watch. Can a government in fact shape public taste so that programs do become acceptable to the public? I venture to say that the government initiated experiments during the time of the Labor Government, especially those in the field of children’s television, have proved to be nothing more than a complete and total disaster. The reason for that must be the fact that those experiments were dictated to the industry, without any consultation, without any experimentation and without any research being conducted. The best guide to what the public wants is what the public will accept. It is an established fact that if the public does not want a particular program, it will not view it. When that happens the program virtually automatically goes off the air.

The legislation before the House this afternoon is the first step in the major re-organisation of the television and radio industry in all its forms. Its introduction has been brought about by pressure applied by the public through those reports. It is a piece of legislation with which we must be very careful indeed. A number of aspects contained in the legislation will enable the public to have its say on what course the industry will take in the future.

As a result of the legislation the Tribunal will have the power to grant, to renew, to suspend and to revoke licences in conjunction with public hearings. Obviously there will be protection in relation to confidential and private hearings in those cases where the evidence is considered to be such that it would be detrimental for it to be heard in public. That is an important point. But the principle followed will be that evidence should be heard in public to the greatest possible degree. Reports of hearings conducted by the Tribunal will come before this House within IS days of the Minister’s receipt of them. I believe that aspect of the legislation is important also.

The hearings will cover not only the licences of commercial radio and television stations but also the public broadcast area. Under the present Act licences are renewed annually. This will change with the new legislation. The renewal of licences on an annual basis is in fact an absolute farce. It is virtually automatic that a licence is renewed every 12 months. In the case of commercial television stations especially, it is particularly obnoxious. Those stations often commit millions of dollars annually for programs both of Australian and foreign origin. Quite often if they abide by the true letter of the law they do not know whether they will be on the air a month later to telecast programs for which they have committed themselves. I think it is important that licensees get that guaranteed length of tenure of licence. It is important for the planning.

I suppose, looking at the background of the industry and at some of the things that are happening at the moment, one of the most pleasant things that is happening is the acceptability of Australian programs and the fact that Australian television producers and film producers are making their mark on the world scene. Obviously this should be encouraged as much as we possibly can. Really if a licence is renewed only on a 12-month basis, who is prepared to provide the millions of dollars which it takes to a fully fledged television program without having a guarantee that they will be on air in 12 months? In fact, in the case of major television productions, the time involved with preparing, the scripting, the casting and the organising of a program can be 18 months or two years. It can be that long before a single frame of film can be shot. They need that length of time to have the guarantee that that investment of millions of dollars in a television program will in fact come to fruition. They need some guarantee of return on that investment. It is important that we realise that fact, because the Australian industry is making its mark on the world television scene. Australian programs are winning awards overseas. They are being exported. Obviously, with the revenue which is generated overseas, it is an opportunity for the industry to continue to grow.

By virtue of this Bill licences can be renewed, and should be renewed, for three years. There is a proviso. It is that there have been no major breaches of the Act. It is true that there has been a great deal of debate as to whether this period should be five years or three years as it is at the moment. One can have a little sympathy for the major producing television stations which are looking for a five-year period so that they have this period in which they can plan and produce quality television programs. I do not really think lat the five-year period would be relevant in the case of radio stations or indeed a lot of the country television stations or the minor capital city stations. The producing stations probably have quite a good point for requesting that fiveyear period.

It is interesting also that if there are breaches there will be a warning period of 12 months for the station. I believe that is important for the stability of the industry as well. Very big investments are made by many companies across Australia in production facilities. It would be rather scaring indeed if such a company knew that it could be virtually shot to pieces after six months because of some minor breach of the Regulations. If we are to promote quality Australian productions we must allow those stations that tenure of licence. The provisions of the Bill provide a variation in the period of licence if the station has been in breach of the Regulations. In such a case a licence may be granted for a lesser period. The good thing is that it is that minimum of 12 months which I just mentioned. This in itself, I believe, is a very tough provision, but at least it is guaranteed now that there is that threeyear licence if there are no major breaches. There is also a safety valve for the licensees in as much as there is provision for appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if the full licence period of three years is not granted. That is one way of taking the politics out of the granting of radio and television licences.

The suspension or revocation of a licence is a major move indeed. Under the terms of this Bill licences can be taken away if there is noncompliance with the licence or if, in the public interest, the Tribunal feels that the licence should be taken away. One thing which I would dearly love the Minister to give us is a definition of those three words ‘in the public interest’, because their ramifications could be a little wide. I am sure he has an explanation of those words. A licence can also be taken away if the licence fees have not been paid. The appeal provisions are in clause 28. The suspension of a licence would be an incredible fine, especially to a commercial operator. For a minor breach it could be off the air for up to seven days. That would effectively mean a loss of up to $500,000 for a capital city station if such a move were made. Obviously this would be one of the most severe fines imposed on any section of industry anywhere in Australia. We are warned that next year we will be seeing a completely rewritten broadcasting Bill. A couple of those points may be taken up then.

The Government has made its commitment to the ethnic groups in our community, a very real commitment, to establish a full and viable ethnic broadcasting service. This Bill provides for the establishment of the Special Broadcasting Servicea multilingual service- which would incorporate the activities of the existing ethnic services through 2EA and 3EA. We know the history of the approach to the Australian Broadcasting Commission to take over all ethnic services. Most representatives of the ethnic committees have welcomed the establishment of the SBS. It will be an entirely new and independent commission not only to provide for our ethnic communities but also in the future perhaps to provide some special purpose broadcasts if the demand is there. This could of course include such concepts as a university of the air, or special interest programs such as programs for blind people. However, initially the SBS will be used to produce ethnic programs, to present them and to transmit them.

There is provision for a television facility. It is possible to bring that in under the terms of the Special Broadcasting Service. One of the most fascinating aspects of the SBS aspect of the legislation is the funding of it. I was interested to hear what the honourable member for Newcastle did not know about this aspect of the Bill. The SBS will be empowered to fund its operations by the broadcasting of sponsored programs, by the charging of provisions and facilities and by the sale of programs and rights or interests in programs. These avenues of funding are in addition to moneys appropriated annually by this Parliament to the SBS. It will not, however, derive revenue by means of normal commercial advertising. That is quite an interesting aspect. As I understand the situation with regard to the Special Broadcasting Service, the right to advertise will consist of a billboard type advertising approach. In other words, an announcer would come on at the beginning of a program and say that the next half hour is brought to the listeners by a particular company. Perhaps it is not over important in this case, but it is interesting to contemplate. By the time the infrastructure is set up to provide that type of advertising- when salesmen are appointed and have to be paid, when scheduling clerks come in-with the small audience that the SBS would have, would any profit be made by the SBS through its advertising? It would seem to me that it could be a complete and utter waste of money to set up such an infrastructureby the time three or four staff members were paid for the simple task of putting a billboard at the beginning and end of a program.

The SBS is a very real commitment to the ethnic groups in our community. It was the policy of this Government during the 1975 election campaign. We have honoured our promise. Indeed the ethnic groups are pleased, I believe, that the ethnic services are not going to the ABC. They are now out in the open. The ethnic communities have their own network. I have been speaking to many ethnic groups, not only in my electorate but also in other parts of Australia. They are very pleased indeed mat now they have this facility set up.

The Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill is very complex legislation. Its consequences are far-reaching. Most importantly, it gets the granting of television licences out into the arena. It gets them out there so that the public can have its say. That is important. The airwaves are certainly public property. I believe that in the past the people who ran the airwaves were fairly responsible. Now the public, through the hearings of the Tribunal, has a chance to have its say. It has also been confirmed that public broadcasting is a very real thing in Australia and that sector of broadcasting will be able to have its say too. The amendment moved by the honourable member for Newcastle is complete and utter nonsense. Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the Bill.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

-Before I get on to some of the details of the Broadcasting Television Amendment Bill in supporting the Opposition amendment, I should like to deal with something that appeared early in the second reading speech of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson). He mentioned that the Government had sought to come to grips with the role of the public broadcasting sector and claimed that this was in contrast with the casual, incompetent manner in which the Labor Government had approached it. With all due respect, that is humbug, and the Minister knows it. The fact is that approximately 100 applications have now been received for public broadcasting licences and the Minister has done absolutely nothing about them. In the 23 years the Liberal and Country Parties were in government before the Australian Labor Party was in office they did absolutely nothing not only for public broadcasting but also for commercial broadcasting. No new licences have been issued in Melbourne or Sydney since about 1 935, as I recall.

In the three short years the Australian Labor Party was in office it managed to license two fine music stations- one in Melbourne and one in Sydney- and 12 or 14 tertiary education institutions. Let me be technically correct. We approved the idea and indicated that we would give approval on the basis of the agreement with the Governor-General for the dissolution of the

Parliament. The incoming government subsequently issued the licences. But the Labor Government took the initiative. Labor also licensed radio station 3CR, a limited commercial station, a community broadcasting station. We tried new programming approaches with stations 2JJ and 3ZZ and the two ethnic stations, 2EA and 3EA. The achievement of the coalition parties since coming back into power, on top of thenprevious 23 years of non-activity, has to been to go backwards, with the closure of 3ZZ, the gutting, if I may use that term, of 2EA and 3EA and no further action on the tertiary education institution licences. Licensees of such stations are all anxious about the possibility that they might well lose their licences. They have no sense of security at all. So much for the Minister’s claim. It was sheer humbug.

I come to the essence of this Bill. It has been claimed by the Minister that the responsibility for licensing and regulation functions in the broadcasting area should rest with an autonomous statutory authority. We agree completely. The Minister claimed that the point of that exercise, to use his terms, is to depoliticise the broadcasting system. Just how is this accomplished? The Minister mentioned that one action is to transfer the broadcasting planning responsibility from the Secretary of the Postal and Telecommunications Department to the Minister. What does that really mean? In his speech, he also said:

The Minister will initiate the calling of licence applications as pan of the planning process and then refer the applications received to the Tribunal for determination. In inviting applications, the Minister will provide specifications for the particular licence. These will indicate the nature of the service to be provided, the area to be served, the purpose of the licence, and other technical matters. These specifications will become, upon granting of the licence, conditions of the licence, and m addition to the conditions set by the Tribunal . . .

If that is not direct political control, I do not know what is.

We are opposing this Bill. If I ever had that power, I would be perfectly happy to assume that I could do whatever I liked with the broadcasting system. The Minister knows that. That is exactly what that power grants to the Minister. Everyone knows that anyone can call for tenders for something but so specify the nature of the requirements that it is possible to determine who in fact will get the contract. By these sorts of powers that the Minister is taking unto himself, he can so specify the conditions of the licence that there would be no doubt that only one applicant would ever qualify. Knowing whom the Government would want to favour, the Minister could easily fashion the specifications as I have suggested. If the Minister does not think that he will do it, he should not be sure that some future Minister might not do it. I am not talking in party political terms. What I say applies whether it be a Minister from our side or the Liberal-Country Party side. I am making a plain, non-party political point I make the simple statement that those powers in the hands of the Minister are the antithesis of what he is claiming this legislation is supposed to achieve. It is the epitome of politicisation quite the opposite to what the Minister claims he is seeking to achieve.

The Minister makes the point that granting of the actual licences should be in the hands of an independent statutory authority once all the hedges have been set by the Minister. We approve of that. We think that is a good idea too. The Minister mentions that the activities of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal will as far as possible be conducted in public and the public will have substantial access. We agree. We say too that we would have a Broadcasting Tribunal. The honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) has tabled our policy in this area. I point out that we state quite explicitly that proceedings will be conducted in public, with interested parties and members of the public being entitled to make submissions regarding conditions of licences and the functions of the stations. Reports will be tabled in the Parliament and be public documents. The Minister does not specify any of that. As far as he is concerned, his reports can be secret and remain secret.

He refers to interested parties, which begs the question highlighted by the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Jull). He said that there was a doubt about what that really means. It could, of course, refer to ordinary mortals in the community, who after all are interested. They will tune m, listen to or notice the stations. They could well be precluded from having any say at all in these hearings because it may be claimed that they have an interest. The usual definition of interest is direct financial interest. Of course these people certainly do not have that. So I would claim that the terminology of this Bill positively excludes ordinary members of the public who will not be able to claim any direct financial interest in the functioning of a particular station. It limits the interest solely to those who may be potential applicants for or participants in the licences.

Let me go on to the question of appeals. The Minister makes the point that we have to be sure that justice not only is done but appears to be done. The Minister says that the Bill provides for appeal- again there is a very interesting limitationby licensees to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against any decisions of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. He says with his hand on his heart that there must be redress for broadcasters who feel that they have been unfairly treated by the Tribunal, no doubt because the Tribunal m a limited public hearing has decided that they have not complied with the requirements, are not providing the service they ought to provide and should have their licence taken away. These people will be allowed to whinge to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. But how about interested members of the public? I do not refer to those with a financial interest. The people to whom I refer do not have any financial interest but a different interest. I instance groups who are concerned about the inadequacy of children’s television now. They have no financial interests but a very deep interest in what our rubbish television is doing to their children. Will they be able to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against what they consider to be an unreasonable decision by the Tribunal to allow a nonsense-producing station licensee to continue to operate his station. No, not at all. The Minister is concerned only about the financial interest. He is not concerned about the community interest at all.

Those points cover our objection that the Bill puts too much power in the hands of the Minister. I hope I have shown that in the design of the whole network the Minister has paramount control. There are to be no public hearings about where the need should be, as we have postulated in our program, which points out that we would establish a broadcasting advisory council composed of representatives from the national, commercial and public broadcasting sectors and community interest groups. It will have the function of planning, not the Minister and not even the Department. We objected to the amendment made to the law recently because it gave the power of planning to the Department. In our view that is not good enough either. As I have just mentioned, it should be the prerogative of national, commercial and public broadcasting sectors and community interest groups. That is the group that should assess the community needs and propose plans. The Government can always say no if it wants to. I admit that we cannot overcome that hurdle, because ultimately the Government has to provide the funding; but at least there should be an input from a diverse community group such as that representing the industry and interested sections of the community. The Minister is not allowing that at all.

He is limiting the whole planning procedure to the Minister himself.

The Government has acknowledged that there are other areas that can capture our concern. The Government has been driven to it because it objected to the moves we made to license the ethnic radio stations and the various community radio stations, namely, the music broadcasting stations. The Government objected most vehemently to licences being issued to tertiary education institutions. Interestingly, while in opposition, the present Government claimed that that action was illegal. When it came to power it found that this was not so; in fact, it proceeded to issue the licences. So much for the Government’s nonsensical denigration of me when I was advocating and approving the issuing of those licences. The Government is caught. These licences have been accepted in the community and they are proving to be popular. The Government did not have the guts to deal with the matter in the way in which we did by continuing to make some assessments of community need and to issue the licences. The Government stalled and now it has come out with this new proposal for a Special Broadcasting Service.

Let us analyse precisely what it means. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications, in his second reading speech, said:

We inherited from the previous Administration a poorly organised, inadequate, multilingual broadcasting service and have sought to respond to the need by Australian’s ethnic communities for a more comprehensive broadcasting service.

You poor darlings! The Government suffered all those years before we came to power in 1972. 1 take it that the period before 1972 was the dark ages and we must not inquire who was running the country then. Let Government supporters not forget that it was the present Government which was in office then. The ethnic community started building up in the 1950s, not in the 1960s or the 1970s. The Government had a hell of a long time to consider the ethnic community’s needs but it did nothing at all about it

I repeat that during the two years for which this Government has been in office, all it has done has been to muzzle those two stations. It has not done anything positive about the matter. It is sheer hypocrisy! Now the Government is going to do something about it. It is going to set up this Special Broadcasting Service which will provide multilingual broadcasting and, if authorised by regulations, it will provide multilingual television services. I do not object to that in the sense that, of course, we would have sought to modify the legislation to allow for the implementation of a more comprehensive program like this. But the Government goes further, and this is where we become worried. This Special Broadcasting Service will also provide broadcasting and television services for such special purposes as are prescribed. I wonder what that could mean. Let us refer back to the Minister’s second reading speech where he was discussing the functions of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. He said:

The Bill also amends the charter of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to require it, in the performance of its functions, to have regard to the services provided by the Special Broadcasting Service.

The Government has a beautiful rationalisation for this:

This amendment is simply intended to avoid duplication of activities by the ABC and the SBS.

Beautiful! But what does that really mean? I suggest it would facilitate the muzzling of the ABC by giving any potentially controversial ABC innovations to the SBS to implement. For example, in the case of 2ZZ the Government has already done so. That station was our attempt to set up a community access station under the unbrella of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. What is more, it was proving to be popular with the various interest groups in the community who felt that they never had access to the radio waves and also to the ethnic communities. This was a very unusual unity of interest because for the first time both particular interest groups had access to a station where they could put over their own programs.

The station 2ZZ was even more accessible than the EA stations. The Government was terrified by the prospect It was afraid of what might happen. It could see the ABC running rampant with lots of innovations that allowed the expression of points of view which might be embarrassing to it. Never mind whether or not people had legitimate points of view. The Government was afraid of* open discussions and so it turned the station off; it muzzled it This has been done already. This particular Special Broadcasting Service the Government is proposing will legitimise what the Government is out to do. All the Government will have to do to muzzle any adventure by the ABC that may prove to be embarrassing because it is too open to the diverse points of view in the community- views that may be threatening the Government’s establishment concepts- will be to direct the Special Broadcasting Service to institute, say, a talk-back program or a public affairs program. The Government, having got the Special Broadcasting Service strictly under its control- it has not even a semblance of the impartiality that the ABC has because of the way in which the SBS has been set up- and seeing that the Terry Lane show was getting too popular for its liking, could direct its Special Broadcasting Service to broadcast it, no doubt under the strict guidelines that the Government will provide. Because the SBS is providing it, by implication, the ABC has to shut down, has to shut up shop, has to withdraw.

It might be said that I am drawing a long bow. I am not suggesting that the present Minister for Post and Telecommunications would do so, but he has to admit that this legislation is giving that sort of power to a Minister. It is a power that could be potentially disastrous. I do not like to denigrate myself but some of the Minister’s hangers-on called me a little Goebbels. Let us carry that a little further. I do not want to embrace that description of myself, but if it were true, under the power given to the Minister in this legislation, if I were of that mind, I would be able to do the very things the Minster would not want done, the very things he criticised me for trying to do and which of course I was not doing at all. I am simply trying to point out to him, if it is possible in this mad place, in a non-party political way- theoretically this is meant to be a place where we can air issues in a non-partisan sense if we can and if we want to; and I am trying to do that- that this legislation does give an individual the powers I am sure the Minister would not want somebody, maybe such as myself, to have. I can certainly think of a lot of people whom I would not want to have these particular powers. So for those reasons we are putting our amendments to the legislation in the terms put by the honourable member for Newcastle.

I conclude by making the point that we are not taking a negative approach. We have asked that the Bill be redrafted. Now we would like to give the Government some hints on how that might be done- by giving it our own policy. What we discerned when we were in power was that there was an awakening in the community to the importance of communications. We were aware of the fact that more people felt that they had something to say about what the system ought to be about. We were aware of the fact that the commercial sector and the national sector do not necessarily cater for all the divergent needs of the community. We cannot expect the commercial sector to provide for minority interests for the very real reasons that the honourable member for Bowman pointed out. Some of the smaller stations, if they are going to maintain themselves with the sort of advertising that was allowedwhat is called billboard advertising- might be financially ruined if they tried, because of their very small advertising potential. I agree with that.

In other words, particular interest groups, small groups in the community, need something other than the commercial sector or the national sector which we now have. We were advocating the establishment of a community radio area to license small stations that would not be interesting from the advertiser’s point of view. But of course the commercial sector has seen the danger that this might well cut down on the potential audience for the large commercial stations. Of course it would. Even if the ethnic stations are successful, they will withdraw a lot of the potential commercial licensee audiences. That is the rub; that is the problem. I do not think it can be overcome in the way in which the Government is trying to overcome it. In fact the Government is going to insist that these special interest stations keep themselves. They will not succeed in doing so.

The other avenue for the expansion of free expression which we are proposing is the establishment of a new national television channel which we have called the electric gallery. We are aware of the fact that there are lots of television programs made by small interest groups in the community that would be of interest to the whole community but which never get to air. The commercial channels cannot and will not put them to air for a whole variety of reasons, not the least of which is that they are afraid they would not get a big enough audience. Of course the national channels will not put them to air because they have their programs lined up for ages ahead. So we are suggesting this electric gallery where, financed by the Government, these interest groups could put on the programs.

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

Mr MILLAR:
Wide Bay

-Before passing on to the more substantial elements of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1977 1 would like to reply to the honourable member for Maribrynong (Dr Cass). It might surprise him to hear me say that I do not question his sincerity in espousing all of the potential evils that might spring from the power vested in the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to determine the nature and quality of the broadcasting and television systems we will have in this country. It seems to me that this device is the only insurance we have against those evils coming about because the Minister has no autocratic power to determine policies on the nature of broadcasting systems. He must first satisfy the Cabinet and he must satisfy this Parliament that things should be as proposed. More importantly, this Parliament must satisfy the people it represents that its actions in this regard can be defended. I would be loth to accept a situation in which this Parliament should not be answerable to the people of Australia as to how not only matters concerning broadcasting and television but all matters pertaining to a living society should be conducted.

All the things that the honourable member for Maribyrnong proposed as evil possibilities could be perpetrated by an instrumentality if the power were handed over to it. It seems perfectly logical to me that the elected Government should determine the nature of our systems and, having done that, to hand over to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal the power to apply the statutes- not to usurp from the elected representatives the responsibility for determining the nature of the system but to apply the criteria determined by this Government as to the system we should have. As previously mentioned by the honourable memer for Bowman (Mr Jull), the Government parties communications committee, under the chairmanship of the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King), has applied itself to this matter at great length and depth. It has received a great response from the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson), who has been receptive to suggestions as to how the proposed legislation might be brought into better form.

It is also impressive that this Bill, probably more than any other Bill, has provided access to interested parties over a long time to put their point of view fairly. I think it is also noteworthy that the Minister has gained some modest acclaim from those interested parties for the sensitivity and sympathy with which he has dealt with their propositions. The speakers for the Opposition, and the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) in particular seem to take great umbrage at the fact that the establishment of the Special Broadcasting Service would in some way deny the ethnic groups in Australia their due. I feel that it is a continuing indictment of this Parliament that we should perpetrate an attitude which suggests that ethnic groups should be any less than Australians. The suggestion that they should continually be contained in isolation within their ethnic characteristics seems to deny the very purpose for which they may have come to this country in the first place- presumably to become citizens of our land. Certainly the means should be provided to facilitate their transition from citizens of their former countries to citizens of Australia- not calling upon them to abandon all that is good and commendable from their cultures. We can stand only to profit from the introduction of those qualities into this land.

The whole thrust of ethnic radio should be to facilitiate the assimilation of these people into the Australian society- not the subjugation of those people, but their assimilation. To suggest that this Parliament should hand over to any body at all the determination of the future of the people within those groups or sectors seems to be a great abrogation of the responsibilities of this Parliament. There is no question that under the Special Broadcasting Service ample opportunity will exist for those requirements of the ethnic groups to be met. I think that the Government is to be commended for substituting the term ‘multi-lingual broadcasting’ for the term ‘ethnic broadcasting’. The latter suggests that the ethnic element must be a permanent feature of this land and this pre-supposes that immigration will be a continuing thing at the levels we have seen previously and that we will have a continuing quantum of new Australians within our community. It may well be the case that multi-lingual broadcasts are all-accommodating. No difficulty is anticipated in meeting the ambitions of the ethnic groups. Indeed, the establishment of the Special Broadcasting Service has been welcomed by those groups and the Government quite properly has met with their approbation.

The Special Broadcasting Service also provides for an expansion of activities in the broadcasting and television field to meet other needs of this nation. A university of the air, Aboriginal services, broadcasts for the blind- all these things have distinct possibilities and this Government is sensitive to its responsibility in that area. The honourable member for Maribyrnong quite correctly pointed out that the previous Administration had been very active in the matter of issuing licences, in distinct contrast with the record over a considerable period of previous Liberal and National Country Party governments. What he overlooked was the fact that the Australian Labor Party’s activities in that field did not necessarily meet with the approbation of the Australian people. It is all very well to do something but, unless it meets with popular consensus, rather than being acclaimed for what it might have done, the government should be condemned. I think it would be a wise course of action in the area of public broadcasting to adopt the process of gradualness because it would be a very simple thing, with the best enthusiasm in the world, to embark precipitately on the issue of licences, only to find because of their inadequacies proven by time, if that should be the case, that a mischief had been effected which could be very difficult to undo.

The Government is not insensitive to meeting the needs of public broadcasting and all other facets of the broadcasting system but is bringing to it a responsibility which, under the previous Administration, was conspicuous by its absence. In addressing oneself to a Bill of this nature one should be aware that broadcasting and television services in Australia are not restricted to the great metropolitan areas. This year the weight and volume of the operations in those localities tended to put pressure on the Government to restrict the breadth of its thinking. It has been most essential in this instance that thought be given to rural and provincial services which may well have been swamped if the provisions of this Bill had given too great a latitude to the metropolitan stations. In the case of translators and relays, very particular care is necessary to ensure that commercial operators and indeed public broadcasters in the remoter areas are not seriously disadvantaged. The industry has put forward most persuasive submissions as to how this objective might be achieved.

But it should not be presumed that the Government feels itself bound to respond to the commercial interests in this case. Of course there is a commercial influence. This Government believes in the private enterprise system and that necessarily implies a responsibility to ensure that, within reasonable parameters, the opportunity continues to exist for those operations to attain a reasonable profitability. Because profitability is the operative term, the Government cannot rely heavily or exclusively on the advice it may receive from commercial interests. If profitability has prevailed, it necessarily follows that commercial interests have met the requirements of the market place. It raises an interesting facet in the matter of self-regulation. I must confess that I am intrigued at the possibilities inherent in that proposal. If commercial interests must meet the market taste and demand, it necessarily follows that if they fail to supply what the market demands, their profitability will diminish. That brings us to an egg and chicken situation. If, as the public demonstrates, it has a capacity to be titillated by the bizarre or the improper, or perhaps even the obscene, the market situation demands that that appetite must be catered for.

Mr Crean:

-Why does it?

Mr MILLAR:

– Because of the cash register, my friend. The Government certainly should have the right to govern whether or not this demand will be accommodated. It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that within the Act it retains sufficient power to see that norms and standards of decency are maintained. It is not to be restrictive to the point of denying people the right to exercise imagination and initiative, or to fall back on what has served us well. The Government must maintain an independent stance in this area so that it is in a position to determine the nature of broadcasting and television services within this country. It is argued that this Bill is bringing politics into broadcasting rather than taking it out of broadcasting. Really, this is rather trite because it is often argued that nothing is free from politics. It depends entirely on the connotations or the term. If it is implied that politics, of necessity, must embody an evil, there is little point in striving to reach a level of purity and responsibility in what we do. There must be a political consideration in all matters concerning broadcasting because politics represents the views of the people. Of course there will be a divergence of view but there must be a continuing sensitivity to the political climate, the political view, to ensure that our political establishment can be provided with the opportunity to go about its business without any undue stress or pressure from instrumentalities or devices which may be established which would subvert the functioning of democratic parliament. Any government has the responsibility to ensure that that situation is maintained.

People who feel some apprehension about certain ingredients of the Bill express some reservations as to whether the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, or an alternative Minister or a replacement Minister, should have the power to exercise his own personal brand of mischief. All honourable members will appreciate that should there be a change of government, it is well within the capacity of that Minister and that government to introduce legislation which may achieve its objectives. It may well be argued that there is small logic in predisposing a situation which would facilitate the ambitions of a government which may come into office, different from that which introduced the legislation. It is a matter of understandable concern to the people who, from their lack of understanding, may express that doubt but the people of a nation are continually at the mercy of the government in office at the time. This, of course, is a most potent exhortation to people to address themselves to the quality of the government, the form of the government, to keep these matters in mind. This comes back to the views expressed by the honourable member for Maribyrnong that all the Government might do will not necessarily meet with the approbation of the people. There comes a time for the people to make a judgment, and the judgment that was demonstrated on a date painfully familiar to the honourable member could well have signified that there was some considerable disquiet in the mind of the public about some of the measures introduced by the previous Administration with regard to broadcasting and television.

On the matter of public input, the honourable member for Maribyrnong put a persuasive point that perhaps there is not as full an access as one might like for the individua, the public and the minority groups and sections. That is not without persuasion, but we must also be cautious there because what, in effect in a population of 14 million, represents a responsible and substantial minority view? How often do we find within our society, even in a small rural community or city, that in any association or organisation it always falls back to the hard workers or to the few who have a particular interest or attitude to undertake the burden. This comes forward as an expression of view from a sector. In actual fact, it is not necessarily so. It could be an expression of view of some people who, with commendable motivation, have an attitude. These are the people who appear before tribunals and bodies of inquiry, and it would be fallacious for this Parliament to assume automatically that these viewpoints put forward by the minorities and individuals must necessarily require the Government to adopt them into the broadcasting and television systems. It must certainly take note of the points. This Parliament, this society, tends more and more to adopt the attitude that if someone somewhere jumps up and insists that something or other be done, we are bound to do it. This is something we must resist. We have the Festival of Light. I canvass no argument on the quality or merit of its stance.

Dr Cass:

– It is entitled to express it.

Mr MILLAR:

-It is entitled to express its views.

Dr Cass:

– Not on this. It will not be able to.

Mr MILLAR:

-It will certainly be entitled to express its views. There is no question about its right to express its view, but to what extent it prevails will depend on the objectivity with which this Parliament addresses itself to the matter. The Bill is a timely Bill, notwithstanding the fact that the Opposition argues that it has been introduced with indecent haste. It is necessary that we bring some order to the situation while waiting on the self regulation provisions at a later time. This Bill, when passed, although fully adequate in itself is subject to amendment as circumstances require the Government to do so. I certainly oppose the amendment moved by the Opposition. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I rise to speak in support of the amendment so ably moved-

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Question put:

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

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

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

Proposed new clause 2a.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr.Drummond) -I call the honourable member for Wentworth.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I am sorry, the honourable member for Mackellar.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I shall be Senator Wentworth, but at the present I am the member for Mackellar. I move:

After clause 2, insert the following new clause: 2A. After section 6 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: 6A. ( 1 ) There shall be a Broadcasting Council consisting of 20 persons nominated by the Minister, of whom not more than half shall be connected with the broadcasting-television industry.

In selecting members connected with the broadcastingtelevision industry, the Minister shall have regard to the views of the industry as a whole.

In selecting members not connected with the broadcastingtelevision industry, the Minister shall have regard to the views of socially concerned and religious bodies, as well as to the general views of the public.

Members shall be appointed for a term of 1 year, but may be removed sooner from office by regulation.

5 ) The Minister may prescribe procedures for the sittings and operations of the Broadcasting Council. ‘.

If honourable members look at clause 6 of the Bill they will see that reference is made to a broadcasting council. Although there is power, apparently in the regulations, to set up a broadcasting council there is no direction in the Bill as to what it will consist of. I think that this is entirely wrong. The broadcasting council- this really follows on from the reports which have been presented anterior to this Bill- should be representative not only of the stations but also of the public, and particularly representative of those concerned social and religious organisations which have a very proper interest in matter to be broadcast.

We should have a broadcasting council. It is a matter of great importance. I suggest, firstly, that the broadcasting council should consist of 20 persons nominated by the Minister, of whom not more than half should be connected with the broadcasting and television industry. It will be an advisory council only. It will not have legislative or regulatory powers. Secondly, I suggest that in selecting members connected with the broadcasting and television industry, the Minister should have regard to the views of the industry as a whole. I think that is only fair. Thirdly, I suggest that in selecting members not connected with the broadcasting and television industry, the Minister should have regard to the views of socially concerned and religious bodies, as well as to the general views of the public. I think this is of extreme significance.

The effect of television, or what I call the competition in pornography, has to be stopped.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What would you do about it, Senator?

Mr WENTWORTH:

-The first thing to do is appoint a reasonable advisory committee. Let us look at this seriously. Sex sells goods over television, in the Press and everywhere. So the stations, whether they like it or not, are now engaged in a pornography race, each being compelled by the needs of their own viability to engage in as much pornography as they can get away with. They are forced to do so. If they do not their competitors will take away their market. It is exactly the same kind of thing with an arms race. There is competition in arms. Unless there is some regulation, everybody has to engage in the arms race because otherwise they cannot survive. We have an arms race in the world because there is no real regulatory body. If a country is to survive it has to have defence. The position in the world today is that countries have to engage in the arms race whether they like it or not.

So in this less comprehensive field of broadcasting and television, the companies are compelled, by the requirements of their viability, to engage in a pornography race. It is important that there should be some kind of regulation not just in the interests of the community, although that is the overriding thing, but also in the interests of the companies themselves. If there are no regulations, for reasons of viability each company has to go as far as it can in the pornography race. This is a general trend in the industry. The standards of the industry, as far as pornography are concerned, are going down and down. By the relentless force of competition those standards will continue to be pressed down unless there is some kind of regulation of them.

The first thing to do, although it is not the only thing to do, is to have a proper broadcasting council. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) agrees with this in a sense because clause 6 of the Bill contains provision for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to consult with a broadcasting council if one exists. But this is not good enough. I think it is unprecedented for any Act of Parliament to provide for consultation with a council which has no constitution and no existence in law or in fact. Perhaps the Minister can correct me but I do not think that a provision like this has ever been put into an Act of Parliament. Because anything like this has never been put into an Act of Parliament before, I think we ought to see that the anomaly is corrected. We should give to the Minister a direction as to how this broadcasting council is to be constituted. I hope that the House will see the reason of this. I hope that there will be in the House sufficient people of goodwill who realise the extreme dangers which are being pressed on the whole of our community by reason of this inevitable competition in pornography which we are forcing on the broadcasting and television stations because we do not give any rules to the game.

I am not saying that I blame the stations. They have to live. We are creating conditions under which the stations cannot live without engaging in this competition in pornography. Let us get rid of this undesirable situation and let us have regulations which are to the benefit of all the stations. That will remove the competition in pornography, but much more importantly- I will speak more about this when we come to a later amendment which I propose to move to the Bill- we should hot destroy the community. We are in fact destroying it by exposing it to the results of this kind of competition in pornography.

The House must realise that we are in control of the broadcasting media, the television media. We have to realise our responsibility for what we are doing to the community by our failure to act. I will speak with more relevance when addressing myself to an amendment I wish to move later. For the present let me concentrate on this aspect. It is unprecedented that we have to put into an Act a reference to a broadcasting council which is unconstituted. As far as I know, there is nothing like it in Australian law. Let us cure this anomaly by laying down the rules under which the council should be constituted.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Government rejects the proposed new clause. I wish to thank the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) for his interest. We have had the report of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on self regulation. It touches this particular area. Any acceptance of proposed new clause 2a would pre-empt the Government’s consideration of that Tribunal report which addresses itself to the broadcasting council. It suggests as an alternative a broadcasting information office. The Government will consider early in the next year that Tribunal report, as well as the submissions we have received from the community and from interested organisations. Any amendments which may flow on from that consideration will be examined at that time. Therefore, the Government cannot accept the proposed new clause.

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

– I wish to make only a couple of comments in regard to the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill. Firstly, I will not be voting in the Committee stage. The main reason for that is that I am a director of a radio station and I have a pecuniary interest in a television station. I therefore feel that it would be far wiser for me not to vote on this Bill. I completely disagree with many aspects of the Bill. One of the disappointments is that there is almost more socialisation in this Bill brought forward by this Government than there ever was under the previous Labor Minister.

I think the amendments moved by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) give food for thought. They highlight some of the problems and difficulties of the Bill. I hope that the Government will give deeper and further consideration to the aspects and factors relating to this Bill. At some later stage we might have brought in a Bill which is more favourable to the public, the industry and the authorities.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I appreciate very much the reluctance of the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock) to vote on this legislation in the circumstances. It is proper, I think, that he should refrain from voting because of his pecuniary interest. However, I am grateful for his comments. I do not agree with the suggestion made by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson).

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clause 3 (Pecuniary interests).

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– The Opposition opposes clause 3, which reads:

A member who, on the date on which he becomes a member, has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a business carried on in Australia or in a body corporate carrying on such a business, being an interest that could be in conflict with his duties as a member, shall dispose of the interest within 14 days after that date.

One of the things about which I am a little concerned in relation to what is going on behind the scenes is that the Government wrote into the

Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act (No. 2) 1976-that was Act No. 187 of 1976-an amendment which required non-appointment. The relevant section of the Act reads:

A person shall not be appointed as a member if he has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a business carried on in Australia, or in a body corporate carrying on such a business, being an interest that could be in conflict with his duties as a member.

The Opposition is completely in accord with the amendment moved by the Government 12 months ago. We are worried about this matter. I would like the Minister in his reply to tell us why the Government is now amending its own legislation, softening up its own legislation in a way which gets away from the independence about which we on this side of the House are so concerned. We are concerned that the whole broadcasting and television system be as independent as possible, that it be beyond government control, beyond the position where people who have a pecuniary interest can be appointed to a policymaking position. The information I have is that the Government is having some trouble in appointing some of its party members. In order to achieve that it has had to introduce this amendment.

As I said in my speech at the second reading stage, the legislation at the moment provides that a person who has a pecuniary interest cannot be appointed. Under the proposed set up Kerry Packer could be appointed provided that within 14 days of his appointment he transferred his interest to his wife. Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) said in the Parliament that he has no interest in radio or television or in the media generally. It is true that he has no interest, but his wife and his family have an interest. So we come to the point of asking the question: Just where does pecuniary interest start and where does it finish? Can a person say that he has no responsibility because it is his wife who has the interest in certain companies? I think such a person might be in a little bit of trouble. Let us all go quietly and acknowledge the fact that the idea of there being a weaker sex is just so much rubbish. When the time comes, we all toe the line. I reckon that the Deputy Prime Minister is no different to any other male. When he has pressure put on him he will jump and do as he is told by the weaker member of the family.

So we come back to this whole question of pecuniary interest. I want the Minister to give a pretty solid explanation of just what is under way. What is going on behind the scenes in relation to all of this? Whom does the Government want to appoint to some of these boards and tribunals? What party members is the Government trying to line up? Is it Sir Reginald Ansett? Does it intend to appoint Sir Reg? I ask that question of the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Jull). Does he intend to get Sir Reg on to one of these boards or tribunals? Will Sir Reg dispose of his Channel 10 interest and pass it over to his wife? This is the big question mark.

We want the Government to come clean and tell us what it is up to. Why is it necessary, within 12 months, to amend its own legislation to make it much easier for people with a pecuniary interest to be appointed? They can dispose of their pecuniary interest or appear to dispose of it, but they still cannot dispose of their bias and their interest in the industry as a whole. That is why I ask: What is the Minister up to? What is the Government up to? What is the real reason for amending its legislation that is less than 12 months old? Do not tell me that if it is not amended there are people who have a pecuniary interest who cannot be involved. Do not tell me that there is somebody with great knowledge of the industry who could be of assistance. From my point of view, if people have a pecuniary interest in it now there is no way that they can dispose of it so that they can bring that knowhow to the industry. So I let the matter rest at that.

Let us be quite clear. Will the Minister come clean and tell us what the Government is up to? Time will show what it is up to. The Treasurer (Mr Lynch) is in trouble today because of his wife’s company’s land dealings that he is particularly keen to keep under cover. He is keen to keep under cover the whole inquiry into corruption over land dealings in Victoria. We do not want to bowl out the Government at some later stage. We want the facts now. Why is it necessary to amend this Government’s legislation within 12 months?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I think that clause 3 is unnecessary and ought to be opposed. As the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) said, it states that people with a pecuniary interest are virtually eligible to be appointed provided they dispose of their interest within 14 days. The unhappy history of broadcasting allocation and the use of the spectrum clearly shows that pecuniary interest in the past has motivated the use of that spectrum. There can be no better evidence of this than Sir Francis McLean’s report in 1974. We had to bring this gentleman from England to make a clearly independent assessment of what was wrong with the manipulation of the broadcasting spectrum in Australia. It was rife with graft and corruption, because of monopolisation. Sir Francis said so.

Previously it had been said that there was no chance of having any more broadcast licences because of the use of the spectrum. Committees of so-called experts in this country advised governments. The governments are not to blame. The experts are highly suspect. They said that further licences could not really fit into the various parts of the spectrum. I recently heard criticism of politicians by some gentleman. He said that he would not want the parliamentary proceedings broadcast. It goes very close to the bone that the gentleman did not want any other commercial broadcasting stations either. According to Sir Francis McLean’s report, it was well known that pecuniary interest was the big problem.

Sir Francis said that there would be no difficulty at all about doubling, from the point of view of use, the number of commercial stations in the AM band. Of course the number was not doubled. There was no expansion in that band because the people who naturally want to make a profit in the commercial band did not want any competition. Yet reports were made to the Government that the number should not be increased. A similar situation applies with regard to FM licences. They were not to be granted because the commercial enterprises did not want any competition. It would affect the profit aspect. We can see clearly that Sir Francis McLean had to come all the way from England to find suddenly that these licences could be granted. The tests which were set up for him here were wrong. He had to prove them wrong.

Honourable members opposite talk about pecuniary interests and what has happened in this country. What the honourable member for Newcastle said is right. There are people who are naturally motivated by profit. They should not be able to control the media. They should not be able to put forward their own propaganda. In my electorate a number of FM licensees are anxious to start. They are not getting anywhere. They have been trying for some time. I refer the Committee to Appendix 3 of Sir Francis McLean’s report. He was hopeful that, within seven years of 1974, 95 per cent of the people in Australia could have access to FM radio. It will not happen. Commercial radio does not want FM. It does not want the competition. The dead hand of the past still comes into the present. We must stop it.

What is the best way to stop it? We are not blaming the Government. It would naturally have influential friends and friends with affluence. At present questions are being asked in this chamber and in the Senate about a direct pecuniary interest, with family interests, particularly in country areas. We are well aware that Mr Kerry Packer is not likely to vote for us. We admire his enterprise. We wish him well. We do not want him interfering in the control of the media. What is the best way to stop it? The method is not to say: ‘Look, all you have to do is get rid of the shares or whatever it is within 14 days’. He-or she- will not get rid of them. He will go to a smart lawyer who will work out a system of trusts and ancillary documents which will clearly say that he need not have this interest while he is a member, but he can have it later and still receive the benefit. Do not get yourself into this position.

What is the answer? The Australian Labor Party discussed this matter at Perth. I think the answer is this: Let us have a joint parliamentary committee to vet the applicants. There would be no question about the suitability of an applicant if he passed that test. Let us have a similar position to that in the United States. Let us look at the background. Let us look at the assets. Let us look at the motivation. We will soon tell whether a person has a pecuniary interest and what has happened in the past. This industry lives on profit. It lives on the fact that competition must be prevented. The history shows just that. I do not want to name the gentleman concerned. He is well known for having done just that. He had a high position. He was the chief architect of the situation for years. He does not think much of politicians. He is entitled to that opinion. The evidence is dead against him if one looks at Sir Francis McLean’s report. It was a tragedy that we had to get a gentleman of that calibre to come all the way from England to say how we could bring in FM radio, how the television media were in the wrong band and how they ought to be in the UHF band and how there was ample room in the AM band to double the number of broadcasting stations. The evidence prior to that was all against such recommendations. The decision not to introduce those improvements was based on a pecuniary profit motive.

It is for those reasons that I make a plea to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) who is interested in these matters. There is nothing wrong with putting on anybody he likes to control the media, provided that person passes the test that I think could easily be established. It is about time that this Parliament was in the actual position of being able to administer matters that can go against the public interest. Joint parliamentary committees have a role to play. They are very good at ascertaining problems associated with drugs or any other matter. Let one look at this matter. People who applied for the job would know that before they could accept the job they would have to go before a parliamentary committee which would investigate whether they were the clean skins- if that is the appropriate word this time- that they ought to be.

All that the Labor Party is saying is that the Government does not need this clause. The present provision is quite satisfactory. It states that a person shall not have a pecuniary interest. This clause leaves it wide open to people to dispose of such an interest legally- it might be only temporarily- and take part in a 11 the decision-making processes. Past evidence is against the decision-making being on an impartial basis. It will be on a profit motive basis. People interested in the media have this sort of expertise that they can promote. This is not altogether satisfactory. From this point of view I fully support what my colleague has said and urge the Minister to consider the establishment of such a committee, which would operate on a non-party basis, and which would report to the Parliament that there was nothing to prevent such a person from being appointed.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I cannot satisfy the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) if he fills his mind full of suspicion and doubt. I do not think anything I could say would get rid of that. Indeed the Government has nothing in mind about additional appointments. This clause is simply designed to give an appointee reasonable time to divest himself of his interest. The honourable member knows that the Government gets a short list of possible members for such appointments. It appears quite unreasonable to ask them to divest themselves of any pecuniary interests until they have actually been appointed. It is an Executive Council appointment. Therefore the 14 days is seen as a reasonable time for somebody to divest himself of a pecuniary interest. It could be of an indirect nature. It could be a few shares in a large corporation which has a prescribed interest in television or radio stations, o the purpose of the clause is simply to give to people who have accepted an appointment by the Executive Council a reasonable amount of time to divest themselves of any pecuniary interest that they might have.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (Divisions of Tribunal)

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-This Government is well understood by the community as being the laziest and most incompetent Government Australia has ever had. It seems to have an incompetence in the area of drafting legislation. This has been indicated to us many times. The Government had to introduce two pieces of legislation today to correct errors it had made. Reading clause 5 of the Bill, I am even more convinced of the Government’s incompetence. I do not blame the very skilled draftsmen; I blame the Government. It is so confused and muddled in its thinking that it is not quite sure where it is going. Clause 5 repeals section ISC of the principal Act and replaces it with a proposed new section. The present section 15C states:

The members of the Tribunal constituted as a division may conduct an inquiry and make -

And I underline these words- a report and recommendations.

This latter power is taken away by the proposed new section. The proposed new section certainly sets up a division of the Tribunal so that the full Tribunal is not required to set about an inquiry. It states: … the Tribunal may be constituted by a division of the Tribunal consisting of-

  1. a member or members (who may be or include the Chairman of the Tribunal) designated by the Chairman of the Tribunal; and
  2. the associate member or associate members (if any) appointed for those purposes.

But such a division is restricted in its inquiry. The proposed new section does not apply in relation to an inquiry for the purposes of the renewal of commercial licences or the suspension or revocation of a licence. I can understand it not applying to suspension and revocation. Proposed new subsection (7) is very interesting. I quote it in full. It states:

The powers of the Tribunal constituted by a Division of the Tribunal for the purposes of holding an inquiry do not extend to the making of a decision, recommendation or report on the matter, or matters the subject of the inquiry.

I ask honourable members to reflect on that wording. It seems to me that the proposed new section is creating a tiger and forgetting to give it teeth. It provides for a division of the Tribunal, as the parent Act does now, but it takes away from a division of the Tribunal the right for it to do anything except hold an inquiry. It does not tell us how it is to convey the results of its inquiry.

It cannot make recommendations to the full Tribunal. It is forbidden to do that. It cannot make a decision; it cannot recommend; and it cannot report. Obviously I have hit the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) on a raw nerve. He has gone away to see his advisers. Clearly there is another blunder in the way the Bill is drafted. If that is the case, and if I am not misreading the Bill-those words seem very clear to me-a division of the Tribunal cannot do anything except hold an inquiry. It has no way of conveying its decision. It cannot even make a decision; it cannot report; and it cannot make recommendations. What the goodness are we all about? Why are all these words used?

It raises a doubt in my mind. Like my colleagues, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones), I am very suspicious of this Government. The Minister accused my two colleagues of having minds full of suspicion. It is not surprising. The history of this Government over the last two years and certainly the history of the present Government parties when in opposition would cause any reasonable Australian to be suspicious of the Government. I am very suspicious why this clause is phrased as it is. I feel that it has something to do with a previous occasion when I understand two deputy chairmen of the Tribunal had the temerity to disagree with the Chairman. It seems that the whole new proposed subsection is to get over the problem of members of the Tribunal who do not comply.

The proposed new section does not apply in relation to an inquiry for the purposes of the renewal of a licence for a commercial broadcasting station or commercial television station, being, in either case, a station situated within a radius of 50 kilometres from the General Post Office in the capital city of a State. That means that a division of the Tribunal cannot renew the licence of a commercial broadcasting station or commercial television station situated within a 50 kilometre radius of a General Post Office. Our friends in cockies’ corner continually tell us how the Labor Government seemed to treat them differently from city people. They are now part of the coalition, but they are being treated differently by their friends. It is all right to send a division of the Tribunal into the country areas. Get it 50 kilometres past a General Post Office and it can do what it likes, but it cannot conduct an inquiry concerning the renewal of licences of a station situated within the 50-kilometre radius. The Minister must make these things clear to us when he responds to this devastating attack I am making upon him.

The whole proposed new section ISC seems to be quite pointless. I can see no reason for the Government wanting to repeal that which is already in the principal Act. It has pulled its favourite little trick to spoil the wording so that it becomes absolutely meaningless. Perhaps I am being fooled. Perhaps the Minister is much smarter than I give him credit for and perhaps those words mean something other than I think they do. Perhaps there is something sinister about this amendment. Up until the time I hear some reasonable explanation from the Minister, I oppose this clause.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I reassure the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) that there is no need to be concerned about anything being sinister. It is simply a matter of common sense that there may be a division within the Tribunal. Obviously we do not want to send a number of members of the Tribunal all over Australia to look at various matters. No single member can decide a matter. A decision is for the full Tribunal or a quorum of the Tribunal. Obviously that is important in matters of policy.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I do not dispute that, but the Bill forbids a division to report. You have not explained that.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-No, it does not.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes, it does. Proposed new sub-section (7) states that the powers of the Tribunal do not extend to the making -

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The powers of the Tribunal do not extend to the making of a decision. That is the whole purpose of it. A division may discharge a responsibility but the decision must be for the whole Tribunal or a quorum thereof.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Mr Deputy Chairman, I must respond to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson). I take the Minister’s point. I do not dispute the fact that there may be a division of the Tribunal. I am a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. That Committee can appoint sectional committees, which are something less than the full Committee. No decision can be taken by less than half the Committee plus one member. I understand that. I learnt that when I first joined a trade union at 14 years of age. That is not what I am arguing. What I am arguing about with the Minister are the words used in clause 5. I repeat them. Proposed new sub-section (7) states:

The powers of the Tribunal constituted by a Division of the Tribunal for the purposes of holding an inquiry do not extend to the making of a decision, recommendation or report on the matter or matters the subject of the inquiry.

Why send two people or one person away to hold an inquiry? In such a case the legislation forbids such divisions making a report, giving information, making any recommendation or even coming to a decision. I accept what the Minister said about the decision. That is the job for the full Tribunal. But for goodness’ sake, why send a man on an inquiry if he is not allowed to make a recommendation or report on what he has done, what he has heard and what he has seen during the inquiry. I urge the Minister to reconsider the wording of the clause. It is crazy.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6

Section 16 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section is substituted: “ 16. ( 1 ) The functions of the Tribunal are-

  1. to grant, renew, suspend and revoke licences;
  2. b) to authorize transactions in relation to licences under section 89a;
  3. to grant approvals and give directions under Divisions 2 and 3 of Part IV in relation to the ownership and control of licences;
  4. to determine the standards to be observed by licensees in respect of the broadcasting or televising of programs;
  5. to determine the conditions subject to which advertisements may be broadcast or televised by licensees;
  6. to determine the hours during which programs may be broadcast or televised by licensees;
  7. to hold inquiries as provided by this Act or as directed by the Minister under section 18, and to publish reports in relation to those inquiries;
  8. to assemble information relating to broadcasting and television in Australia under section 106a; and
  9. to perform such duties and exercise such powers as are imposed or conferred upon it by this Act and the regulations. “(2) In performing its functions under paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of sub-section ( 1 ) in relation to broadcasting stations or television stations, the Tribunal shall consult the Broadcasting Council or, if there is no Broadcasting Council, it shall consult representatives of those stations. “(3) In this section, except so far as the contrary intention appears, ‘ licence ‘ has the same meaning as in Part IIlB . ‘ ‘.
Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I propose to move three amendments. Two are important and one is of less consequence. I seek leave to move the three amendments together.

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

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I move:

In proposed section 16, after paragraph (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) insert the following paragraph: ‘(da) to determine what standards should be observed in regard to programs which are likely to be viewed by children, having regard to the fact that radio and television sets are usually located in family rooms, where it is difficult for parents to maintain continuous supervision;’

I know there is a move to allow films which have a low obscenity rating to be shown on television at certain late hours. But it must be remembered that it is not possible for the parents to be supervising the television set all the time. It is quite different from a cinema where a person has to pay to go in and where the parents can keep some kind of control. When the set is in the room the children can turn it on. Really no control is possible within normal viewing hours. So I do ask that the interest of children be kept in mind when these standards are being prescribed. For example, we would not want heroin to be brought into our homes but the kinds of social drugs which are being conveyed over the television are equally deadly to the children. Perhaps this is linked to drug use by children.

We are now talking about something which is quite serious. I am sorry that the House is almost empty. Apparently nobody has any interest in this matter. To my way of thinking we are now in the position where we should protect the community from the kinds of things that can be done and will be done because of the pressure of the competition of pornography. We cannot blame the stations for this because the stations must live. Whilst there is no regulation on them, every station must be put down to the lowest level of obscenity all the time. There will be a competition in obscenity between the stations because that is what the stations will need if they are to remain viable.

Mr Graham:

-People did not know you were going to talk about this. That is why they are not here.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am sorry. The amendments were circulated. It is the duty of members to be in the chamber if they are interested in standards. My second amendment is one of small consequence. I move:

In sub-section (2) of proposed section 16 omit ‘or, if there is no Broadcasting Council, it shall consult representatives of those stations’.

I have suggested that we omit those words because there should be a Broadcasting Council unless it is pure persiflage on the part of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson)- and I am not saying that it is.

The last matter I wish to raise is the important one. I want honourable members to consider this amendment very particularly. I move:

After sub-section (2) of proposed section 16 insert the following sub-section: ‘(2a) In performing its functions under paragraph (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) in relation to broadcasting or television stations, the Tribunal shall adopt the standards currently in force at the time of the commencement of this Act, and shall maintain them unless and until other standards have been approved by regulation under this Act. ‘.

The House is of course familiar with the general standards which have been brought in. I am not saying that these are necessarily the right standards. Some people might think they are too strict and some people might think they are not strict enough. My own view is that they are too lax. But that is not the point. The point is that if there is to be any change of standards, the Parliament should know about it. The Parliament should not give away to some tribunal the power to determine the morals of the community. That is what it is doing. If there is going to be change, and maybe there should be change, at least the Parliament should be told about it and approve of it and take responsibility for it. People who should have been interested in this debate were in the chamber a few moments ago but walked out.

Mr Shipton:
Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am not going to name them. They have walked out. The interjection of the honourable member for North Sydney was not without its relevance. These people, who should have been interested, did know that I was going to raise these matters; but as the phrase goes, those on the other side of the chamber walked out. They and other members want to shrug off their responsibilities in this regard.

Mr Charles Jones:

– You are saying that the Liberal Party is immoral?

Mr WENTWORTH:

-This goes for the Labor Party as well as the Liberal Party. Members want to shrug off their responsibilities. There are members of the Labor Party who are concerned with the Christian Fellowship and things like that. They organise our service at the opening of the parliamentary session. Where are they now? They are not in this chamber and they are not willing to speak. Here we are talking about something which is of great consequence to the whole future of the community. If they think that the subject of progressive pornography which we are forcing on the stations is not important, particularly for young people, and that it is not linked to the drug degeneracy which we see around us all the time and which is increasing then they should think again. This is something which is really important. Now we are apparently going to shrug off all pur responsibilities. We have these broadcasting program standards. All honourable members are familiar with the book, entitled: Television Broadcasting Standards which is put out by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. We might as well tear up the book. That is what we are doing if we pass this legislation; we are tearing up the book and putting ourselves entirely in the hands of a tribunal which is not really responsible to this Parliament.

I am not saying at the moment that there should be no change in standards. At the moment I am prepared to leave that question open. But what I am saying is that in a matter of such grave consequence no change in standards should be made unless the House knows about it and approves it. It is our responsibility because television and radio come within the responsibility of this Parliament. These things are largely responsible for quite disastrous changes which are taking place at present within the community. It is all very well to shrug it off and say that we do not need these old standards. It is all very well to shrug it off and say that it is not the business of the Parliament. The Parliament has responsibilities and let it, at its peril, retreat from those responsibilities. I press these amendments and in particular I press the third amendment. I ask, Mr Deputy Chairman, that you put the amendments separately to the Committee.

Mr BOURCHIER:
Bendigo

– Because the proceedings are being broadcast, and having listened to the outburst from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth), I think it is only fair and correct to say on behalf of both the Government and the Opposition that we are well aware- (Quorum formed). The honourable member for Mackellar had a lot to say about the standards being thrown out. He tore up a copy of the television broadcasting standards as a gesture to show that the proposed Bill is throwing out the standards.

He claimed that honourable members were not sufficiently interested to listen to his amendments. The reason why some honourable members did not bother to stay to listen to his amendments was simply that he had not bothered to study the Bill before he came into the chamber. He wrote his amendments without considering the fact that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal will be operating under the same standards as before. Those standards which the honourable member wishes to guard so jealously will operate until there is a new Act, at which time the honourable member will not be here but other honourable members will have the opportunity of altering the standards.

The honourable member, in his usual way, assumes that everybody except him is wrong. He accused honourable members of not being interested, and again he is totally wrong. Honourable members on this side of the chamber are interested and the Government has taken action by this very Bill to protect the standards about which the honourable member was talking. So the Government will have no option but to throw out the amendments because they are not wanted, they are not required and they are useless.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

-I wish to speak to clause 6, not to any of the proposed amendments to it. In my opinion, I do not think that the sorts of things of which the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) is complaining will ever be remedied while television has to be profitable to certain commercial interests. But that is not the subject of this debate. I am intrigued by the fact that clause 6 replaces an existing section in the Act. It sets out what are supposed to be the functions of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. The Government is proposing later to move an amendment to insert a new section 80a. I wish that the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) would listen to this. Part IIIB deals with the granting of licences and proposed new section 80a says:

In the performance of its functions under this Part, the Tribunal shall act fairly and impartially and shall observe the rules of natural justice.

I want to know how the Tribunal is supposed to operate in respect of the matters contained in paragraphs (a) to (i) of clause 6. 1 find it hard to believe that if one is to set up a tribunal one is going to presume that it will not act fairly and impartially and will not observe whatever are supposed to be the rules of natural justice. Why put that in only in respect of the part dealing with the granting of licences?

I have read the amendments and I am somewhat astonished. How is the Tribunal supposed to act in authorising or granting approvals or doing what the Government needs it to do? Why does this apply only in respect of the granting of licences? Is it otherwise not supposed to be acting impartially or fairly and according to the rules? I ask this in all seriousness because it will be too late to make the alteration when we come to an amendment that applies to only part of its functions. Why is it felt that the section is necessary at all? I hope that it would not be necessary. I find it hard to believe that the Government is going to set up a tribunal believing that it will not act fairly and impartially. I would have thought that the words ‘fairly’ and ‘impartially’ at least had connotations of the rules of natural justice.

My mind sometimes boggles a bit when I find written into statutes what are called the rules of natural justice? When the Minister is speaking on the amendment he might like to indicate what are the rules of natural justice. In that case he ought to be in a seminary rather than in Parliament. I simply ask why it applies only latterly? Why is it not in the clause with which we are now dealing if the Government thinks that it is necessary that, in the performance of aU its functions, the Tribunal shall act fairly and impartially and shall observe the rules of natural justice, whatever they may be?

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Let me say first of aU in reply to the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) that the Government cannot accept his three amendments. I repeat what I said m regard to his earlier amendment, that we do not want to pre-empt the Government’s consideration of the report of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, and the report impinges particularly upon the honourable member’s first two amendments. The time for the industry and the community to respond to that report expired at the end of October. The Government wishes to consider it in relation to the submissions received.

The honourable member for Mackellar raised matters which are obviously of concern to him. On the question of standards, particularly as they apply to children’s programs, of course it is a matter of some significance. A great deal of interest was shown in the public inquiry which went to every part of Australia. A number of community leaders from all walks of life made contributions to it. I think the Tribunal’s report will be valuable. The comments upon it will be considered before the Government reaches a decision. Recommendations will come to the Parliament next year. In the meantime, the honourable member for Mackellar is wrong in thinking that standards do not apply. I have written to the Tribunal and, pending any reconsideration or any alteration of the standards, those standards that apply, that are laid down by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, will continue to apply. So there is no change in the standards that apply and the Tribunal has accepted that request from me and will see that the standards are maintained. We will have an opportunity in the early months of next year to consider the Tribunal’s report and the Government’s consideration of it.

I say to the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) that one would expect such a tribunal to act impartially and properly. Its main concern and interest is in the granting of licences. That is the core of its responsibility. It does not have the same responsibility as the old Broadcasting Control Board. It was felt to be desirable that we split it -

Mr Crean:

– Why did you not put it in the legislation?

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The honourable member for Melbourne Ports has a point It is understood by me and I am certain by members of the community and by the Parliament that the Tribunal W111 act impartially. When we come to clause 181 shall be moving an amendment As to the question of debating what, is natural justice, may I defer that to a more appropriate time?

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– If I might reply very briefly to the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier), I do not think that he has understood the position. I am trying to put into the Act what he says should be there. He says that these standards will be maintained until there is some reason for change.

Mr Bourchier:

– You heard the Minister.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-All right I only want to put into the Act what should be there. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) does not know for certain what party will be in government in another couple of months. I hope that it will be the same government but I do not know. It is quite wrong for us to say that we must not direct the Tribunal, that we must not pre-empt the decisions, when we are debating a Bill which in some respects does preempt the decisions. What is wrong with saying that in the law there should be the kind of thing which the Minister says he has done by way of some kind of unpublished letter to the Tribunal? At least we know about that letter now, and that is something, but he may not always be the Minister. The Tribunal may not take much notice of his letter and maybe we will have another Minister who might be mo-timing. Why not put into the law the position which Government supporters say they want to be in the law? Government supporters say that they want the standards maintained until there is some kind of considered change. AU right, fair enough. Why do they not put it into the law? Why do they reject in the law the thing that they say they are doing? I think this raises very considerable suspicion that perhaps the Minister himself istwo-timing the Committee. Here we have the position where the Minister says that something should be done. Then he says: ‘Do not put it in the Act because this would pre-empt decisions’. I do not think this is credible or plausible.

Mr Shipton:

- Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. Is it proper practice under the Standing Orders for the honourable member to say that the Minister is two-timing? I should have thought that it is completely improper.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drummond) -There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Mackellar.

Mr WENTWORTH:

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) agreed to:

That the question by now put

Mr WENTWORTH:

– It means that the Committee is not interested in protecting the community from pornography at all.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member for Mackellar will resume his seat.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-There is a fair number of hypocrites in this chamber.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member for Mackellar will resume his seat.

Mr Shipton:

- Mr Deputy Chairman, on a point of order, the honourable member for Mackellar is deliberately disobeying you.

Mr WENTWORTH:

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member for Mackellar will resume his seat.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I just want to make it clear that there are hypocrites in this chamber. There is no interest in this.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member for Mackellar will resume his seat.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-They know very well they do not want-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member for Mackellar will resume his seat. If he does not resume his seat I will be forced to deal with him.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 9- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Clauses 10 to 12- by leave- taken together. (Quorum formed).

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

-Clause 10 of the Bill, which refers to section 22aa of the Act, reads:

Where a person does not have an interest in proceedings before the Tribunal at an inquiry, the Tribunal may declare that the person is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal at the proceedings.

The question is: What does the word ‘interest’ in this respect mean? Section 22 of the Act uses the words in relation to ‘any proceedings any person having an interest’. We deem that to be not only a pecuniary interest but also any interest at all whether it be interest from the point of view of the community, a local organisation or even public interest, from the point of view of individual interest. A person with such an interest would have the right at the present time under section 22 of the Act to appear before the Tribunal. The proposed new section will enable the Tribunal to say to any person: ‘We deem you not to have an interest; therefore you will not be entitled to appear any further’.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– That is right.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The Minister says: That is right’. If that is right, from the stand point of this legislation it is wrong because the G overnment is saying that the word ‘interest’ means pecuniary interest. That is not wide enough for us from the point of view of the existing legislation. There are plenty of people who may not have a pecuniary interest but who nevertheless have a very public and spirited interest in whether an application for a licence should be granted. I think Government supporters also would agree with me in this respect. It is really going against what one would call a democratic proposal in terms of having an inquiry if the Tribunal is able to say to anybody who wishes to appear before it and who wishes to object to a licence being granted or wishes to raise certain issues which he or she feels are in the public interest: ‘We have determined that you have not a pecuniary interest and therefore you will not be entitled to appear at these proceedings’. Under the present Act, such people have the right to appear. Section 22 clearly says that a person may appear and, with the approval of the board,have legal representation also. Under this new legislation people will be denied any representation at all. So, from the point of view of being a worthwhile addition to the existing legislation, it is quite a devastating negation of the rights of the ordinary citizen. There are plenty of people who are very well versed in what they deem to be proper considerations in respect of the granting of broadcasting licences or television licences. They have a community of interest themselves. It was mentioned by somebody who talked about people who were interested, people such as those belonging to the Right to Life Association and so on. People are entitled to the right to appear. This Bill which permits the Tribunal to say: ‘You have not a pecuniary interest, so you will not have the right to appear’ virtually deprives a person of the normal democratic right to appear. It looks as though this Tribunal is going to be a tribunal that just deals with those -

Mr Jarman:

- Mr Deputy Chairman, I am concerned that there are only five Labor supporters in the chamber at the moment. I wish to draw you attention to the state of the chamber. I know that the speech of the honourable member -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drummond) -Order! Is the honourable member calling for a quorum?

Mr Jarman:

– I am because I think the speech is very boring and the Labor Party supporters are not prepared to listen to it.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! This matter is not open to debate. ( Quorum formed).

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I was talking about people having an interest and the Minister by interjection says that now it virtually means people with a pecuniary interest -

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– No, I did not. I did say interest. It has nothing to do with pecuniary.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It is not pecuniary; we are pleased for that assurance. What I cannot understand is how we are going to define the word ‘interest’. It is such an all-embracing term. We would all be very grateful if the Minister would define what the word ‘interest’ in this clause means. I remind the Minister that in another clause the word ‘interest’ also is used. It will be seen that the Minister can give people who have expressed an interest in a matter a notification. I think this is on page 18 of the Bill. We are talking about people who are interested and people who have an interest. That is the point we want clearly defined because in our view a person with an interest means any person who feels that in the interests of the community or any organisation- not merely a pecuniary or proprietary interest- he or she should have the right to appear and should be entitled to appear. We are opposed to the provision in clause 10 that says people can be denied the right of appearance because the Tribunal assesses on some criteria which are not spelt out in the Bill that people have not an interest. We want that clearly defined.

Without taking up too much time in respect of the other clauses, it will be seen in clause 12 that the Tribunal can make a decision but we may not even know what that decision is. The decision can be circulated to the person who is interested. We would rather that it be circulated also to the Parliament. The reason for the decision should be given to the Parliament. This provision is in clause 12 which relates to people who had an interest.

If we look at a further section to try to define what is meant by interest, we will see that the Minister can notify any interested persons that they may lodge an application. That happens to be proposed new section 82 and it is found on pages 18 and 19 of the Bill. So in looking at the whole of the Bill it follows that people who are interested can mean a wide group of people. While the Minister says that the provision is not limited to those who have a pecuniary interest- we welcome that- we clearly regard a definition of people who have an interest to mean people who have a much wider interest. If this is so, the question is on what criteria can the Tribunal say a person shall be deemed not to have an interest and accordingly, under this clause, excluded from any right of appearance before the Tribunal. It is for those reasons that we oppose the wording of this clause.

Obviously the intention of the Government is that the meaning should be wider and encompass other matters. Therefore, the wording should be expanded accordingly. But we are also very mindful of the fact that other relevant clauses, closely associated with this clause, again ignore the fact that Parliament could be deemed to be an interested party. When a decision is to be made, not only should it be made public but also, in our view, it should be tabled in the Parliament because Parliament is an interested party. In the normal democratic process it would be appropriate that any member of Parliament should be entitled to know the decision and also to take part in a discussion as to that situation as the whole Bill relates to advice to the Minister as to what sort of licence he should grant. Therefore, in looking at the concept of clauses 10, 11 and 12 one can see the Opposition’s concern. Under clause 10, if we remove the right of a person who is deemed to have an interest and if we leave that to the Tribunal, we are negating the normal democratic process. It is for that reason that we regard clause 10 as offensive. We oppose it.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I agree with the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen. (Quorum formed). Clause 10 requires amendment. It should not be passed in its present form. I say that for reasons which are rather more serious than those which the honourable member has adduced. If honourable members will look back at clause 6 of the Bill which we have already passed they will see that one of the functions of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is to determine the standards to be observed by licensees in respect of the broadcasting or televising of programs. What does interest mean? This gives to the Tribunal the ability to exclude any evidence that it wants to. In other words, the Parliament is setting up the mechanism of a kangaroo court. Particularly is this so because the main function of the Tribunal is to see-

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr Wentworth:

– Another snort from the Bendigo pig.

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Deputy Chairman, with due respect I think that the senile old gentleman at the back ought to withdraw that remark.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drummond) -Order! The honourable member for Bendigo will withdraw that comment.

Mr Bourchier:

– Certainly, Mr Deputy Chairman. Will the honourable member for Mackellar withdraw his comment?

Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

– I did not hear the comment of the honourable member for Mackellar.

Mr Bourchier:

– Do not ask him to repeat it.

Mr Wentworth:

– I said that he was the Bendigo pig and I withdraw it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses agreed to.

Clauses 13 to 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 (Provision and operation of studios, transmitting stations, et cetera).

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I ask the question: Do honourable members have any idea what they are voting on?

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18

The Principal Act is amended by inserting after Part III the following Pans:

“PART IIIB-LICENCES

“80. ( 1 ) In this Part, except where the contrary intention appears- applicant’, in relation to a licence, means a person who has lodged an application for the grant of the licence in accordance with sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (b) of sub-section ( 1 ) of section 82; licence’ means-

  1. a licence for a commercial broadcasting station;
  2. a licence for a commercial television station;
  3. a broadcasting translator station licence;
  4. d ) a television translator station licence;
  5. a television repeater station licence;
  6. a public broadcasting licence;
  7. a public television licence; or
  8. a licence to which section 1 30a applies; specification’, in relation to a licence, means a specification of any of the following matters:
  9. the nature of the service provided in pursuance of the licence;
  10. the area served in pursuance of the licence;
  11. the purpose of the service provided in pursuance of the licence;
  12. in the case of a public broadcasting licence or public television licence- the special purpose for which the licence is granted;
  13. a matter referred to in section 93, 94, 95 or 96;
  14. a matter that, by virtue of section 1 1 lc, falls within the responsibility of the Minister. “(2) A reference in this Fart to the renewal of a licence shall be read as a reference to the grant of a licence in respect of the station or aerial to which the first-mentioned licence related, where the second-mentioned licence is to commence on the day after the expiration of the first-mentioned licence or on the day after the expiration of the licence granted upon the previous renewal, or, if there have been two or more renewals, the last previous renewal, of the first-mentioned licence. “(3) For the purposes of sub-section (2), ‘aerial’ means an aerial to which section1 30a applies. “81.(1) Subject to this Act, the Tribunal may grant or renew a licence upon such conditions, and in accordance with such form, as the Tribunal determines. “85. ( 1 ) Subject to this section, the Tribunal may, during the currency of a licence, by notice in writing to the licensee, vary or revoke any of the conditions of the licence (other than conditions applicable by virtue of section 129) or impose further conditions.
Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I move:

After proposed section 80, insert the following section: “ ‘80a. In the performance of its functions under this Part, the Tribunal shall act fairly and impartially and shall observe the rules of natural justice. “.

Earlier this evening we had some discussion and debate upon that topic. It is the Government’s belief that it is useful to spell that matter out in this proposed new clause which particularly deals with the granting and renewal of licences.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I seek leave to move my two amendments together.

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

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I move:

After sub-section ( 1 ) of proposed section 8 1 , insert the following sub-section: “ ‘( 1a) In deciding whether to grant or renew a licence and in determining the conditions upon which or the form in accordance with which a licence is to be granted or renewed, the Tribunal shall have due regard to the need for the commercial viability of the commercial broadcasting and television stations in the area served or to be served in pursuance of the licence.”.

Flowing from that amendment is a further amendment to insert a sub-section after proposed section 85 which deals with variations of conditions. I move:

After sub-section ( 1 ) of proposed section 85, insert the following sub-section: “ ‘( lA) In deciding whether to vary or revoke any of the conditions of a licence or to impose further conditions in respect of a licence, the Tribunal shall have due regard to the need for the commercial viability of the commercial broadcasting and television stations in the area served in pursuance of the licence.”.

The Government commends these amendments to the House as being desirable for the orderly conduct of the Tribunal’s proceedings.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– The Opposition does not oppose the amendments moved by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson). However, we would like to draw attention to a few matters. One of the things that astounds me about these two amendments is the fact that they are moved by this great free enterprise Government, a government which believes in free enterprise and competition. Yet all that the Government is doing by these two amendments is to tighten up as much as it possibly can the present setup in radio and television. We all know of the interlocking situation and the way that companies own television stations and radio stations right throughout Australia. We know the system that prevails in country areas. The wife of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) has shares m newspapers, radio stations and television stations on the North Coast. We all know how these companies are interlocked and how one owns the other. It all starts off with the

Anthonys and finishes up with the Anthonys, aU the way through the whole spectrum of newspapers, radio and television. It does not matter a hang which State we look at. If we compare State with State we find the same situationall radio and television outlets are owned by a couple of companies.

The Government obviously is setting out to protect the interests of these people. No one can tell me that the profits that these companies are making today does not warrant one of two things being done. Either the Government should step in through the Prices Justification Tribunal and closely examine and scrutinise the advertising rates that are being charged by these people today or, alternatively, the Government should grant additional licences in those areas where exorbitant profits are being made. Honourable members should look at the reports which are tabled in this place from time to time. I have here a Press cutting from the Melbourne Age of 29 July which states:

Australia’s 48 commercial television stations more than doubled their profits in the financial year ending June last year.

Figures released last night by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal showed that the stations’ collective profits rose from$21.5min 1974-75 to a record $44m.

This is a general trend throughout the industry. Press reports after Press reports shows that some profits have gone up by as much as 100 per cent. I would like some explanation from the Minister about why it is so important to protect the economic viability of these various radio and television stations. The amendment refers to the ‘Commercial viability of the commercial broadcasting and television stations.’ The stations are certainly more than commercially viable at the moment in view of the profits which are being made. These profits have not been made only in the last 12 months. From the moment the industry was established most stations started making profits. Some of them missed out in their first year, but from that time on they have had bonus shares and lord knows what not to give the impression that the profits that they are making are not exorbitant. In reality they are making huge profits. It is up to the Government to do either one of two things: Either it should put the PJT on to the companies to check out their advertising rates or, alternatively, it should let some competition into the industry. AU that these two amendments will do is to maintain the status quo in radio and television.

As I have said on numerous occasions during this debate, this is another example of the Government paying off its financial supporters, the people who keep it going, the people who provide it with the wherewithal to fight elections. In 1975, because of these people, the Liberal and National Country Parties had so much money to wage the election campaign that they did not know where or how to spend it. They could not get sufficient radio and television time or Press coverage to spend the money. These are the people from whom the Government gets this money. This Bill is here to protect their interests. When the Minister comes in with these amendments at this stage it is obvious that the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Ml) and probably some of the Tasmanian senators have done the Minister again. I am sorry to say this, but it would appear that the Caucus did the Minister again yesterday otherwise these clauses would have been in the Bill originally. There would not have been a need for the Minister to come in at this late stage and move two very important amendments to maintain the status quo.

The Government should show that it is a fair dinkum free enterprise government. We are socialist. We do not complain about that. I was disappointed when the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock) said that this was a socialist Bill but he could not support that claim. After hearing that I went to the Clerk to find out how we could get the Bill recommitted. I wondered how we could have made such a terrible mistake as to vote against a socialistic Bill and how the Minister could make such a terrible mistake as to bring in a socialistic Bill. I do not know whether the Minister is confused, but I certainly am. If the Government is a fair dinkum free enterprise government and really believes in free enterprise and competition it will withdraw these two amendments and let the market place be the determining factor as to whether a television or radio company is a good company and is doing the job. All the Government is doing is maintaining the status quo and providing a means of protection. Next year, in all probability, when the Labor Government’s Minister for Post and Telecommunications presents the report of the Tribunal, the report- because the legislation will take time to have some impact and influence upon the tariffs charged- will probably show a 100 per cent profit on this year’s operations as against the previous years. If the Government is a fair dinkum free enterprise government and these profits are there to be made it should increase the number of television and radio stations in areas where exorbitant profits are being made. I do not have the time to go through all the newspaper cuttings I have here but the Minister is aware of them, as are other honourable members. Let us see the Government do something about providing some real competition and not cover up for the Ansetts, the Packers and the Murdochs.

Mr KING:
Wimmera

– I just want to make a brief comment on the remarks made by the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones). At this juncture I hate to have to take issue with him but I believe that some of the comments he made in regard to clause 18 are hardly warranted. I think we must realise that clause 18 is one of the most important clauses in the Bill. It certainly is a very lengthy clause and it has received a lot of consideration over a number of months. In fact the clause ranges from page 8 to page 23 of the Bill. The honourable member for Newcastle has been a little critical of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) in suggesting that he has been persuaded by this group or that group and that he has been done over by the Caucus. I can assure the honourable member for Newcastle that he was not done over in the Caucus yesterday. The Minister has made the decisions following a lot of consideration of the matters involved.

At this stage I pay a tribute to him. This legislation is not being rushed through the Parliament, despite what some Opposition members have said. The Minister has had this legislation under consideration for a long time. I suppose that if we were to challenge the Minister and ask him how many deputations he has received in relation to this Bill he would tell us that he does not have a clue. He would not be able to tell us because there have been so many of them. The Minister has been very co-operative; he has listened to representatives from all sections of the industry. There is no limit to the extent to which we could amend this legislation. We could no doubt try for weeks and weeks to satisfy this section or that section in the industry. As one section is satisfied, of course another section is dissatisfied.

So I say to the honourable member for New.castle that the Minister has done everything within his capacities to formulate this legislation. I believe that the many discussions that he has had with outside organisations, with people within his own Party and with members of the communications committee of which I happen to be a serving member, have been taken into consideration. The result is that he has brought to light what I believe to be the most satisfactory Bill that we could present to the House.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– How often did he speak to Reg Ansett?

Mr KING:

– I do not know how many times he has spoken with Reg. Ansett, but I can assure the honourable member that Reg. Ansett has put forward indirectly many propositions which have not been accepted. I know that they have not been accepted. So much for all of this claptrap that we hear. I think mention was made of the huge profits that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) and his family are making from television. I want to remind those people-

Mr Bourchier:

– Was it $50 last year?

Mr KING:

-I think that he did make some mention of $50 profit, but I do not know the extent of his investment. We do not know how much money he has invested in television stations or when he invested that money. I think it ought to be remembered that years ago when television was really in its infancy a lot of money was put into television with little chance of a profit being made from it. How many television stations, particularly those located in country areas, made huge losses? I wonder from how many radio stations throughout Australia the honourable member for Newcastle will claim that honourable members on the Government side have made profits? The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier) is interjecting but I cannot quite make out what he is saying.

Mr Bourchier:

– I asked how many honourable members opposite do not say how much they make out of television stations?

Mr KING:

-That is right. I feel that many honourable members opposite who are critical do not really appreciate the huge losses that the radio stations are making. If they want to socialise these things, that is well and good. The honourable member for Newcastle has said that that is all right. If the Opposition is not prepared to allow these stations even a small profit I can assure honourable members opposite that there will be many country areas, and certainly many metropolitan areas as well, which will have no radio service at all.

Mr Bourchier:

– What about the unemployment if they do not make a profit?

Mr KING:

-The honourable member for Bendigo asks about unemployment. That is another angle. Of course, the Opposition forgets these things. I am saying that it has to sink its pride and allow a little bit of profit in this area. If honourable members opposite want to call it excess, let them do so. As far as I am concerned, those people who put money into these industries are entitled to a certain amount of risk profit. If the Opposition is not prepared to allow them that risk profit, there will be no money available for investment, no radio stations and few television stations.

I compliment the Minister. I believe that the Minister has done a magnificent job. We should be mindful of the various areas from which he has been approached; he has been approached by the radio stations and the television stations, both commercial and national, and by honourable members on the Opposition side and on the Government side. If the Opposition can provide a satisfactory answer which pleases everybody it will be doing a magnificent job. I believe that the Minister has gone very close to doing that. Time will prove that the decisions made by the Minister were the correct ones.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I wish to address myself to clause 84. When that clause is dealt with I shall seek to have it deleted from the Bill. Clause 84 gives the Minister or any Minister extraordinary powers- powers far removed from those which should be properly held by a Minister of the Crown or by any person who is in a position to exercise political control over a broadcasting service, especially one whose aim is said to be a special one and concerned with ethnic matters. Clause 84, in conjunction with clause 85, would, if interpreted literally, give the Minister power almost to establish the basic program, format and content of a radio station and also to remove a licence from a station which acted contrary to the Minister’s direction. That is a power which I believe ought not to exist, irrespective of which political party is in office. One of the characteristics of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board was that it always had an independent right, even though it sometimes lacked the determination necessary to carry through that role. It is not a role which should be left to a Minister. Clause 84 quite clearly states:

After the provisions of section 83 have been complied with in relation to a licence, and before the grant of the licence, the Minister shall determine the specifications applicable to the licence (which shall be consistent with, or substantially consistent with, the outline published under paragraph (a) of sub-section ( 1) of section 82) . . .

The clause gives the Minister powers which are too wide and which can be interpreted and which could be used in a manner which the Minister would possibly not wish or intend. Our advice is that this clause could be interpreted in such a way as to give the Minister power to fix conditions under which a station operates. That would have the effect of controlling the operation of that station, down to the type of programming available and so on.

The Minister will move amendments to a subsequent clause. Therefore I am not able to move my amendment at this stage. After we have dealt with the Minister’s amendments the Opposition will move for the deletion of clause 84. We believe that it ought to be redrafted so that it expresses in very clear terms which cannot be misinterpreted or misused the intent of the clause, which I hope is not what I have suggested but what I think it should be. The Minister may feel it incumbent to act in that manner, even though it may be necessary to restore the clause when the legislation is brought back at a subsequent stage. As it now stands the Bill suggests at least by interpretation- I do not profess to be a lawyer- that the Minister is given powers which would enable him to have practical direction over programming and program content for a radio station. Those are powers which the Opposition believes a government should not have, even though sometimes politicians might be tempted to have them.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I wish to speak to the clause and thereby to the amendments which have been moved. I refer to Part IIIA- the Special Broadcasting Service- and in particular to proposed section 79d. When speaking to other clauses in this Bill before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, I mentioned that there was fear and trepidation in my heart at the way in which a government, and especially the present Government, could use this legislation to manipulate all sorts of things. I spoke on the basis of the imprecision of the language. I have been in this chamber long enough now to have observed members of the National Country Party and the way in which they sat up with their stop watches when we were in government. They were able to tell the Parliament, almost to the fraction of a second, how much time was given on the Australian Broadcasting Commission to the Australian Labor Party, or to this or to that or to the other thing. That ought to be a matter of concern to the people of Australia. Proposed new section 79d, which has the marginal note ‘Functions’, states:

The functions of the Service are-

to provide multilingual broadcasting services and, if authorised by the regulations, to provide multilingual television services; and

to provide broadcasting and television services for such special purposes as are prescribed.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– That is right.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-The Minister agrees, nodding his head. I understand that it is to be done by regulation.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– That is right.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Again the Minister agrees with me. Now we have direct ministerial interference in the sorts of programs that go to air in Australia. The Special Broadcasting Service must do as is prescribed. The Government or the Minister, probably the Government, makes the regulation that prescribes. Therefore politicians are telling the Special Broadcasting Service what sorts of programs it will put to air. My colleague the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) has already indicated his area of concern in this new Part IIIA. We have no quarrel with the Service providing multilingual broadcasting services and, if authorised by the regulations, providing multilingual television services. All of this is terribly vague. It leaves a very nasty taste in people’s mouths that the situation depicted in George Orwell’s book 1984 is here already. George Orwell’s book was not written about socialists; it was written about the conservatives, the tones, the whigs and the capitalists. George Orwell knew how a government such as this one would take over the place and run its own propaganda machine. This Bill will do exactly that. It will set up a mouthpiece, a propaganda machine for the Government of the day.

The people of Australia know that a Labor government would not misuse such an instrument. They know they cannot trust the Liberal and National Country parties. The people cannot trust them with anything. The people cannot trust them to provide jobs for children who leave school. The people cannot trust them with the country’s bank account.

Mr Charles Jones:

– They provide jobs for the boys.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-They are pretty good at that too. That is for sure. The Liberal Party is not too bad at sacking a few Ministers here and there either and accepting a few resignations from members of the Party. It is split right down the middle. The people of Australia would not buy a used Ford motor car from members of these parties. Why should the people trust them by giving them that sort of power?

Mr Scholes:

– The people would not buy a used Holden from them either.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-The people would not buy a used Holden from them either. That is the sort of power that should never lie with them. We saw what happened in Germany during the 1930s when Goebbels took over the radio stations. I am not sure that anybody in the Liberal Party has sufficient brains to do that or to be as smart as Goebbels was. If ever the Liberal Party recruits such a person this Bill will provide the perfect vehicle to reach into everybody’s house, into every nook and cranny.

I oppose that sort of thing. I find it most offensive. I am surprised that in the last quarter of the twentieth century the Government of Australia should stoop so low as to have the Minister try to dictate what sorts of programs and what sort of information will go over the airwaves of this country. It is no laughing matter. It is not the sort of thing about which the Minister can put a supercilious look on his face and shrug the suggestion off. It is important. It is serious. It will be very serious to the people in the federal division of Burke; I can assure him of that

I refer now to Part IIIb- Licences. Proposed new section 80 spells out what is a licence. It defines a licence. I quote from that section: ‘specification’, in relation to a licence, means a specification of any of the following matters:

  1. the nature of the service provided in pursuance of the licence . . .

Again the nature of the service is referred to. Who will make all these decisions? Most of these things will be done by regulation. Again we come back to Ministers and governments- Ministers and governments that the people of Australia do not trust Proposed new section 8 1 states:

Subject to this Act, the Tribunal may grant or renew a licence upon such conditions, and in accordance with such form, as the Tribunal determines.

The Government is leaving the matter wide open. I have said that there should be no ministerial interference in this regard. I meant the nuts and bolts of the thing and determining which sorts of programs should go to air. Surely it would be obligatory upon any government to set up some sort of policy guidelines for tribunals. It is done in every other area. There is not a tribunal or a commission in this country that does not have guidelines. The Minister should know that. When his Government tried to enforce new guidelines on the Schools Commission it kicked over the traces. It would not be stood over by governments. It objected to the guidelines. So guidelines exist.

There is still plenty left in the clause with which I could deal, but I must return to the point on which I started. I cannot say often enough that the concept frightens me. I am not easily frightened. I would be the least easily frightened person one ever met. It frightens me that this Government will have in its hand this weapon to use against the community, to brainwash the community and to use to determine what sorts of programs will go to air. The Minister is a reasonable man. I know that. I am quite sure that he will agree to this clause being altered to ensure that he will not be subjected to that sort of criticism by the people of Australia. It would break my heart to hear the people of Australia liken him to Goebbels. It is important that that not happen. Somebody once said that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done. It is important that governments should not only be fair but should be seen to be fair. We cannot possibly have the influence that the Country Party undoubtedly exerts on the Liberal Party to ensure that all the programs that go to air in this country are impartial. Impartial to both the Liberal and Country parties means that radio and television programs will carry only LiberalCountry Party policy.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– I made certain statements when I drew the attention of honourable members to the state of this Bill and to what the amendments were setting out to do. The honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King) said that I did not know what I was talking about in regard to profit and that television was not the profitable enterprise and investment that I was stating it was. Let us look at the financial position of some television stations. I have in front of me page 29 of today’s Australian Financial Review. It gives the prices of shares on the Sydney Stock Exchange. The price of 50c shares in Canberra Television Ltd is $2.10. The dividend is 40 per cent. The price of 25c shares in Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd is $2.40. The dividend is 55 per cent.

Mr Hodgman:

– You must be looking at the wrong column.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-I am not looking at the wrong column. The honourable member can come over here and have a look if he wishes. The price of 50c shares in Country Television Services Ltd is $2.10. The dividend is 40 per cent The cost of 50c shares in John Fairfax and Sons Ltd is $1.58. The dividend is 21 per cent. The cost of 50c shares in Newcastle Broadcasting and Television Corporation shares- I cannot let down the home town- is $3.1 1. The dividend is 36 per cent The listing of 50c shares in Northern Rivers Television Ltd, a country station is 78c. The dividend is 12Vi per cent The cost of 25c shares in Queensland Television Ltd is $1.68. The dividend is 40 per cent.

Mr Hodgman:

– That is on 25c, you know.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-It does not make any difference what it is on. It does not matter whether the share is 25c, 50c or $1. The 40 per cent dividend is still 40 per cent.

Mr Brown:

– Forty per cent of what?

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-I am quoting from today’s Australian Financial Review, which I know honourable members opposite are very interested in reading to see how their shares are going. Television and broadcasting provide a most lucrative form of income for those people in the industry. The Television Corporation’s 50c shares are selling for $1.30. The dividend is 20 per cent. Television New England 40c shares are selling for 98c, and they have a 20 per cent dividend. The price for TV Wollongong $1 shares is $2.65 and the dividend is 20 per cent. They are just some instances I have given very quickly. Honourable members can see from those figures why we are concerned that this alleged free enterprise Government is introducing an amendment which will maintain the status quo and consolidate the position of all the television stations that are making the exorbitant profits I have just read out. There are many more than those I have mentioned. On the figures that were quoted in this year’s annual report dealing with profits -

Mr Bourchier:

– Do you think they should make a profit at all?

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– We have no objection to their making a profit. We have no objection to a company making a fair and reasonable profit -

Mr Bourchier:

– What do you reckon is fair?

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-We have no objection to a company making a fair and reasonable profit on the capital it has invested, but when you start looking at dividends -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins)Order! The honourable member for Bendigo will cease interjecting.

Mr Bourchier:

– I am only asking a question, Mr Deputy Chairman.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order!

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Deputy Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I merely tried to ascertain whether the honourable member for Newcastle -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member is not raising a point of order. He will resume his seat.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-Mr Deputy Chairman, do not antagonise the honourable member too much. He will move the gag.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The Chair is quite capable of looking after itself.

Mr Keating:

– The public will move the gag on him in about two week’s time.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-That is right. He will be the former member for Bendigo after 10 December. The then Opposition can get itself a new Whip who can do the job more effectively than the honourable member for Bendigo has been doing it. These amendments only ensure that the financial supporters and backers of the Liberal and National Country parties will continue building up exorbitant profits in the broadcasting and television industry. I come back to what I said the first time I spoke on this Bill. It is time that the Government referred the profits of all these companies to the Prices Justification Tribunal to determine whether they are making exorbitant profits and whether the rates they are charging for advertising are exorbitant. If the rates are exorbitant the companies should be forced to reduce them or the Government should increase the number of television stations in those centres where the exorbitant profits are being made.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

– I want to take two minutes to point out the absolute contradiction between the speeches of the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) and the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones). The honourable member for Burke accused the Government of setting up a propaganda machine and giving the Minister extraordinarily wide powers under which he could influence the media of this country. He was immediately followed by the honourable member for Newcastle, whose bitter complaint was that the Government has not put enough chains and shackles upon private enterprise. I submit to the Committee that the two arguments are inconsistent. They are totally contradictory. The significant point is that neither of them has any merit whatsoever.

The claim coming from a member of the Australian Labor Party that the Government is trying to set up a propaganda machine is a fatuous suggestion and will be recognised as the joke of the year by the people listening to the broadcast of these proceedings. If ever a government endeavoured to set up a propaganda machine it was the Whitlam Government between 1972 and 1975. It was thrown out of office in 1975. The best propaganda machine in Australia now is that which has been set up by the South Australian Premier.

I deal finally with the remarks of the honourable member for Newcastle. The figures he quoted were taken totally out of context. With respect, he did not seem to appreciate that the 40 per cent he was quoting was 40 per cent on 25c. That, of course, is a gross figure. The actual return to the shareholders, as he would find if he took the time and trouble, is probably one-tenth of the 40 per cent. Unlike the honourable member for Newcastle and wealthy honourable members opposite, I do not own a share in a single company; but I know that because it says in the paper there is a 40 per cent dividend it does not mean that at the end of the financial year the shareholder will get a 40 per cent return on this investment. In fact, I am told that the going rate of return on these types of shares, particularly shares in country television and radio stations, is minimal. Indeed, the revenues of these companies have considerably decreased as a result of the decision of government to eliminate the advertising of cigarettes. The Bill may not be perfect. In fact, very few Bills that go through this Parliament are perfect. But to claim that it is the vehicle for setting up a propaganda machine is a nonsense. That suggestion should not have been put forward by the honourable member for Burke. The honourable member even suggested that people might think of the Minister as a latter day Goebbels. The contradictory claim by his colleague from Newcastle is equally without ° foundation. My respectful submission therefore is that the two honourable members opposite have contradicted each other and destroyed their arguments, which in any event were put up as straws in the wind and would have no validity and no support in the Australian community.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-Under Part IIIA, which comprises the clauses which are under consideration, the Minister has the right to issue directions to a station by regulation. Regulations are not necessarily made when Parliament is sitting but can be made after a Parliament has risen, possibly for a considerable period before an election. Under the terms of this Bill it would be possible for the Minister to introduce regulations which forced the Special Broadcasting Service to act in accordance with the directions of himself or his political party. That is possible under the provisions of this Part of the Bill. Make no mistake about it. I am not suggesting that the present Minister would do such a thing, but I suggest that honourable members opposite read the speeches of the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) during the latter part of 197S in which he sought to misrepresent the activities of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in a manner which I suggest was quite improper. Had he been the Minister responsible for broadcasting and television with these powers over the service which he was criticising, he could have prescribed regulations to take away totally the independence of that service.

Mr Charles Jones:

– He was Minister at the time.

Mr SCHOLES:

-No, he was not Minister at the time about which I am talking. He was the Minister in the caretaker Government responsible for broadcasting, but he had limited powers because of the Governor-General’s general direction. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), in one of his few acts of good sense, did not appoint him as Minister subsequently. The point I make is that the honourable member for Gippsland made serious imputations against the integrity of the ABC. The imputations were baseless, but such allegations if repeated often enough can have an effect on the staff of an organisation who have promotions and other things to worry about. Subsequently staff was attacked and intimidated by this Government. Under this Bill the Special Broadcasting Service, which is aimed at specific sections of the community, can be directed by regulations which are prescribed by a Minister. It says so in the BUI. There is no need for the honourable member for Canning (Mr Bungey) to shake his head. That provision is contained in the legislation. Any Minister can prescribe -

Mr Bungey:

– Not any Minister.

Mr SCHOLES:

-Any Minister who is in charge of this legislation can prescribe those regulations. A political party in desperate trouble and possibly with a man Uke the honourable member for Gippsland as Minister in charge of the legislation, could take such action. The way in which he attacked the integrity of the ABC would suggest that no one could trust him with responsibility for any area of public information. The BUI ought to be cast in a manner which will permit the independence of the Special Broadcasting Service and which will not under any circumstances allow a Minister to take action which would even give any hint of being a direction on program material and content.

Mr Bungey:

– That is exactly what it does.

Mr SCHOLES:

-That is not what it does: it does exactly the reverse. It is important to the integrity of the service and to the Minister’s own standing that that power should not exist. Even if it is only a possible power, the Bill ought to be altered in order to prevent it from existing. It does exist in this clause and if Government supporters pass it, they will rue the day. If they do not, the Australian people will.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I want to make one or two statements of fact because there has been a fair bit of fantasy in the Committee tonight. It is quite obvious that some members of the Opposition do not understand the legislation we are considering. The honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) talked about the forces of the market place. Of course the forces of the market place have a very real role to play in a private enterprise economy. But in relation to broadcasting, the whole thrust of the Government’s policy is that in addition to the forces of the market place there has to be a public accountability by broadcasters as to the way in which they discharge their responsibilities.

There has been a lot of loose talk- that is about the kindest phrase I can use- with regard to profits. It is very true at the moment to say that because of the introduction of colour television, the television industry in the large cities of Australia is having a very profitable period. One of course should not lose sight of the fact that there has been investment in that area for 20 years now and that such profitability did not always exist. However one cannot use the broad brush like that because it can be pointed out when the Tribunal takes into account commercial viability, that a number, in fact several, country radio stations are not profitable. If we are considering the broadcasting service throughout Australia then we must take into account the viability and stability of the components right throughout the country, not just selective large corporations. Some of the ones the honourable member referred to tonight just do not depend on television for their profits.

The point I make is that nobody denies that some television companies are going through a period of substantial profitability. Nevertheless, overall there is a necessity to take into account the commercial viability of the system. I do not think that the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) could have quite understood proposed new sections 82 and 84 because when a licence is granted of course it is granted by me, as the Minister, upon certain specifications. Proposed section 84 (2) simply states that the conditions of the licence are:

  1. the specifications so determined by the Minister;

We have to refer back to proposed new section 82. It is those specifications upon which the applications for the licence were first considered. I believe it is a responsibility of government, through the Minister, to be able to lay down specifications. We are not dealing with the old

Australian Broadcasting Control Board; we are dealing with the new Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. It is the role of government through the Minister, to be concerned with planning, which is very much akin to policy. Therefore, in calling for applications for a new licence, of course it is desirable that the Minister should spell out the technical specifications. In the granting of the licence those same specifications are used and, in addition, whatever decisions the Tribunal may make are taken into account. To suggest in any way that that gives a Minister the right to interfere in the programming of a particular broadcasting or television station I am afraid just is not, and cannot, be acceptable.

I hope that when the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) reads the Hansard report tomorrow morning of what he said he will hide it from ethnic communities in his electorate. Really, he made an attack on the ethnic communities when he said he was not in favour of the setting up of the Special Broadcasting Service. The honourable member for Burke was unhappy with the functions of the Service. They are:

  1. to provide multilingual broadcasting services and, if authorised by the regulations, to provide multilingual television services; and
  2. to provide broadcasting and television services for such special purposes as are prescribed.

The present Government, in its policy speech prior to the last election, said that it would set up a statutory permanent authority to look after ethnic broadcasting. That was the policy we spelt out and the policy which we are now proceeding to implement. One could have done so through the Australian Broadcasting Commission but the ethnic communities themselves wanted to have their own statutory authority. We called it the Special Broadcasting Service because it may well prove desirable for the Government, in the years ahead, if there is a request, to provide some special broadcasting service for example, to the Aborigines throughout Australia or to the social welfare area. Therefore this Special Broadcasting Service is being set up. It is a statutory authority. It has its own commission. It will virtually be conducted upon similar lines to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. When honourable members opposite make an attack upon it, they make an attack upon the concept which the ethnic communities throughout Australia are applauding. It will provide a great opportunity for ethnic broadcasters. They are now being interviewed. Forty of them will be joining the staff to provide for many hundreds of thousands of Australians a service which is long overdue. The point the honourable member made was that somehow a Minister could interfere with programming.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– That was the thrust of my argument,

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Well, let us dispose of that. I remind the honourable member that this Special Broadcasting Service will be a statutory authority. It will have commissioners whom we will appoint before too long. There is also the advisory council which has already been set up and there are State advisory councils which are already set up. The Bill quite clearly says that any extension of this service beyond ethnic radio broadcasting will be a matter of separate decision by the Government, by the Cabinet. After discussion within the Party room the matter will come into the Parliament and, as the honourable member will know, will be prescribed by regulation which can be debated and disallowed in the Parliament. Is the honourable member going to suggest that every decision of the Government with regard to broadcasting will require a separate Bill? The contention of the honourable member for Burke that this legislation will allow a Minister to decide what the programs will be in the Special Broadcasting Service is of course patently ridiculous.

This is one of the major policy initiatives of the Government of which we are very proud. We are giving to the ethnic community for the first time a permanent structure for ethnic broadcasting. Honourable members opposite are obviously very sensitive tonight because they know that whilst they experimented with broadcasting for the ethnic communities they made no attempt to set up what we are setting up by way of a statutory authority, with all the provisions and all the safeguards of a statutory authority- a permanent structure within which the ethnic communities can play a very real and vital role. This is one of the most desirable pieces of legislation. It will be applauded by every ethnic community and group throughout this nation. Honourable members opposite are worried; that is why they were interjecting so much.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I listened with great care to what the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) had to say. While he does not often speak in this chamber, what he has to say comes from a long experience in the very spirit of private enterprise. We rather suspect that that colours his whole philosophy when dealing with this subject. Proposed new section 79d states:

The functions of the Service are-

to provide broadcasting and television services for such special purposes as are prescribed.

Throughout the legislation it seems to me that the powers of prescription lie with the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. While I have fairly strong feelings about ministerial rights, authority and so onin certain matters I think we are in a special area when we are dealing with the control, ownership and direction of broadcasting services. It is quite obvious from what the Minister said that he foresees directions being given to establish broadcasting services in special areas. Obviously, the Minister can prescribe that they be established for political purposes, special social purposes or anything else.

Mr Innes:

– Like they do with Commonwealth employment.

Mr BRYANT:

– That is right. Frankly, I think the Minister either has wool over his own eyes or is attempting to pull wool over ours. We must be granted the right to be rather cynical about honourable members opposite when it comes to public broadcasting. They have destroyed the very basis upon which it was developed by various groups in the Australian community from 1972 to 1975.I heard honourable members say that there was great disquiet in the community at what developed. There was disquiet among our political opponents and there was disquiet among various extreme groups in the community, some of which reside in the Liberal Party, some in the National Country Party and some in other areas. The fact is that since the Government came to power it has taken every possible step -

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr P. H. Drummond)

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments agreed to.

Mr KEITH JOHNSON (Burke)-Mr Deputy Chairman, I wish to make a personal explanation.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drummond) -Does the honourable member for Burke claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– I take up the points raised by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) and other speakers from this side of the House with regard to special purposes. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson), in talking to this particular issue, raised the question how the ethnic groups had been consulted in regard to ethnic broadcasting and the ethnic media generally. The claim the Minister made is entirely false. The issue concerning radio station 3ZZ is a classic example. That was done against the interests, the feelings and the express desires of the ethnic communities in general. They rejected the concept. So far as they were concerned, it took away from them any reference to them in terms of programming. Instead of the ethnic communities having duly elected representatives, there would be some sort of control from the group concerned which was not essentially an ethnic group. It was an advantage for any group in the community for the purpose of expressing its own wishes in the way it so desired.

The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who is here for only another two or three days and who will disappear then from the scene, is as devoid of knowledge on ethnic communication as is a frog is of feathers. Fancy giving the Minister the opportunity to prescribe what programs will be shown on any section of the media. Look at the performance of the Government. What about the million dollar fraud that has been perpetrated on the electors of this country. Every five minutes we see the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) on television big-noting himself like the angry ant, bolting as though he knows something about industrial relations, with electors’ money being spent for the purpose of -

Honourable members interjecting-

Mr Bourchier:

– On a point of order -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Jarman)Before I hear the point of order, I point out to the honourable member for Henry and other members sitting near him that I will not tolerate that sort of outrageous outburst. I call the honourable member for Bendigo to state the point of order.

Mr Bourchier:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman. I merely want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that this Bill deals with television and broadcasting and not with unem- ployment and industrial relations. I wish the honourable gentleman who is supposed to be talking to this Bill would get to the point. He is talking about unemployment.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I ask the honourable member for Melbourne to direct his remarks to clause 1 8 of the Bill.

Mr INNES:

-Mr Deputy Chairman, your attitude is to be commended at all times. This is another illustration of that. With regard to relevance, what I am referring to is the ability to introduce programs into the media. I am looking at the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. He would have a bonanza. Any individual in this chamber who has the talents of the Minister- I must commend him for the way he comes across- would have a bonanza on television putting up propaganda for the purpose of his own electorate image and the image of his party. The danger of the provisions of clause 18 is that many aspects of them ought to be condemned. As far as I am concerned two points fell from the Minister’s Ups in this debate. The first was his mention of consultation with ethnic groups. It is farce. It has not happened and if any honourable member would like to take time to consult the ethnic groups as to what they really want, a vasdy different principle would be applied not only in this instance but over the whole of the media.

Mr Haslem:

– I talk to them all the time.

Mr INNES:

– I am sure you do. The honourable member for Canberra yesterday called Commonwealth car drivers a heap of pumpkins. I do not think he would have the guts to say it to their faces outside.

Mr Haslem:

- Mr Deputy Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I have been completely misrepresented. I did not call the drivers pumpkins. I called their chariots pumpkins. (Quorum formed).

Mr INNES:

-Mr Deputy Chairman -

Mr Bourchier:

– In view of the fact that the honourable member’s colleagues do not wish him to speak, I move:

That the question be now put:

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 27-by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 28

Section 1 19a of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section is substituted: “1 19a. ( 1) Subject to this section, an application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of-

  1. a variation, revocation or imposition of a condition of a licence by the Tribunal under section 85, other than a variation, revocation or imposition of a condition in accordance with sub-section (3) of that section;
  2. a refusal by the Tribunal to renew a licence under section 86;
  3. a variation, revocation or imposition of a condition of a licence by the Tribunal under sub-section (12) of section 86, other than a variation, revocation or imposition of a condition requiring the approval of the Minister,
  4. a decision by the Tribunal for the purposes of subsection (2) of section 87 specifying a period of renewal of a licence of less than 3 years, where no inquiry was held in relation to the renewal of the licence;
  5. a suspension or revocation of a licence by the Tribunal under section 88; (0 a refusal by the Tribunal to give consent under section 89a;
  6. a refusal by the Tribunal to grant approval under section 90j or 92f;
  7. a determination by the Minister under section 105ab;
  8. a decision by the Tribunal to grant or renew a licence for a broadcasting translator station for the purpose of the re-transmission of the programs of a metropolitan broadcasting station for reception in an area that is not within a metropolitan broadcasting area;
  9. ) a decision by the Tribunal to grant or renew a licence for a television translator station for the purpose of the re-transmission of the programs of a metropolitan television station for reception in an area that is not within a metropolitan television area; or
  10. a decision by the Tribunal under sub-section (2) of section 1 19. “(2) Notwithstanding section 27 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975-
  11. an application in pursuance of paragraph (a), (b), (c). (d)< (e) or (f) of sub-section (1) may be made only by or on behalf of the licensee; and
  12. an application in pursuance of paragraph (g) of subsection ( 1 ) may be made only by or on behalf of the person applying for the approval.
Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– (9.38)- I move:

In paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of proposed section 1 19a, omit ‘, where no inquiry was held in relation to the renewal of the licence ‘.

The purpose of this amendment is to allow for an appeal if any licence is renewed for less than three years whether or not there has been a public inquiry. As printed, this clause does not give the right of appeal for a licence renewed for less than three years if there has been a public inquiry. We wish to omit the words set out in the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– I want to talk in respect of proposed new sub-section (2) (a) which appears on page 28 of the Bill.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I will move my amendment first. I move:

After sub-section (2) of proposed section 1 19a, insert the following sub-section: ‘(2a) For the purposes of a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in pursuance of an application referred to in sub-section ( 1 ), the Tribunal shall be constituted by a presidential member alone. ‘.

This amendment is simply to ensure that for the purposes of a review the Administrative Appeals Tribunal shall be constituted by one member, the presidential member, alone.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– We agree with the amendment. I wish to make a point in regard to an earlier part of the clause.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Perhaps if we could clear the amendment we could discuss clause 28 as amended.

Mr Charles Jones:

– We do not oppose the amendment as moved by the Minister on the clear understanding that when the clause has been amended the Opposition will be free to debate clause 28 as amended.

Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Jarman)The question is that clause 28, as amended, be agreed to.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The objectionable part of clause 28 as amended is proposed new sub-section (2) which provides: an application in pursuance of paragraph . . . may be made only by or on behalf of the licensee.

This relates to an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It means that the only person who can appeal is the licensee. We object to that restriction. We think that the right of appeal should be widened to include anybody who is deemed to be affected. We are asking for the deletion of that provision. We would like the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) to address his mind to it. The right of appeal being limited only to the licensee is not fair. It is not reasonable. It is against the public interest. Other people may have taken an interest in matters which we have already discussed in an earlier part of clause 28. For example, I refer to proposed new paragraph (a) of proposed new section 1 1 9a ( 1 ) which relates to a variation, revocation or imposition of a condition of a licence. There could have been a discussion, a debate or an objection to that matter by a person other than the licensee

Proposed new paragraph (b) relates to a refusal by the Tribunal to renew a licence and does not concern us. Proposed new paragraph (c) relates to a variation, revocation or imposition of a condition of a licence that could have been the subject of contest before the Tribunal. Proposed new paragraph (d), which has just been amended, relates to a decision by the Tribunal for the purposes of sub-section (2) specifying a period of renewal of a licence of less than three years. The paragraphs with which we are concerned are (a), (c) and (d). A person other than the licensee who objects at the Tribunal may fail but may want a right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This BUI states that that person cannot appeal but that the licensee can. A party to the matter before the Tribunal could be deemed to be an interested party but because of this restriction he has no right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Other people, such as community interest groups or people who felt that a public interest was involved, might feel that they should pursue a matter by way of appeal. They are entitled to appear before the Tribunal as an interested party on the question of whether there was a variation, revocation or other matter of that nature. Normally they would have a right of appeal. In this case it is restricted only to the licensee This means it is a closed shop. Nobody else but licensees will get in. It is not good enough, in view of the spirit of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. People should have a right to have a hearing de novo, a hearing afresh, on the whole matter. They should not be told that although they were able to appear before the Tribunal they have no right of appeal because they are not a licensee. I seriously ask the Government to delete that restriction.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I will respond quickly to the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen). I regret that I cannot embrace the suggestion that he puts to the Government. I believe that there has to be a limit to the right of appeal. This clause is designed to give licensees that particular right. I think it is neither desirable nor necessary to have a situation which means that any interested party can clutter up the appeal procedure.

Clause as amended, agreed to.

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

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

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Eric Robinson)- by leaveproposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I will be very brief. I express some disapointment at the way in which these Bills have been treated in the House. It seems to me that there has been a lack of sense of proportion. The great thing about this -

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2840

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 October, on motion by Mr Street:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate on this Bill is resumed I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this

Bill and the Commonwealth Electoral (Redistribution) Bill as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, but put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1977 deals with the distribution of the States into electoral divisions. The Opposition objects to this Bill and proposes to move at the Committee stage amendments which will have the effect of preventing the proclamations from being validated. I think those amendments have been printed and I ask that they be circulated. Really we are dealing with this matter once again because of a defect in the Act due to bad draftsmanship.

Mr Scholes:

– And the actions of the Government.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-And the actions of the Government. Nevertheless, it does affect the rights of citizens, and that is the most important aspect. When an amending Bill was introduced earlier this year we discussed this mater. We queried the fact that when the need for a distribution arose it should take place in normal circumstances; that is, when one-quarter of the electoral divisions of a State are out of kilter, as the Act provides. In that circumstance there ought to be a redistribution. The Government said, though, in its wisdom: ‘No, that is not going to be the situation because we are not going to have redistributions within a period of seven years’. Because of the terms of the existing Act and because a redistribution took place in Western Australia in 1974, approval cannot be given for the redistribution which this House has approved by motion. I refer to the recent redistribution which took place a few months ago in Western Australia and which the House approved, despite the objections of the Opposition. That redistribution in fact was illegal. It contravened the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

A citizen in the electoral division of Kalgoorlie, which is one of the divisions in Western Australia, took action in the High Court of Australia. I understand that that action may have been heard today. I submit that the argument put forward in that case could well be sustained. If that were the case it would mean that the citizens in Western Australia were entitled to go to an election on the basis of the electoral distribution which was carried out in 1974. We submit that that distribution of electoral boundaries is much more equitable than the one proposed under this legislation. We object to the Western Australian redistribution taking place for the reasons which we stated when dealing with the motion previously.

Kalgoorlie, which is the largest electoral division in the world, has been enlarged again by means of this redistribution. We think that it is completely unfair and unreasonable. In our view the redistribution carried out by the Commissioners in Western Australia is not a proper one from the point of view of the electors in Western Australia. They were entitled to rely on the 1974 redistribution. In our view it made them a much stronger force as electors in the various subdivisions that existed in that State. The size of the division of Kalgoolie, which is the largest electoral division, as I have mentioned, has been increased even further. We say that it has been done for political reasons; it has increased the chances of the Government retaining a majority of seats in Western Australia. One can readily see why the Government would be anxious to sustain a proclamation which gave it that sort of benefit.

We are very critical of the situation, particularly that pertaining to Kalgoorlie where Aborigines, for example, are not deemed to be part of the population because they cannot be put on the electoral roll. Mr Speaker, it must impress you to know that there are at least 22,000 Aborigines in Western Australia, a large concentration of them being in the electorate of Kalgoorlie. If their numbers were to be added to the number of people presently enrolled in the division of Kalgoorlie, there would be 10,000 or 13,000 more people on that electoral roll. So there is justification for asking why that electoral division is being made larger. It is the largest electoral division in the world at the present time and the Government proposes to increase its size further. The Government does not take into consideration the fact that the elected representative, whoever he may be, will have another 15,000 people in his electorate. That is quite wrong. It is for those reasons that the Opposition is opposed to the proposal put forward in relation to the redistribution of the electoral divisions in Western Australia, within which falls the area with which we are now dealing in discussing the problems associated with this Bill.

There is another matter which concerns us no end. We have also been very concerned to notice that this Bill, as it is presently drafted, leaves us in a rather ridiculous situation. Clause 4 of the Bill states that the proclamation by the GovernorGeneral dated 7 April and published on 12 April directing that a redistribution of the State of Western Australia into electoral divisions be made shall be deemed to be valid. If it were validated it would have the effect of nullifying the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Act which was passed earlier this year. It provided that a proclamation shall not be made in relation to a State within a period of seven years. The proposal under this Bill is to delete that provision. We do not object to that, but we do object to the fact that the proclamation is deemed to have been validated immediately the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill was passed, and that, of course was some time in April of this year. In other words, the validation dates from that time and there is retrospectivity in relation to it.The redistribution, which is quite contrary to the existing law, will be deemed to be valid from the date of its commencement. We object to that. Accordingly at the Committee stage I shall move for the deletion of clause 3 (2). I shall also move for the deletion of clause 4. The effect of those amendments would be that the Western Australian redistribution, as arrived at and approved in 1974, would be valid. In that case we would disregard the present redistribution for the reasons that I have mentioned.

Let me deal with the third peculiarity of this amending Bill. Assuming the Government has it passed, the Bill, as I read it, will put us in this situation: In future a proclamation may be made whenever one-quarter of the electoral divisions of a State do not meet the quota; that is, when they are out of kilter. We get that part right. A redistribution must take place in a State whenever one-quarter of the electoral divisions are out of kilter and at such other times- this is what the act will now say- as the Governor-General thinks fit. A redistribution can be held whenever one-quarter of the divisions in the State is out of kilter, and that position is identified. ‘At such other times’ means times other than whenever the divisions are one-quarter out of kilter, which means at any time at all, when the GovernorGeneral thinks fit there will be a redistribution.

I submit that is not the right way to interpret the approved redistributions which are supposed to make for democratic voting in this country. This Bill virtually should make it mandatory, I would think, that whenever one-quarter of the divisions in the State differs from the quota and are ascertained as out of kilter there should be a redistribution. We get the ridiculous situation in which there may be a redistribution then and at any other time. In other words, when the divisions are not out of kilter there may be a redistribution because the Government decides to have one. I think one clause virtually contradicts the other. If the basis for the redistribution is that the Government can have a redistribution whenever it wants one, of course it can do so by inserting these words ‘whenever the GovernorGeneral thinks fit’. I think that would cause a fanbit of argument, but that is the situation. We could have the ridiculous situation under this Bill of a redistribution whenever the GovernorGeneral thinks fit, provided that more than onequarter of the divisions is out of kilter. I think one clause virtually negates the other. It is for those reasons that we oppose this Bill.

The Commonwealth Electoral (Redistribution) Bill, which is the second Bill which is being debated cognately, again is a prime example of the Government’s anxiety to push these matters through this Parliament. We have asked questions. We want to know why we are having an election as early as we are. This House will be dissolved some 12 months earlier than it should have been. In this rush to get the program through we find many mistakes. There is the one I just mentioned. Legislation is being put through now which will deny a citizen the right to prove in the High Court of Australia that legislation which the Parliament has passed is not fair and reasonable. He is a citizen of Kalgoorlie. His rights will be affected. While we can plead for him we know the numbers are against us.

We then come to the rights of virtually every other citizen and the validity of the other redistributions throughout the nation. Let us leave aside Western Australia. Let us look at the problems that can now be identified in New South Wales. We will have an Act relating to the redistribution of the State into electoral divisions. The Minister introduced this Bill just a few hours ago- it has been rushed into the House. Again it is a prime example of the Government’s incompetence. It was rushed into the House, to be passed through all stages today, because the life of this Parliament has virtually expired. Unless we get some regularity into the holding of elections, we could have another invalid position.

There has been a mistake in calculating the number of people in the division of Berowra in New South Wales. I am mystified that 4,000 people could be lost. Berowra was deemed to ave 76,000 people, whereas it apparently has only 72,000. 1 think this is an atrocious situation when we are dealing with the basic rights of people and the basic rights of people who want to represent them. The Government is now rushing legislation through this House which states that it does not matter that a mistake was made; it does not matter that Berowra will have fewer electors than it should have under the Act. That will have to be the situation. If there are any other mistakes which have not been found yet the Government will not worry about them either. It will say that in accordance with this Act what has been done shall be deemed to be valid and shall have effect. In other words, the Government has made the redistributions throughout this nation, whether they conform with the early criteria or not. That is not good enough. Again it would follow that unless this legislation is passed, any citizen could promptly go to the High Court and say: ‘Look, the election is taking place on redistributions which are not in accordance with fact’. Normally he would be entitled to say that.

There is another more serious aspect of this question. It applies particularly in New South Wales. It applies obviously in other States. I refer to the question of the result of the redistribution following objections. We made this point at the time the motion seeking approval for the redistribution was debated. Now the Labor Party, instead of requiring a 5.8 per cent swing to win the majority of seats in New South Wales, because of the ultimate decisions of the distribution Commissioners, who are deemed to be impartial, following objections made by the Liberal Party, will require a 6.8 per cent swing to win the majority of seats. The Opposition is much worse off than it was previously.

What consideration was given to these submission? We know that the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) ap- parently made a very weighty submission. He ad the remarkable situation of having had given to him after an objection by him what the Liberal Party first submitted. The significant part of that result is this: When the Liberal Party first made its submission about Lowe the Commissioners rejected it and left the proposed redistribution as it was. Because of the objections of the honourable member for Lowe they agreed with the Liberal Party’s submissions. Nobody else was considered.

In my electorate of Kingsford-Smith, the subdivision of Kensington has been divided in half as a result of objections. The original submission was that the subdivision be removed from my division and given to the division of Phillip, which would have been in accordance with section 19a of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. There was some continuity of social and economic purpose. It was joined on to the existing division of Phillip. As a result of objections- I cannot even find out by whom- the subdivision has been split in half.

Mr Street:

– I rise to take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the subject matter of the Commonwealth Electoral (Redistribution) Bill. My point of order is that this section of the speech by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith is not relevant to that Bill.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-If the Minister would address his mind to this Bill he would see that it validates all of the redistributions in all of the States. I am talking about the redistributions in New South Wales. I am asking whether the redistribution was on a proper concept and whether there would not be objections to that action because at present in New South Wales errors have been made in the calculation of the population in Berowra. That affects every subdivision in New South Wales.

Mr SPEAKER:

– In fact, you are both half right. The fact is that the point made by the Minister is correct in relation to the Commonwealth Electoral (Redistribution) Bill with which the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith is now dealing. So, he is out of order in relation to that Bill. As two Bills are being debated cognately, he is entitled to refer back to the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill (No. 2) which proclaims valid all the redistributions in all the States. As both Bills are being debated cognately, I permit him to proceed.

Mr Street:

– I thought he had finished his remarks on the first Bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

– He had, but both Bills are being debated cognately.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I am disappointed that the Minister is so sensitive. The second Bill was introduced because a mistake was made in the calculation of the number of people in Berowra. I am making the point that the Distribution Commissioners obviously made a lot of mistakes. Another point I am making is that in Kensington they made a mistake, in my view. They divided an area in half. People, for the first time in their lives, on one side of the street have been put in another electorate altogether. Nobody made any submissions about them. There are 4,000 of them. It is a complete contravention of the principles of section 19. In my view it has been done because they vote for the Labor Party.

They have been added to the division of Wentworth where their chances of having a member of Labor persuasion would not be as great.

In Berowra, the mistake was that it was deemed to have so many people that it did not have. I find it very difficult to understand why the Government would not know how many people were enrolled for Berowra. The excuse made is that the poor unfortunate servant made a mistake, but that is no way to pass the blame. The Government would know, the Commissioners would know, that the subdivisions in the seat of Berowra are on public record. I have gone to the trouble of looking at the enrolments for Berowra. The figures are as recent as 27 April 1977. The subdivisions are listed alphabetically with the total number of electors in each subdivision. The Government does not have to blame some unfortunate gentleman for making an error in maintaining statistics on enrolments and say that it was a cumulative error. The Government should have known that the number of people enrolled in each subdivision is published. The total for Berowra calculated from those figures was 72,000 people. That was known to everybody, but the Distribution Commissioners did not take any notice of it. As a result they removed from the Division of Berowra the whole subdivision of Cheltenham East. Four thousand people have been removed from the electorate of Berowra. Normally they would have been entitled to remain in that electorate. In fact, in accordance with the law they should have remained there, because their inclusion in the electorate would have given Berowra its proper quota. Because of this sort of incompetence, bungling, inefficiency and rushed legislation we are obliged to say that it does not matter. We are saying that we will give Berowra a special concession and that it need have only 66,000 electors.

Mr Street:

-It is 67,000.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It is 67,000 electors. The nub of the interjection is that the division will have fewer electors than any other division. The Act provides that country divisions with an area in excess of 5,000 square kilometres are not supposed to have more electors than any metropolitan electorates. Calare is affected by the situation in Berowra. The honourable member for Calare has to represent more people than the honourable member for Berowra because of the dreadful incompetence of this Government. Surely in dealing with the most important right of people to a fair equality in voting the Government can be more efficient than this. It does not have to put the blame on an unfortunate servant of the Government. It knows that people are compelled to enrol. It knows the numbers of electors. It knows the subdivisions in which they live. Yet 4,000 people in Cheltenham East have been removed from the electorate of Berowra, where they belong, to the electorate of Dundas.

This mistake can have a domino effect. The worthy Minister felt that he ought to object to my talking about other areas. Those 4,000 people cannot be tracked anywhere now. They will be forgiven and forgotten because the Government does not have time to worry about the effectiveness of its legislation. We are going to the polls so soon. The issue is that what has happened is contrary to the provisions of the Act. It is contrary to the principles of the Constitution itself. It is contrary to the principle of one vote one value and the 10 per cent tolerance. All this goes out the window because the Government says: ‘It does not matter any more. We can do what we like, provided we make out that there has been a mistake. We will say that there has been a cumulative error in the calculation of additions and omissions and that ought to be good enough’. But the Government falls down rather tragically because we know that people identify themselves by complying with another section of the Act and actually enrolling. Fortunately for us, from the point of view of the public interest of this country, we can say: ‘Look at the enrolment figures published as recently as April and you will know that there could not possibly have been 76,000 people in Berowra but only 72,000’. The evidence was available. The Government ignored it. It neglected to look at it. It is guilty of not carrying out its functions.

It is for those reasons that we oppose this sort of operation we are faced with now. Nevertheless, from the point of view of the principles of what democracy is all about, we are faced with the position that if we were to oppose it to the extent of defeating it we could not possibly give anybody a vote on a division basis within a State. There would have to be an election at large in every State. That is a dreadful indictment of any government. In other words, we as an Opposition are forced into a position of not being able to repair the damage done. It is too late now. We have to let this legislation go through because there is an alternative. That is a very poor effort by a government that has all the resources available to it. It has had to make an urgent plea to the Governor-General to get a special dissolution of the House of Representatives, the reasons for which we do not know but which I understand we will hear later. We are told that the House will be dissolved in the public interest.

In summarising our attitude to the two Bills, I mention again that when we start to look at all the details we find that an unfortunate citizen in Western Australia will be denied his court action which he is entitled to sustain. We now have a half-baked proposition that in some cases there may be a re-distribution and that in other cases there will be a redistribution when the GovernorGeneral thinks fit. That is not proper law. The people of Berowra are to have a special charmed fe m that they need have only 67,000 electors and every other electorate has to have 4,000 or 5,000 more. The people of Calare are not being given the same advantage. They have to be outside the mimimum representation that was proposed in the amending Act earlier this year. In other words, being an electorate of more than 5,000 square kilometres does not count any more. That has had to be forgotten because of the mistake that has been made.

I understand that separate questions will be put on each of the Bills. For the reasons I have given, we will oppose the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill (No. 2), and we will force the question to a division. Although we object to the Commonwealth Electoral (Redistribution) Bill, we feel that we cannot press our objection to a division because of the interests of the Australian nation and the fact that there is no alternative but to let the measure remain for the reasons I have mentioned. Mr Speaker, I will be asking that we go into Committee to consider the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill (No. 2).

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Clause 3 of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill (No. 2) omits from section 25 of the Act subsection (4), which relates to the seven-year provision. I am concerned about this proposal for a simple reason. At present three provisions govern the redistribution of electorates. The first one is the simple constitutional provision imposed by the taking of the census to alter the number of divisions in a State. That is mandatory. The second is that the Governor-General, on appropriate advice, can determine a redistribution at such times as he thinks fit. The third provision was one which the Government placed into the Commonwealth Electoral Act towards the end of last year and which came into operation this year. It indicated that redistributions because a quarter of the seats in a State were out of focus, that is more than 10 per cent up or down on the proposed quota, would not occur more often than seven years apart. I always thought that that was a reasonable provision because it gave an assurance to the electorate that redistributions would not be held at random, in an erratic way or unnecessarily. I reinforce that thinking by referring to the speech of the then Attorney-General, the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott), in introducing the Bill. I shall not read all of the comments of the Attorney-General at that time as recorded at page 485 of the Hansard of 24 February this year, but he gave two reasons for the provision being introduced. They were reasons related to having a stability with respect to electorates. He said: … the amendment is aimed to give stability and to make sure that people grow accustomed to their member and get to know him . . .

Further on he stated:

It is a method of ensuring adequate, proper and reasonable electoral representation.

The amendment, as proposed then, gave the electorate an assurance with respect to redistributions. As such it was quite important. In a rapidly growing country with a rapidly increasing population it was quite possible and quite clear that electorates would get out of focus very rapidly. During the 1950s and the 1960s, they did get out of focus extremely rapidly. You, Mr Speaker, will well remember an old electorate which you represented by the same name as the electorate you represent today. Your old electorate grew out of focus extremely rapidly after the middle 1950s. This amendment therefore gave an assurance that random, erratic, quick redistributions would not be the order of the day, that people could have stability and could get to know their member.

There was also an unstated assumption in respect of that provision. It also assumed an honesty on the part of the distribution commissioners. It assumed that the distribution commissioners, in those circumstances, would bear in mind that unwarranted changes introduced too often would upset an electorate, and those who represented electors had that assurance also. Now trust above all- and this is the unstated assumption of the assurance- was required of the distribution commissioners. I am concerned because this small guarantee is to be removed from the Bill. I am not going to press it to a vote. I do not intend to vote against this section. It can be assumed now that a redistribution can occur at any time and for any reason. The assurance, while not having a great deal of power, did have a significant psychological effect.

I am not happy that it should be removedcertainly not for the reasons that the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) has enunciated. I have serious doubts as to the honesty of one of the redistributions that has occurred in Australia. As I have indicated before, I am of a mind that the redistribution in Queensland was a dishonest redistribution. I am certainly of a mind that section 2 1 of the Act was not adhered to in that redistribution. To put it bluntly, I believe that some cheating went on. I am convinced that the Chief Distribution Commissioner in that State, Mr Coleman, should be thoroughly ashamed of what went on in that redistribution. My reason for so believing is quite simple: Something occurred between the first publication of maps and the second publication of maps which was not even suggested in any objection or submission or proposition put to the commissioners. They got a message from on high, perhaps by way of a telephone call. But they made a significant change in names such as has not occurred before in redistributions that have been conducted under the present system. It has not occurred under any State or any proposed Federal redistribution. I am referring now to the redistribution of 1968, the proposed redistribution of 1975 and of course the redistributions of 1977. So if such a redistribution occurs and if such cheating occurs, there has to be a loss of assurance, with the loss of the proposition that redistributions, because of electorates being above or below the quota, can occur within seven years. In other words, the sevenyear itch, which was some deterrent to unnecessary redistributions, has been removed as part of the proposal to repeal sub-section (4) of section 25.

They are my comments with respect to the Bill. The section was not an overriding one. It did not override the other requirements for powers of redistribution. But because of the Queensland redistribution- I maintain that the Queensland redistribution was not according to the requirements of the Act; I claim it was not an honest redistribution- I am concerned that this small proposal, this small guarantee, which the then Attorney-General thought was necessary earlier in 1977 is proposed to be removed not just for Western Australia but forever in terms of late 1977. Members of parliament are naturally concerned in relation to these matters. Nothing is so close to the interests of a member of parliament and nothing so twigs his nerve ends as a proposed redistribution. When one suspects dishonesty, one has to be very concerned.

They are my simple comments on the proposed deletion of sub-section (4) of section 25. At a convenient time I should like to see this sub-section again included in the legislation, merely to re-inforce what I think ought to be a presumed honesty on the part of distribution commissioners.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

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

- Mr Chairman, I seek leave of the Committee to move both my circulated amendments together.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The first of the amendments refers to clause 3 which reads: 3. (1) Section 25 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (4).

  1. ) Sub-section ( 1 ) shall be deemed to have come into operation immediately after the commencement of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Act 1977.

The second amendment refers to clause 4 which reads:

  1. The Proclamation by the Governor-General dated 7 April 1977 and published in the Gazette on 12 April 1977 directing that a re-distribution of the State of Western Australia into Electoral Divisions be made, and everything done, or purporting to have been done, by virtue of the Proclamation or in relation to or for the purposes of the redistribution, have effect, and shall be deemed to have had effect, at all times and for all purposes, as if the Proclamation had been made in pursuance of section 25 of the Principal Act as amended by this Act.

I move:

In Clause 3, omit sub-clause (2).

In clause 4, omit the clause.

We are not objecting to the removal of the provision of sub-section (4) of section 25. As I have said in the course of my speech in the second reading debate, the reason for our objecting to this provision is very clear. It is now trying to regularise something that has been completely irregular and is making it retrospective. One could perhaps not object if it were going to be regularised as from now, but the fact that it has been made retrospective means that there will be a denial of rights, particularly in Western Australia, to a constituent who established those rights, I would think, by taking action in the High Court. His action will be circumvented by this legislation. Further, the question of the Kalgoorlie redistribution has never been acceptable to us because it was not fair and reasonable. It was not in accordance with the principles we enunciated, particularly because it did not take into consideration the Aboriginal population in that area. For those reasons we oppose these provisions in the Bill and will be dividing the chamber on this issue.

Question put-

That the amendments (Mr Lionel Bowen’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Street)- by leave- proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I will not delay the House for any length of time but I am still not clear in my own mind as to what can be the explanation for this mistake. A very superficial look at the figures that appear in the report of the Distribution Commissioners which was tabled in the House about a fortnight ago, compared with the election statistics for 1975, shows quite clearly what has happened. Let me give the House the enrolment figures for electorates in alphabetical order. At 13 December 1975-these were the last electoral figures-enrolments for the seat of Banks were 62,564 and the enrolments according to the report of the Distribution Commissioners were 63,112- up by less than 600. For Barton enrolments went from 67,542 to 68,641- up by about 1,000. For Bennelong, enrolments went from 70,215 to 71,573- up by about 1,300. Then we come to Berowra. The statistics show us that from an enrolment of 68,984, 18 months later the figure suddenly went up to 76,122 -a difference of 7,200-odd. It seems terribly obvious. The difference in every other electorate was less than 1,000 and suddenly when we come to this electorate we find that the difference is 7,000. Surely somebody should have taken some notice of the difference.

What worries me about this matter is that the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) cannot be in the House tonight. His electorate is adversely affected from a party point of view by this mistake. If it had been realised earlier that the Division of Berowra was 4,000 short, the boundary of Berowra would have gone north and the boundary of Robertson would have gone north also. The net result would have been that Robertson would have taken in part of Swansea, which has been taken away from it and which has a huge Labor majority. I think the figure was approximately 70 per cent at the 1975 election which I think all honourable members would agree was somewhat unusual from the Labor Party’s point of view. At the last Federal election in 1975, in the subdivision of Swansea, Labor received 70.6 per cent of the vote and the Liberal Party received 27.6 per cent. This subdivision has 5,234 electors. I think all honourable members would agree that this makes a difference of 2,000 to the Labor vote.

Robertson has now been placed in the Liberal side, if one looks at the so-called ‘Mackerras pendulum’. It is extremely unfair to have a redistribution in the State of New South Wales which unfairly prejudices the honourable member for Robertson. I have no doubt that he will still win. What is the net result? A mistake- a terribly obvious mistake- was made by the Distribution

Commissioners because they were pushed to work very quickly so that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) could have an election on 10 December. They were pushed very quickly when they were supposed to be checking the redistribution between the first and the second tabling of these documents because the Prime Minister wanted a change made in the electorate of Lowe. He had the Distribution Commissioners panicking. They were pressured by the Prime Minister and, undoubtedly, by the Minister for Administrative Services, (Senator Withers) to make this redistribution very quickly, much more quickly than they obviously were able to do in terms of their competence. I deplore the fact that as a result a completely illegal act has taken place. The Government has remedied that in the way it has done on a number of occasions in the last few weeks, that is, by changing the law arbitrarily. I deplore this action. I think it is an extremely unfair thing to do. It is unfair to put that sort of pressure on the Distribution Commissioners; it is unfair on people who should have checked the report of the Distribution Commissioners; and it is unfair to the honourable member for Robertson.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2847

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Street) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I make the point for the Hansard record that the remarks I made on the second reading of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill (No. 2) in the cognate debate were, of course, intended to relate to this Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2847

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

Judiciary ( Diplomatic Representation) Bill 1 977.

Governor-General Amendment Bill 1977.

Stevedoring Industry Acts (Termination) Bill 1977.

Stevedoring Industry Charge (Termination) Bill 1977.

Stevedoring Industry Levy Bill 1977.

Stevedoring Industry Levy Collection Bill 1977.

Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Bill 1977.

Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1977.

Port Statistics Bill 1 977.

Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1977.

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1977.

Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1977.

Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1977.

Health Insurance Levy Bill 1977.

Income Tax (Film Royalties) Bill 1977.

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1 977.

Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Bill 1977.

page 2848

TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT BILL

Notice of Presentation

The Clerk:

– Notice has been received from the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) that at the next sitting he will present a Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No. 2).

page 2848

CENSURE OF PRIME MINISTER

Withdrawal of Notice of Motion

The Clerk:

– Notice has been received from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) withdrawing his notice No. 36, General Business, relating to the censure of the Prime Minister.

page 2848

COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 November, on motion by Mr Street:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

-The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act to allow for a change in the number of members of the Commission. The Opposition agrees with this proposition with regret because, again, it seems to be a very serious downgrading of what the Opposition has always thought was a most effective commission. In addition, I notice that the Commission’s staff was reduced by nine in 1976 and by a further three in 1977. So, the Government really is not anxious to give this Commission the status and the staff which the Opposition thinks should be given to it to sustain and enhance its quality of performance.

Mr Speaker, you will recall that the Labor Government was anxious to upgrade the Commission, to deal not only with the rights of the States as to what money should be allocated to them but also with the rights of local government. It was a significant help to local government that the Labor government recognised for the first time its needs and was able to utilise the expertise of the Grants Commission, with appropriate additions to it, to assess the needs of the various municipal areas in Australia. As you know, the first year that local government received a substantial sum of money was in 1 974. It received $56.6m. In 1975 it received almost $80m which was provided on the basis that the Labor government of the day had received independent advice from the Grants Commission as to the needs of local government.

It appears there has been a severe reduction in the emphasis to enable local government to deal directly with the issue because amendments were made which mean virtually that local government does not have the direct access that it once had; it is virtually subservient to the State governments. The Opposition does not think that was a fair and proper basis. In other words, the ability of the Commonwealth Grants Commission to provide financial assistance directly was affected by that amendment.

The Opposition has to agree with this proposition for virtually the same reasons we have stated on other matters this evening. On 30 November a member appointed by the Government will retire. The Government has not seen fit to appoint a replacement. Of course, the Opposition can understand that situation. In fact, there is a convention that the Government should not be making replacements at this time. Surely the Government would have known this position. Surely the Government could have given more psychological support bearing in mind the fact that by such action it would not be reducing the Commission’s staff in its period of office. It could have upgraded the Commission. The Opposition finds the Commission a most valuable group of people under the chairmanship of His Honour Mr Justice Else-Mitchell, a first class judicial appointment, who with his expertise is dedicated to the cause of a Commission such as this giving independent advice. We now have the situation that the number of members will fall below four for a period of 6 months from 30 November. This Bill has been introduced to allow this to occur. In other words, there is going to be a suggestion that the number of members can be as low as two. We think this is quite unfair. It downgrades the importance of the Commission and impairs the Commission’s ability to deal adequately and properly with all the things that it has to deal with. For those reasons we oppose the legislation in theory but because of the situation at the present time we will not be able to oppose it in fact. If we did that and we were successful the Commission itself would not be able to continue to function.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-As the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) has just pointed out, the Bill does propose certain amendments affecting the permissible minimum and maximum number of members of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The legislation is required now because in the absence of a further appointment, which as the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith has just said would be in breach of the long standing convention when an election is pending, and the Government is not intending to make such an appointment at this stage, the number of members after 30 November would be one below the permissible minimum number of four members. Consequently, the opportunity is being taken to amend the legislation and also to give effect to the Government’s decision that the minimum number should now be two and the maximum number should be four. I must, on behalf of the Government in leading for the Government at this stage of the debate, refute the proposition that this amendment in any way represents a downgrading of the Commission. I do wish to take a little time to deal with the activities of the Commission and to demonstrate quite clearly that the amendment in no way downgrades the Commission. On the contrary, the Government pursuant to its federalism policy places great store on the standing of the Commission as an integral part of the federal system of this country. It is useful to recognise that when the Commission was set up in 1934 it was essentially the brainchild of a Tasmanian, Professor Lyndhurst Giblin. It basically was set up to provide a means of assistance for the smaller States so that there would be some basis of equality within the Commonwealth. Section S of the Grants Commission Act says:

References in this Act to the grant of special assistance to a State are references to the grant of financial assistance to a State for the purpose of making it possible for the State, by reasonable effort, to function at a standard not appreciably below the standards of other States.

I want to refer to the fact that in 1973 the previous Administration brought in amendments to the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act of 1 934 and we now see that legislation replaced by the Grants Commission Act 1973. This legislation provided for the continuation by the new Commission of inquiries into applications by States for grants of special financial assistance and extended the role of the Commission to include inquiries into applications by regional organisations or local government bodies. In other words, as the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith said, the activities of the Commission were extended to include local government under an Act of this Parliament in 1973. That Act provided for an enlarged Commission comprising a full-time Chairman and from four to six members who could be appointed on a fulltime or a part-time basis. The maximum number of members was increased from six to seven under an amendment to the legislation brought in by the present Government in June 1975. The Chairman and the two part-time members constitute a State division of the Commission and perform the Commission’s traditional role of inquiry into applications by a State for a grant of special financial assistance. I just pause at this time to say that although in the forty-fourth report of the Commission which was recently presented in this Parliament the only claimant State was Queensland it is not to be assumed that other States, including Tasmania, will not at some future time once again become claimant States. As I said, the Chairman and the two parttime members constitute a State division of the Commission and perform the Commission’s traditional role of inquiry into applications by a State for a grant of special financial assistance.

The other members of the Commission- and this is relevant to the comments made by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith- were appointed on a full-time basis and, together with the Chairman, were concerned with inquiries relating to grants of financial assistance to the States for local government purposes. In order to give effect to its pre-election policies, the Government in 1976 and in 1977 convened Premiers Conferences for the purposes of defining relevant aspects of its policy proposals for financial assistance to the States and local government authorities. These proposals included the amendment of the Grants Commission Act 1973, and in June last year this Parliament enacted the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1976 to modify the Commission’s functions in relation to inquiries into applications for financial assistance for local governing bodies. That Act provided for the renaming of the Commission as the Commonwealth Grants Commission, repealed all references in the Act to regional organisations and provided for the Commission to conduct inquiries into matters relating to grants to the States for local government purposes which might be referred to it by the Minister.

The new financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States came into effect in 1976-77. The system of financial assistance grants to the States was replaced by arrangements for sharing personal income tax. That, of course, was Stage 1 of our new federalism policy, a policy which I believe is demonstrably working to the benefit of the States in general and to the benefit of the smaller States in particular, and most of all to the benefit of the State of Tasmania.

Under the new arrangements the four less populous States in addition to their basic entitlements under the tax-sharing arrangements, continued to be free to apply for grants for special financial assistance on the recommendation of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Under Stage 2 of the arrangements the Commission will be responsible for assessing the amounts payable under the equalisation arrangements which are to apply to any surcharges on personal income tax which may be imposed by any of the four less populous States. It has now also been agreed that the per capita relativities in respect of the States’ personal income tax entitlements under stage 1 of the arrangements will be reviewed by the Commonwealth Grants Commission especially constituted for that purpose and consisting of the Chairman, two other members of the Commission and three associate members, one of whom will be nominated by New South Wales and Victoria and two by the other four States.

The present situation is that, as a result of the unfortunate death on 30 March 1977 of Mr L. E. Whalan and the resignations of Mr D. V. Moye and Mr P. G. Collins, the present Grants Commission as constituted comprises the Chairman, Mr Justice Else-Mitchell, part-time members Mr W. R. Lane and Professor R. L. Matthews, and a full-time member, Mr W. J. Heron, who is appointed for five years from 22 September 1975. Therefore it can be clearly seen that unless this Bill was brought into this Parliament the Grants Commission may well have been in a position of not being able to operate on a date from 30 November next until the new government was sworn in and new appointments could be made. That is a situation which, with respect, could not be tolerated by the Government. Far from criticising the Government for taking this action at this point of time I believe the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith could have said, in the circumstances, that the course we are adopting is the proper one because if we did not adopt it the Grants Commission would not be able to operate.

In the remaining time available to me I would like to make a brief comment about the operations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. As I indicated, under section 5 of the Act, the intent of the Grants Commission is to provide a means whereby there shall be at least the opportunity of equality as between the States within the Federation. In the case of Tasmania the situation is highlighted by the fact that our level of personal income per head of population has been consistently below the Australian average for many years. In 1975-76, for example, the level of personal income per head of population in Tasmania was approximately 10 per cent below the Australian average.

Whilst Tasmania is not a claimant State at the present time and whilst we have a Labor Government in Tasmania which complains that Tasmania has not received sufficient moneys from the Federal Government under our new federalism policy, the fact of the matter is that any State, including Tasmania, which contends that it has not received a fair deal will, as a result of this legislation, be completely free to make an approach to the Commonwealth Grants Commission for a special assistance grant at any time after 30 November. If this amending legislation was not introduced there would be a hiatus and any State could find that it could not legally go before the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The fact of the matter is that today, under our federalism policy, the States are better off financially than they have ever been since Federalism.

It absolutely aggravates me to hear people say over and over again: ‘Oh, you are not much better off than you were under the Whitlam formula’. The fact is that every State government this financial year was able to come back with a budget surplus and, at the same time, reduce taxation. I briefly refer, because it is not appropriate to go into detail, to the statistics set out m the table which was found on page 18 of the 44th Commonwealth Grants Commission report, 1977. Dealing with Tasmania, I draw attention to the fact that in 1975-76, which was the last year of the Whitlam Government assistance by way of revenue grants to Tasmania totalled $156,816,000. At that time that figure was considered to be comparatively generous. However, it is significant to know that in a comparatively short time, with the introduction of the new federalism policy by our Government, in 1976-77 that figure jumped to $186,300,000, which was an increase of $30m for Tasmania. In the financial year 1977-78 that amount has jumped to $2 14,600,000 and increase of 1 5.2 per cent.

Mr Groom:

– We are looking after Tasmania.

Mr HODGMAN:

-My colleague the honourable member for Braddon says that we are looking after Tasmania. The fact is that Tasmania has never been better of financially than it is today. For the last two years we have had State Labor Premiers and Ministers complaining that Tasmania was not getting enough money. Yet when we have challenged them to go to the Commonwealth Grants Commission to put a case that there has been an injustice, not really to our surprise the offer has not been taken up. Why has it not been taken up? In 1975-76 Tasmania finished the financial year with a budget surplus of $4,144,000. That was under the last year of the Whitlam Government. In the financial year 1976-77 the Tasmanian Government could not spend all the money it got from Canberra and it finished up with a revenue surplus of $1,583,000. What the papers do not show is that Tasmania finished up with a credit balance in the loans fund of $2.9m. So, in simple financial terms, at the end of the financial year 1976-77 the State Labor Government in Tasmania had $4.4m unspent. I believe this matter is relevant to the Bill because nearly three months ago -

Mr Lionel Bowen:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I do not mind the honourable member talking about Tasmania but this has nothing to do with the Commonwealth Grants Commission. That is the point I make. If you look at the operations of the Grants Commission at the present time you will find that Tasmama is not a claimant State.

Mr HODGMAN:

-That is right. Mr Deputy Speaker, my entire speech is taken from the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The point I am making is that if this amendment does not go through the Parliament the situation is that the Grants Commission cannot operate after 30 November. I am pointing out that some States may wish to make an application to the Grants Commission. Indeed, it is a matter of history that following the June Premiers Conference -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman)Order! I think Tasmania is still a State of the Commonwealth.

Mr HODGMAN:

-Every time we rise in the Parliament to talk about Tasmania there is a concerted attempt from honourable members opposite to silence us. They have tried unsuccessfully for the last 20 months. They absolutely loath Tasmania. The hate Tasmania campaign initiated two weeks ago by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) was carried on last night by honourable members opposite in relation to the Tasmanian Grant (The Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Company Ltd) Bill and again tonight. Why do they do it? They must hate Tasmania so much simply because the people threw out the five Australian Labor Party members in December 1975.

Mr Keating:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is the second time in two nights that I have had to rise to a point of order on the basis that the honourable member for Denison has misrepresented me and other members who spoke last night in support of the Mount Lyell matter. The fact is -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman)Order! The honourable member knows that if he is misrepresented it is not a point of order. If he has been misrepresented he will have an opportunity after this speech to point out where he has been misrepresented and to make a personal explanation. He knows that misrepresentation is not a point of order and I ask him not to take points of order when he knows it is not correct to do so.

Mr HODGMAN:

– I did not even flatter the honourable member by mentioning him by name. I am simply saying that it is becoming obvious to everybody in Tasmania that whenever Tasmanian Liberal MHRs stand in this House and try to put a case for their State, there is a concerted attempt by the socialist Opposition to shut them up. The reason, of course, is that they will never forgive Tasmania because on 13 December 1975, with an overwhelming vote, the people of Tasmania threw out every single Labor MHR. They replaced those Labor MHRs with five Liberal MHRs. Those five Liberal MHR. have fought for Tasmania and will continue to fight for Tasmania and we will all be back after 10 December.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith has been interjecting almost continuously. I will hold up the debate until such time as he ceases and I can hear what the honourable member for Denison is saying.

Mr HODGMAN:

-The point I am about to make is the fundamental one. The Labor Party hates Tasmania. At the moment it is running a ‘Hate Tasmania’ campaign. I just want to make the point -

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– What relevance has this got?

Mr HODGMAN:

-They just cannot take it. They have never forgotten Bass, they have never forgotten Franklin, Braddon, Denison or Wilmot, and by heavens, they will remember them for many years to come. The official figures show that in the last finanical year Tasmania had money running out of its ears. It could not spend all the money it got from Canberra under our federalism policy. On the books, if one can believe the books, there was a surplus of $4.4m, and the figure of $8m has been freely mentioned. One can see the absolute rage of honourable members opposite because they have been claiming that Tasmania was not getting any more than it would have received under the Whitlam formula.

I want to conclude by putting the lie to that once and for all. The situation is that since the Government’s new federalism policy was introduced Tasmania has received more each year than it would have received under the Whitlam formula. It is a downright lie to say that in Tasmania we had to fall back on the guarantee. It will be recalled that at the Premiers Conference of April and June last year a guarantee was written into the federalism agreement that if under the tax sharing arrangements the amount ever came below what would have been payable under the Whitlam formula, then the Whitlam figures would be paid. In the last two years the amount Tasmania has received has exceeded the amount it would have received under the Whitlam formula. That creates a very interesting situation. On the one hand, we have a Labor Premier and a Labor Treasurer complaining that Tasmania is not receiving a fair deal. In 1975 Tasmania made two applications to the Grants Commission for reconsideration as a claimant State. By the time this Government’s federalism policy came into effect Tasmania was doing so well, and I quote from the Grants Commission report, ‘that Tasmania actually withdrew its application for special assistance . That is the greatest compliment that could ever be paid by a State to the federalism policy of this Government. I believe that when a State puts in a claim for special assistance and then realises that it has done so well -

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– What about stage two?

Mr HODGMAN:

– The Labor Party just cannot take it. The funny thing is that if Labor tries to convince the people of Tasmania that they would be better off under a Whitlam government it might just as well -

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– They are all in bed.

Mr HODGMAN:

-The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith has never got over the shock of finding that the people of Tasmania will never again trust Labor. We invite members of the Labor Party to come to Tasmania. The more of them who come, the bigger our vote will be on 10 December. We particularly invite the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam). We believe that he is the greatest asset we have going. On behalf of the people of Tasmania, let me say that I hope he makes many visits to our State between now and 10 December. As my friend, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom), has said, the more times he comes the larger our vote will be. I support the Bill and congratulate the Government on keeping the Grants Commission on foot for the protection of Tasmania and the other States. This Government cares for the little States whereas the Labor Party cannot give a damn for Tasmania and every day in this Parliament shows its hatred for our State.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr YOUNG:

– Yes. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) said that I was a member of the party which had no concern for Tasmania. Just as I did on the occasion when he called the people of Hobart -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Did the honourable member for Denison mention you by name?

Mr YOUNG:

-Yes, he did. Just as on the occasion when he called the people of Hobart drunks and no hopers I took objection -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Did the honourable member -

Mr YOUNG:

-. . . I took objection -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide -

MrYOUNG-No.no.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr YOUNG:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Bryant:

– Just a couple of points, Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I wish to speak to the honourable member for Port Adelaide. Did the honourable member for Denison mention you by name?

Mr Hodgman:

– No.

Mr YOUNG:

– Well, there are six members -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Did the honourable member for Denison mention you by name?

Mr YOUNG:

-It is very hard for me to reply while you are talking.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– It is very hard for me to exercise control from the Chair while you are talking. Did the honourable member for Denison mention you by name?

Mr YOUNG:

-I am not sure. He said that members of the Opposition -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Young:

– Let me on a point of order -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member -

Mr Young:

– Let me make a further point of order to the matter, Mr Deputy Speaker. Personal explanations have been made in this House on the basis of a more generalised accusation -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Young:

– . . . than personal names.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Young:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr Young:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Young:

– The honourable member for Denison -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Port Adelaide will resume his seat.

Mr Young:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I warn the honourable member for Port Adelaide to resume his seat.

Mr Hodgman:

– I have a point of order, Sir. The honourable member for Port Adelaide, for about the twentieth time in this Parliament, has misrepresented me by claiming -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Has the honourable member for Denison a point of order?

Mr Hodgman:

– Yes, I have, Sir.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Or do you claim to have been misrepresented by the honourable member for Port Adelaide?

Mr Hodgman:

– I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Denison.

Mr HODGMAN (Denison)-I claim to have been misrepresented by the honourable member for Port Adelaide who claimed a few minutes ago in this chamber that I once said that the people of Hobart were drunks and no hopers

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Did the honourable member for Port Adelaide mention you by name?

Mr HODGMAN:

– Yes, he did, Sir. I say categorically that I have never said that. I am sorry he is telling lies again. I refer him to Hansard -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Denison will withdraw the remark that the honourable member for Port Adelaide told lies.

Mr HODGMAN:

-The honourable member for Port Adelaide is telling untruths, Sir. I withdraw the remark. I refer the honourable member again to Hansard. I never used those words. Indeed I will go further and say this: If he can find the words ‘drunks and no hopers’ in any speech that I have made in this Parliament, I will give $ 100 to any charity he cares to nominate.

Mr Young:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Denison has withdrawn the remark.

Mr Young:

– Speaking to the point of order -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr Young:

– Now I have been mentioned.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! You will get your say in a moment.

Mr Young:

– Fine.

Mr Wentworth:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Wentworth will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Port Adelaide.

Mr YOUNG (Port Adelaide)-Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise for using the term ‘drunks and no hopers’. When the honourable member for Denison attacked the people of Hobart he said: ‘Every drunk and deadbeat in Hobart’. On that occasion I took objection to the way in which he abused the people of Hobart. Again I take objection to the accusation that people on this side of the House have no feeling for the people of Tasmania. Many of us visit Tasmania.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr YOUNG:

-We have great concern for Tasmania.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr YOUNG:

-We will continue to have great concern for Tasmania -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide -

Mr YOUNG:

– … and Tasmania will return five Labor members.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide knows that he is trying the patience of the Chair far beyond the degree to which it should be tried. The honourable member for Port Adelaide was not mentioned personally, to my knowledge, by the honourable member for Denison. I do not know whether a reflection was made on the people from Hobart, but obviously the honourable member for Port Adelaide is not from Hobart. Therefore, he was not personally misrepresented.

Mr Young:

– Is this not the Australian Parliament?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Young:

– Are we not talking here about Australia?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide will resume his seat. He knows that he is only trying to make political points. He knows that he has not raised a point of order, and as Deputy Speaker I am not prepared to see him make a mockery of this Parliament or of the Chair. I suggest that he remain silent and allow the business of the House to proceed.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I will be just a moment, Mr Deputy Speaker. Although the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) was eloquent -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Is the honourable member for Wills raising a point of order, making a personal explanation, or -

Mr BRYANT:

– I am making a speech. I can understand that you do not quite grasp what this debate is all about. We are talking about the Grants Commission and its influence upon the finances of Tasmania. The facts are that under the Federal Labor Government Tasmania was relieved of the responsibility for its railways and that under the State Labor Government there have been years of good management The honourable member for Denison is unaware of those things and uses every opportunity in this place to try to make it appear that members of the Opposition hate Tasmania. We do not. We have the deepest sympathy for Tasmania because of the kind of representation it has in this place.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I understand the peculiar circumstances in which this Bill has been brought forward, and it must be supported. However, I shall move a small amendment which I think the Government will accept.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Would the honourable member for Mackellar prefer to move the amendment at the third reading stage.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am just foreshadowing it now.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order ! Is the honourable member for Mackellar foreshadowing that he will move an amendment at the third reading stage?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Yes. It will be a small amendment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Mackellar that it might be better if he moved the amendment at the Committee stage.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I want to explain the position in regard to it. I simply want to limit the operation of the -

Motion ( by Mr Bourchier) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Proposed new clause 4.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I move:

After clause 3 add the following new clause:

This Act shall cease to have effect on 3 1 March 1978.

This amendment simply does what the Government says it wants to do. I realise the peculiar circumstances in which this Bill has been introduced, but we do not want to have a permanently small Grants Commission. Consequently, it would be quite wrong to make this temporary adjustment and to allow it to stand permanently in the Act. So, I see no reason why the Government should not accept this small amendment. I think that the Government will accept it because it simply puts into the Bill what the Government says it wants to do. I think that the House would not want to cut the Grants Commission down permanently.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Order! I have looked at the amendment. I have looked at the Bill. Standing Order 227 states:

Any amendment may be moved to any part of the bill, provided the same be within the title or relevant to the subject-matter of the bill, and be otherwise in conformity with the standing orders of the House.

The honourable member for Mackellar has moved in these terms:

After clause 3 add the following new clause:

  1. This Act shall cease to have effect on 3 1 March 1 978.

In my opinion that amendment is not relevant to the Bill, is not within the title and is not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill. I think therefore that the amendment is out of order.

Mr Wentworth:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Chairman. I must insist on this. My amendment is relevant to the Bill; it is within the long title. The long title is related to the membership of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. We are making an amendment to that membership. All I am suggesting is that the membership be restored to the present position on 31 March 1978. My amendment is within the long title. It is relevant to the Bill. I do not honestly believe that you can rule me out of order, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I do not uphold the point of order raised by the honourable member for Mackellar. I have ruled that the amendment is out of order.

Consideration interrupted.

page 2855

QUESTION

OBJECTION TO RULING

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I move:

That the Chairman’s ruling be dissented from.

It is nonsense. It is monstrously wrong.

Mr James:

– I second the motion.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2855

COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 1977

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is: ‘That the Bill be agreed to’.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I think that this Bill is a little dangerous because its provisions are to be continued in operation for so long.

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Adoption of Report

Motion (by Mr Street) proposed:

That the report be adopted.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

Mr Deputy Speaker, I think that the Committee of the Whole should reconsider -

Motion ( by Mr Bourchier) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Street)- by leave- proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

Mr Deputy Speaker, I think that this is an unsatisfactory Bill because -

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2855

HOMELESS PERSONS ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 November, on motion by Mr Hunt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-The Opposition supports the Homeless Persons Assistance Amendment Bill. I remind the House very quickly of what this Bill is about. The Homeless Persons Assistance Bill was introduced in November 1974 by the then Minister for Social Security, Bill Hayden, on the basis of a report of a working party on homeless men and women. The report recommended, amongst other things, that capital grants should be made available over a three-year period to voluntary agencies and local and statutory authorities for approved projects such as night shelters, reception and assistance centres, hostels, flats, day centres, special clinics and detoxification units in order to upgrade and replace existing inadequate accommodation and to build new facilities for permanently and chronically homeless men and women.

In addition, the Bill provided for the Commonwealth to pay 50 per cent of the salary a social worker employed at a homeless persons assistance centre. Approved organisations could be paid a daily subsidy at prescribed rates for each homeless person to whom both food and accommodation were provided. That subsidy amounted to 75c a day. A subsidy of 20c was provided for each meal supplied to non-resident homeless persons. Of course, many organisations such as the Salvation Army took advantage of the money available under this legislation. The working party which had recommended the introduction of this legislation also recommended that the program should be reviewed after three years and therefore that the major provisions of the Act relating to capital and rental grants remain operative until 13 December 1977.

What has happened now, in fact, is that the Government feels, because of the calling of the early election, it has not been able to come to a decision on the recommendation of the so-called Bailey report- the report of the Task Force on Co-ordination in Health and Welfare- in which it is suggested that there be a much wider homeless persons assistance program incorporated in what is called a sheltered accommodation program and some re-organisation, with the help of the State governments. I am not impressed by that recommendation of the Bailey report. I think that it has been made basically in response to a Federal Government proposition that the cost of many or all of these schemes be handed over to the States. It is not really intended to make the schemes more efficient. It is intended to save money for the Federal Government. As of 30 June this year financial support has been given towards the running costs of 95 homeless people centres with a total bed capacity of 3,102, so obviously a large number of people are benefiting by it. It is an essential service.

I do not want at this stage of the evening to get involved in the more general question of refuges and as to whether they ought to be subsidised under this Act or from the Community Health Centre grant or other grants which are administered by the Department of Health, as most of the refuges are at this time, and as the Minister at the table would know. I would urge the Government to look at the prescribed rates that are available for approved organisations. At present the prescribed rate, which was introduced in 1974, is 75c a day for each homeless person to whom both food and accommodation is provided, and only 25c for each meal supplied to non-resident homeless persons. I think everybody in Australia would agree that these amounts are inadequate. They probably were adequate back in 1974 when the legislation was introduced, but there should be some method of indexation so that the Salvation Army or other appropriate organisation miming these hostels or other accommodation and providing the food gets a larger supplement from the Government. The total sum involved is very small and it would only be fair if at Budget time, when we are looking at the proposition of indexing taxation for people who are relatively lucky, in the sense that they are earning taxable income, we also look at the proposition that we should index subsidies for those destitute persons who are covered under this legislation.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

-The Bill extends the Homeless Persons Assistance Act for an additional 12 months. Originally, the legislation was to have effect for three years, after which there was to be a review. The review has taken place and recommendations have been made to widen in some ways the scope of the scheme. However, the Government is still considering the Bailey task force recommendations in the general health and welfare area. Therefore, it is only sensible that since the Government has not yet reached a decision on these matters, including the future of the Homeless Persons Assistance Act, in relation to health and welfare generally, the existing legislation should continue for a further 12 months. This will permit the continuation of various subsidies, and the completion of some of the capital programs involved. It is a sensible step and I commend the Minister for Social Security for ensuring the continuation of the Act and removing any concern that voluntary organisations may have in that regard. I therefore support the Bill.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I want to raise several new points about this matter. First, I think it is indicative of the way in which the country has been administered over the last few months that we are arriving at this decision about the life of this legislation at this late hour, just as we were two hours back considering legislation to correct a redistribution. I would like to raise with honourable members the possibility that there are other ways in which we should examine this problem; that perhaps Parliament has not sufficient opportunity to examine the problem, .which in many respects is a very difficult one. What exactly is a homeless person?

Although there is a definition here, it is quite vague and the application of the Act must therefore be vague.

We had an example of that in Canberra a couple of years backin the case of Reid House. It was alleged by community groups that there were large numbers of homeless people in this city. Therefore when the time came to remove Reid House from the city, a ban was put upon its removal and we could not get anything started, so we decided to renovate it and spend a fair sum of money to that end. I went there one evening after the House adjourned to see what kind of people were using it as their refuge. I suppose there were 12 or 15 people there. When we sat down we talked in a friendly way in a relaxed atmosphere. Two of them were actually in residence because they were homeless people. The other 10 or 13 were young students and other people from round about who were on the committee for homeless people.

Scattered throughout Australia are large numbers of folk who find it difficult to have settled lives. Therefore there is a great need for accommodation for homeless people. Some of the need has nothing to do with people’s financial situations. For instance, Hanover Welfare Services in Melbourne runs an extensive organisation including Gordon House, a very large institution with 200 or 300 beds. It has no difficulty in finding people to use that accommodation and pay the very moderate costs involved.

I hope that the House will apply itself to this matter more thoroughly. Perhaps a welfare committee of this House or an appropriate Senate committee could examine the matter so that we can provide money in such a way as to fulfil the initiatives taken three years ago. It is disappointing that so many of the programs which the Labor Government launched have been affected. They have not exactly come to a halt- some have not even been dismantled- but progress has been minimal. This is a serious reflection upon the way the country is run. I should think that the last two years have been the most sterile for a Commonwealth government in the history of Australian federation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

House adjourned at 11.38 p.m.

page 2858

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

United Nations Conference Habitat: Implementation of Recommendations (Question No. 496)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What steps is he taking to ensure that the recommendations made in the United Nations Conference habitat of June 1976 are being implemented so far as they relate to consultation with people rather than the imposition of the decisions of officials.
  2. Will he take up with his colleague the Minister for the Capital Territory the need to have the widest possible views sought as to the development of a multi-purpose recreational faculty at the Canberra showgrounds, and have that development carried out in consultation with interested bodies.
Mr Newman:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) Appropriate steps are being taken within the area of my jurisdiction.
  2. No.

M.V. San Pedro Bay: Fumigation (Question No. 1047)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 June 1977:

  1. 1 ) What actions did his department take in relation to M.V. San Pedro Bay at Broome on or about 10 February 1977.
  2. Was the vessel ordered to be fumigated. If so, by whom was the order authorised.
  3. Was the fumigation order cancelled or withdrawn. If so, on whose direction or authorisation, and what were the reasons for the cancellation or withdrawal.
  4. Did waterside workers at a port in North Western Australia refuse to work on the vessel because of rodent infestation on or about 10 February 1977. If so, will he supply full details and advise whether the union action was justified in view of reports of departmental staff.
  5. Has the M.V. San Pedro Bay now been fumigated and given the necessary clearances to berth at Australian ports. If so, who initiated the fumigation action.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) On 9 February 1 977, the part-time Quarantine Officer at Broome informed the Director of Health, Western Australia, that a rat had been seen on the M.V. San Pedro Bay. The Director instructed the Quarantine Inspector, North- West Ports, to investigate the report. On 10 February 1977, the Quarantine Inspector, North-West Ports, reported that the vessel was infested with rats and cockroaches and that in his opinion the vessel required fumigation. It is not departmental policy in Western Australia to order fumigation of vessels at outports. Fremantle is the only Western Australian port which can issue an International Deratizanon Certificate; fumigation facilities are not available at these ports, and in any event, fumigation as a rodent control measure is a dangerous and costly procedure which is not recommended where adequate alternatives exist. (World Health Organisation publication ‘Vector Control in International Health’, page 72 refers). The San Pedro Bay is a small (21 metre) vessel, has no holds and has minimal crew accommodation at deck level. Accordingly, and in the light of the report of the Quarantine Inspector, North-West Ports, he was instructed on 1 1 February to treat the vessel by trapping and poisoning. The operation was commenced on the same day. The Quarantine Inspector, North-West Ports, reported on 14 February 1977 that no rats were caught or found poisoned.
  2. Under long-standing instructions which are operative in Western Australia, fumigation orders may only be issued with the specific approval of the Director or the Assistant Director (Medical). A fumigation order was not issued by the Director or the Assistant Director (Medical) in relation to the M.V. San Pedro Bay nor was the issue of an order approved by either officer. In response to an inquiry on 11 February 1977 the Director advised the owner that fumigation was not being considered. On 16 February 1977, following advice for the owner that wharf workers in Broome would not service the vessel or allow it to come alongside, because they had heard that it was rat infested the Director advised the wharfinger, Broome, by telegram that there was no quarantine objection to the vessel being brought alongside provided that the vessel was fendered from the wharf for a distance of not less that three feet; that it either anchored out at night or if alongside, her gangway was constantly well lit and all ropes from the vessel to the wharf were fitted with adequate rat guards. Some days later the vessel was fumigated by a team taken to Broome from Perth by the owner. The Director assumed that in the light of his instructions and advice to the owner, the fumigation was being arranged at the initiative of the owner to overcome continuing union objections to working the vessel. However, in early April, the owner approached the Department seeking recovery of the fumigation costs. The Director subsequently ascertained that the master of the San Pedro Bay had been directed in writing to proceed to Fremantle to enable his vessel to be fumigated. The letter had been signed by a medical practitioner acting as a locum for the Quarantine Medical Officer in Broome. The locum was not a Quarantine Officer. Dr Gilbert, the doctor who signed the written instruction, has advised in writing that his signature was requested by the Quarantine Inspector, North-West Ports, who informed him that there was evidence of an excessive number of rats on board the ship and that fumigation was mandatory under the circumstances. Dr Gilbert accepted the Quarantine Inspector’s statements and directions to be representative of normal procedure.
  3. The existence of the written direction referred to in (2) was not known to the Director of Health or the Assistant Director (Medical) until early April. The direction was not withdrawn by the doctor who signed it. In a letter dated 23 June 1977 to the Director of Health, the legal representatives for the owner of the vessel advised, in part, ‘Inspector Toomer instructed those on board the San Pedro Bay to ignore the fumigation order and to proceed to Port Hedland where he would supervise the fumigation’. The firm which undertook the fumigation has advised that no rats were seen before or after the fumigation and that no rat carcasses were found.
  4. See (2) above. There was no disease risk to wharf workers in working the vessel. Trapping, poisoning and fumigation operations on the vessel had failed to locate a single rat.
  5. The San Pedro Bay was fumigated. The vessel was granted pratique on 7 February 1977 and subsequently issued with a Derat Exemption Certificate. On 2 1 July 1 977 a full report on all aspects of the incident was sought from the Quarantine Inspector, North- West Ports. The Quarantine Inspector, North- West Ports, has advised that because of his suspension from duty it is impossible for him to report on the San Pedro Bay. The claim from the owner for recovery of costs of fumigating the San Pedro Bay has been referred to the Deputy Crown Solicitor, Perth.

Commonwealth Funding for Health Programs (Question No. 1091)

Mr Neil:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) What major programs were funded by his Department in the electoral divisions of (a) St George, (b) Banks, (c) Barton and (d) Lang during 1976-77, including recurrent an non-recurrent expenditure.
  2. What was the expenditure on each program.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) The major programs which are administered by my Department and can readily be identified in nonetary

Hospitals Development Program

This program was established in 1974-75 to provide capital assistance to the States over a five year period for the provision of new hospitals, mental institutions, hostels and nursing homes and the upgrading of existing facilities.

The Commonwealth Government does not fund individual projects but makes funds available towards a total program of works. The final responsibility for managing total funds, both Commonwealth and State, rests with the State. The block grant allocated to New South Wales in 1976-77 was $36 million.

During 1976-77, in the New South Wales total program of works for which Hospitals Development Program funds were granted, one project was approved in respect of the electorates mentioned. Details are as follows:

Community Health Program terms in the Electoral Divisions of St George, Banks, Barton and Lang are:

Australian School Dental Scheme

Hospitals Development Program

Community Health Program

Home Nursing Service (Subsidy)

Details of the expenditure for 1976-77 in respect of these programs are included in the following statements.

Other major programs which are conducted on a National or State basis but for which figures are not available for individual electoral divisions are:

Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service

Health Program Grants

Drug Education Program

Family Planning Program

Nursing Home Benefits Program

Domiciliary Nursing Care Benefits Program

Private Hospital Bed Subsidy Program

Hospital Cost Sharing Arrangements

Australian School Dental Scheme

The Scheme is being developed to provide free dental treatment, including dental health education, for all children under 15 years of age, with initial emphasis on primary school children, and to improve in the longer term the nation’s dental health by early treatment and prevention of dental diseases in children and by dental health education.

Projects supported by my Department during 1976-77 in the electorates mentioned are as follows:

Grants provided under this program are to assist the States and, through the States, Local Government Authorities and voluntary organisations to establish and extend communitybased health services.

Funds provided to the four electorates mentioned in 1976-77 were:

Due to the amalgamation of some projects in recent years projects listed above may overlap into adjoining electorates.

Home Nursing Service (Subsidy)

Under this item, subsidies are paid to approved non-profit organisations conducting home nursing services.

Details of funds provided in respect of the specified electorates during 1976-77 are as follows:

Some services provided by any one nursing service may overlap into adjoining electorates.

Commonwealth Funding for Immigration Projects (Question No. 1092)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) What major programs were funded by his Department in the electoral divisions of (a) St George, (b) Banks, (c) Barton and (d) Lang during 1976-77, including recurrent and non-recurrent expenditure.
  2. What was the expenditure on each program.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I refer the honourable member to the answer given by the Minister assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs to question No. 10786 [Hansard, 8 September 1977, page 989).

Private Health Funds, New South Wales; Governing Boards (Question No. 1097)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. What are the names of the persons who are members of the governing boards of the private health funds in New South Wales.
  2. Under what laws, State or Commonwealth, are the funds incorporated.
  3. What provision does the State or Commonwealth law, or the rules of each private fund, have for the election of the governing board by contributors to the fund.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) AMA (NSW) Health Fund Limited-G. K. Williams, G. S. Rieger, C. S. H. Reed, P. S. Cocks, E. J. Lines, G. Douglas, R. J. M. Dunlop, I. S. Collins.

Australian Catholic Guild Friendly Society-.!. J. Dryden, G. Azoulay, R. J. Fleming, A. Scarrabelotti, P. B. Ward, P. H. Carter, F. Woodhouse, P. J. Creagan, N. G. Martin, W. P. Brennan, R. Carter, O. M. Leis, F. A. Reader, W. L. Stone.

Broken Hill and District Hospital Contribution Fund- W. 0’Neil (snr), A. Treglown, L. Sly, E. Snodgrass, S. Dunlevy,

  1. Thomson, W. O’Neil (jnr), N. Dunlevy

Cessnock District Hospital Contribution Fund- N. Mitchel, R. Slack, J. Faulds, L. 0’Neil K. Allen, F. Hallam, A. Walters.

The Commercial Banking Company Health Society-J. D. Sharpe, F. C. Lewis, E. R. Winslow, R. A. Guthrie, D. M. Cowper, G. J. Watkins, K. T. J. O’Connor.

Commonwealth Bank Health Society- I. Ronaldson, J. Flynn, L. Edwards, W. Lewis, M. Reidy, B. Skinner, P. Frost.

The Grand United Order of Oddfellows Friendly Society of New South Wales-J. H. Lazarus, B. L. Wilson, N. Davidson, R. E. Hulbert, R. H. Erskine, H. R. Hamblen, W. Dempster, F. J. Perry, H. E. Cook, J. W. Pennington, J. J. Olsen, J. L. Hawkins.

Health Insurance Commission (Medibank Private)- G. Howells (Chairman), R. G. Williams (General Manager), R.

  1. Kronborg (Deputy Chairman), C. R. Wilcox, A. E. Hartshorn, Sister Paulina Pilkington, H. West.

Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society of New South Wales-J. O’Keeffe, W. Davoren, J. Meekin R. Wall, V. Breen, P. Dwyer, D. Taylor, W. Boland, E. Waring, J. Pyke,K.O’Regan.

The Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia- F. Allen, R. Hoffmans, E. Brown, R. Marshal, A. Duckworth, D. Sortwell, J. Gibson, J. Westephalen, P. McReady, B. Woods, P. Oakman, F. Blackwood, W. H. Garing, R Drew, W. Ruscoe, K. Gain, T. Ward, F. McDonough, A. Woods, H. Beer, N. Meers, E. Callaway, R. Ramkine, J. Evans, E. Upton, K. Huenerbein, E. Wilson, H. Norton.

The Hunter Medical Benefit Fund Limited- F. J. Jones, J. Hamilton, E. Woods.

Independent Order of Oddfellows of the State of New South Wales- J. Boulton, C. Lindgren, J. Kimble, J. Hanna, P. Dominish, E. Ellis, A. Watson, E. Watson, J. Dick, A. Carter.

New South Wales District No. 85, Independent Order of Rechabites, Salford Unity, Friendly Society-E. R. Horner, R. C. Hayward, P. Mac L. Crawford, P. A. Sheldon, A. T. Sinclair, G. E. Hocking, A. J. Thompson, W. J. Kalaitzis, E. A. Evenden, F. W. Dixon.

The Kurri Kurri Maitland Hospital Contribution Fund- A. J. Frame, E. Bensen, R. Brown, D. Pryor, A. MacKintosh, G. Winter, U. Butler.

The Lysaght Hospital and Medical Club-N. Burke, L. Flynn, C. Ainsworth, R. Finlay, W. Kiley, J. Pedersen, G. Canton, R. Hayter, C. Davy.

Local Government Employees’ Medical and Hospital Club-R. Bury, B. Evans, K. Knight, M. Sheils, J. Burns, D.

Brandon, J. McAllan D. Hains, T. Crotty, J. Smellie, W. Mansfield, J. Merchant, J. Drylie, P. Henery, B. Chandler.

The Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows, Friendly Society, in New South Wales-J. Lewis, R. Haningion, M. Casey, F. Matthews, W. Gennings, J. Creaney, C. Johnson, J. Ford, R. Small, R. Holloway, L. Dagger, T. Stephens.

Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited- J. L. Amies, J. F. Lee, D. A. Brown, H. Stuart-Patterson, W. H. Collins, N. L. Sherwood, J. M. Gosper, J. W. C. Wyett, A. K. Lavis, D. Braham, J. P. McPhee, R. S. Cohen, D. P. Rowe, H. H. Gibson, D. J. Walters, A. M. Johnson, A. H. Braby, J. H. McDowell, H. Budd, A. H. Pollard, R. S. Day, W. F. Simmons, G. L. Howe, A. W. O. Young.

NIB Health Funds Limited-J. F. Moore, T. Ward, R. C. Millington, R. G. Hooker, R. Peddie, J. Graham, F. Smith, E. Johnston, W. J. Menzies.

New South Wales Teachers’ Federation Health SocietyA. J. Estep, J. George, B. Manefield, C. Rennie, J. Hennessy, E. Sheehan B. Watterson, J. Schofield, A. L. Vance, M. Taylor, J. A. Doyle.

NSW Railway and Transport Employees’ Hospital Fund-A. H. Watson, R. A. Ranger, M. E. Hazleton, T. P. Foley, L. Doyle, C. J. Arnold, L. W. Dyer, D. F. Munro, R.H. Wright, H. R.Hyde.

The Phoenix. Welfare Association Limited-B. Cotterill, C. Phillips, R. A. Bender, G. G. Jago, W. T. Schacht, W. Terry, C. Phillips, R. Stobbs, R. F. Griffiths.

Protestant Alliance Friendly Society of Australasian Grand Council of New South Wales-N. J. C. Edwards, A. H. King, D. C. Loneon, K. Anis-Brown, G. A. Rosevear, D. W. Phillips, H. E. Rankin, G. Linfoot, G. C. Rosevear.

Reserve Bank Health Society-R. White, A. O’Connell, N. Aitken, Miss Cantwell, J. Cooling, N. Webb.

The Store Hospital and Medical Fund- L. P. Haddow, C. A. W. Evans, A. W. Bower, I. Packer, D. Walker, P. H. Mealey, S. R. Dalton.

The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ Hospital Fund-W. R. Green, F. E. Jubb, B. R. Strong, N. Isemonger, A. Spillier, J. S. Newling, N. Schofield, H. B. Mew, V. W. J. Eggleton.

The United Ancient Order of Druids’, Registered Friendly Society, Grand Lodge of New South Wales-E. Russell, J. Cook, L. Parkes, R. Allerton, J. Hegger, L. Carter, L. Briggs, L. Lyons, J. Holburn, G. Allerton, L. Jones, G. Jakeman, K. Lymn, H. Troy,.G. Chappie.

Western District Medical Benefits Fund-J. Savage, R. Buck, V. Moffitt, J. Field, R. Dwyer, L. Seger, R. McCann, D. Roberts, G. Clencorse, H. Kerney.

The Wollongong Hospital and Medical Benefits Contribution Fund- K. Davis, J. McKenzie, I. Brown, G. Bernays, J. Johnston, R. Bath, G. Barnett, P. Thomas, J. Dyson-Firth, T. Wren.

  1. State Law

Companies Act-AMA (NSW) Health Fund Limited; The Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia; The Hunter Medical Benefit Fund Limited; Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited; N.I.B. Health Funds Limited; The Phoenix Welfare Association Limited.

Public Hospitals Act-Broken Hill and District Hospital Contribution Fund; Cessnock District Hospital Contribution Fund; The Kurri Kurri Maitland Hospital Contribution Fund; The Wollongong Hospital and Medical Benefits Contribution Fund.

Trade Union Act- New South Wales Teachers’ Federation Health Society; Western District Medical Benefits Fund.

Friendly Societies Act- Australian Catholic Guild Friendly Society; The Commercial Banking Company Health Society; Commonwealth Bank Health Society; The Grand United Order of Oddfellows, Friendly Society of New South Wales; Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society of New South Wales; Independent Order of Oddfellows of the State of New South Wales; New South Wales District, No. 85, Independent Order of Rechabites, Salford Unity, Friendly Society; The Lysaght Hospital and Medical Club; Local Government Employees’ Medical and Hospital Club; The Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows, Friendly Society, in New South Wales; NSW Railway and Transport Employees’ Hospital Fund; Protestant Alliance Friendly Society of Australasia, Grand Council of New South Wales; Reserve Bank Health Society; The Store Hospital and Medical Fund; The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ Hospital Fund; The United Ancient Order of Druids’, Registered Friendly Society, Grand Lodge of New South Wales.

Commonwealth Law

Health Insurance Commission Act 1973- Health Insurance Commission (Medibank Private).

  1. Neither Commonwealth law nor the relevant State legislation makes provision for the election of governing boards by contributors to the fund.

With regard to organisations registered under the Friendly Societies Act, other than those of an industrial nature included amongst those referred to hereunder, the position is that, in general, contributors to these funds do not per se have any voice in the control of the friendly societies’ affairs including administration of health funds. Control is vested in lodge membership. Members of lodges elect their office bearers and their delegates to higher bodies which in turn elect their directorate. Contributors to such funds are not required to be members of the societies.

The following sets out the position regarding the rules of those organisations which make some provision for the election of governing boards by contributors:

AMA (NSW) Health Fund Limited-The Articles of Association provide for a board of directors of not less than eight nor more than 15 members. All contributors are eligible to be directors and to attend and vote in the election of directors at the annual general meeting.

Broken Hill and District Hospital Contribution FundThe organisation’s rules provide that the management committee shall consist of representatives of the Barrier Industrial Council and the board of directors of the Broken Hill and District Hospital.

There are eight members on the committee. The chairman of the board of directors of the hospital is also chairman of the management committee. The remaining seven members are contributors and include Barrier Industrial Council representation.

The Commercial Banking Company Health SocietyUnder the organisation’s rules, contributors are entitled to vote for contributors’ representations only. The committee comprises seven members, two of whom are contributors’ representatives.

The Hunter Medical Benefit Fund Limited- The organisation’s Memorandum and Articles of Association provide that contributors must be contributors to all funds conducted by the company before being eligible to vote in the election of directors- that is, the medical and hospital funds conducted under the National Health Act and the Pharmaceutical Fund which is conducted outside the provisions of the National Health Act.

The board comprises three directors only.

Local Government Employees’ Medical and Hospital Club- The rules of the organisation provide for a management committee of IS members, elected for a three year term. Any qualified person, i.e. an employee of one of the local government bodies (councils) and who must also be a contributor to the organisation, may nominate or be nominated for election to the committee and attend and vote in that election.

The Lysaght Hospital and Medical Club- The organisation’s rules provide for a board of directors of nine members elected annually by the members.

Nominees for director are required to have been in the employ of John Lysaght (Australia) Limited or its subsidiaries or associated companies, and also a contributor to the organisation for a continuous period of 12 months prior to the date of nomination.

NSW Railway and Transport Employees’ Hospital Fund- The organisation’s rules provide for the election of an executive board of 10 members for a two year period, five members of the board being elected each year.

Nominations for office are accepted only from financial contributors employed within the Public Transport Commission of NSW (Rail, Bus and Ferry Division) and Motor Transport Department.

However, any financial contributor to the organisation is entitled to vote at the annual general meeting and election of officers.

The Phoenix Welfare Association Limited- In accordance with the Memorandum and Articles of Association, the organisation is governed by a council of not less than five nor more than nine members. One third retire each year. All contributors are entitled to vote in the election of counsellors. However, before being eligible for election to the council, a contributor must have been an employee of Stewarts and Lloyds for at least 10 years.

The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ Hospital Fund-Under the rules, management of the organisation is vested in a board of nine members. The secretary and treasurer are ex-officio positions.

All financial contributors are entitled to vote at an election of a member of the board.

Private Health Funds, Queensland: Governing Boards (Question No. 1098)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) What are the names of the persons who are the members of the governing boards of the private health funds in Queensland.
  2. Under what laws, State or Commonwealth, are the funds incorporated.
  3. What provision does the State or Commonwealth law, or the rules of each private fund, have for the election of the governing board by contributors to the fund.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Ancient Order of Foresters Friendly Society in Queensland-M. L. Weller, R. T. Yates, H. R. Morton, A. C. Sweeper, G. B. Taylor, B. M. Weller T. J. Crisp.

Commonwealth Public Service (Qld) Credit Union Health Benefits Society-L. F. Talty, A. W. Hill, M. D. Fagg, A. N. Durham, G. Fowler, E. A. Menadue, T. J. Corcoran, R. Genter, R. D.Price.

The Grand United Order of Oddfellows Friendly Society-G. R. Oilier, J. E. Gibbs, I. P. S. McFarlane, R. F. Simonds, D. R. Simonds, L. W. Bowles, C. J. Grice, W. C. Milne.

Health Insurance Commission (Medibank Private )-G. Howells (Chairman), R. G. Williams (General Manager), R.

H. Kronborg (Deputy Chairman), C. R. Wilcox, A. E. Hartshorn, Sister Paulina Pilkington, H. West.

Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society, Queensland District No. 5-J. K. McKenna, W. J. Zeller, T.

  1. Frisby, L. Galligan, P. A. Casey, J. O’Rourke, T. B. Scanlan, D. J. C. Anderson, J. H. Power, K. J. L. White, B. J. Cowan, V. I. Crowley, L. B. Ryalls

The Queensland District, No. 87, Independent Order of Rechabites, Friendly Society-J. A. Smith, J. A. Taylor, W. J. Tweedale, S. B. Bretherton, C. Taylor, L. J. Doherty, J. W. K. Newton, D. R. Bell, D. G. Chapman, J. A. Pitts, T. R. Williams, H. H. Harbottle.

Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited-J. L. Amies, J. F. Lee, D. A. Brown, H. Stuart Patterson, W. H. Collins, N. L. Sherwood, J. M. Gosper, J. W. C. Wyett, A. K. Lavis, D. Braham, J. P. McPhee, R. S. Cohen, D. P. Rowe, H. H. Gibson, D. J. Walters, A. M. Johnson, A. H. Braby, J. H. McDowell, H. Budd, A. H. Pollard, R. S. Day, W. F. Simmons, G. L. Howe, A. W. O. Young.

MIM Employees Health Society-J. S. Lacey, S. Coates, G.

D. Gallaher, T. Eakin, C. J. Jury, C. Walsh, A. Pavusa, E. Wilkinson, R. Wyatt.

Protestant Alliance Friendly Society of Australasia, in Queensland (The Grand Council)-R. J. Williams, C. G. Rye, E. K. Humble, J. R. Parry, T. R. Wass, C. J. Richardson, B. N. Kidd, L. A. May, A. W. Browne.

Queensland Teachers’ Union Health Society- J. H. Ross,

I. Hope, R. Cable, K. Brasch, G. Lean, R. Jones, C. Sinclair, J. H. Arnold, M. Chappell, B. Stephenson.

  1. State Law

Companies Act- Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited (foreign company).

Cooperative and Other Societies Act- Commonwealth Public Service (Queensland) Credit Union Health Benefits Society.

Friendly Societies Act- Ancient Order of Foresters Friendly Society in Queensland; The Grand United Order of Oddfellows Friendly Society; Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society, Queensland District No. S; MIM Employees Health Society; Protestant Alliance Friendly Society of Australasia, in Queensland (The Grand Council); Queensland Teachers’ Union Health Society; The Queensland District, No. 87 Independent Order of Rechabites, Friendly Society.

Commonwealth Law

Health Insurance Commission Act 1973- Health Insurance Commission (Medibank Private).

  1. Neither Commonwealth law nor the relevant State legislation, with the exception of the Cooperative and Other Societies Act, makes provision for the election of governing boards by contributors to the fund. The Cooperative and Other Societies Act requires election by members at the general meeting.

With regard to organisations registered under the Friendly Societies Act, other than those of an industrial nature included amongst those referred to hereunder, the position is that, in general, contributors to these funds do not per se have any voice in the control of the friendly societies affairs including administration of health funds. Control is vested in lodge membership. Members of lodges elect their office bearers and their delegates to higher bodies which in turn elect their directorates. Contributors to such funds are not required to be members of the societies.

The following sets out the position regarding the rules of those organisations which make some provision for the election of governing boards by contributors:

Commonwealth Public Service (Qld) Credit Union Health Benefits Society- The organisation’s rules provide that the board of management shall consist of nine directors elected by shareholders of the ‘CPS Credit Union’ present at the annual general meeting. All shareholders are entitled to vote. Membership of the organisation is restricted to shareholders of the ‘ CPS Credit Union ‘.

MIM Employees Health Society- The organisation’s rules provide that the management committee shall consist of at east six members comprising two persons appointed by the company and four contributors’ representatives-two elected by members from the Mt Isa area, one each elected by members from each of the Brisbane area and TownsvilleCollinsville area.

Queensland Teachers’ Union Health Society- The organisation’s rules provide for a management committee of 10 members, all of whom with the exception of the Public Officer, shall be elected initially at the formation meeting of the Society. Three of the nine elected members retire annually in rotation and shall be eligible for re-election. Casual vacancies on the committee are filled from a panel of five financial members submitted to the committee by the Council of the Queensland Teachers’ Union.

However, all financial contributors to the organisation are entitled to attend the annual general meeting and vote in the election of the committee or on any resolution.

Private Health Funds, Victoria: Governing Boards (Question No. 1101)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) What are the names of the persons who are the members of the governing boards of the private health funds in Victoria.
  2. Under what laws, State or Commonwealth, are the funds incorporated.
  3. What provision does the State or Commonwealth law, or the rules of each private fund, have for the election of the governing board by contributors to the fund.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The Ancient Order of Foresters in Victoria, Friendly Society- A. F. Hart, S. G. Simmons, R. J. Morrison, A. M. Sievers, N. Phillips, L. Hickey, J. A. Richardson, M. G. Plumridge.

Army Health Benefits Society-J. A. Hooper, J. T. Dunn, D. Verinder, R. W. Morris, A. Pearce, C. B. Hazen, J. Spencer.

Australian Natives’ Association- I. V. Meagher, F. E. Capuano, H. J. Peagram, B. Armstrong, E. W. Pitts, A. J. Brisbane, W. A. Cuddihy, J. A. S. Geddes, B. J. Kelleher, H. T. Shannon, J. E. Menadue, R. A. Storey, V. G. Wright, E. S. A. Wickham, L. J. Yelland, H. G. Hughes, R. J. Joseph, J. A. Munro.

Cheetham Hospital Benefits Fund-R. J. Vague, P. C. Maxsted, R. B. Howard, I. H. Chappell, K. R. Moore.

Geelong Medical and Hospital Benefits Association LimitedB. F.Williams, A. C. Marshall, G. E. Blood, A. S. Hand,

F. D. Kerley, M. Schimana, J. R. Stewart, L. R. Thomson, G. A. Bird, D. Taylor, B. Wemyss, H. S. Beavis, B. F. Loughnan.

Grand United Hospital Benefit Society (Incorporating The Grand United Order of Oddfellows) in Victoria Friendly Society-H. H. Hall, J. D. Collard, J. Munday, E. W. T. Jewell, F. C. Cross, A. B. Robertson, H. Levi, R. H. Leach, N. A. Kroezen, E. W. Jones.

Health Insurance Commission (Medibank Private)- G. Howells (Chairman), R. G. Williams (General Manager), R. H. Kronborg (Deputy Chairman), C. R. Wilcox, A. E. Hartshorn, Sister Paulina Pilkington, H. West.

The Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society Victorian District No. 1-T. J. Hayes, M. Spence, B. M. Meere, T. D. Connane, J. J. Ryan, J. J. Brown.

The Hospital Benefits Association Ltd- W. J. Skewes, E.

  1. Hale, E. W. Grace, H. G. Dennett, A. Dunkley, J. Best, A. J. Moss, J. V. McQuay, H. M. Mitchell, G. P. Connard, B. N. Smith.

Independent Order of Oddfellows of Victoria- J. Hope, M. J. Meek, D. E. Jury, J. Meneilly, A. C. Smith, R. Hallett, F. D. Hanrahan

The Irish National Foresters’ Benefit Society-F. M. Reardon, J. J. Moloney, K. M. Toohey, J. J. Thompson, J. A. Cooper, A. Collins, M. Watts, T. J. Canty, H. Brown, E. Holland, J.S. Scott.

Latrobe Valley Hospitals and Health Services Association W. J. White, C. M. Davies, J. McDonald, J. C. Bush, A. L. Hare, G. Farrington, L. Read, J. VanLambaart, S. Bertrand.

The Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows D. B. Adams, G. B. Anderson, U. C. Armstong, R. Atkins, F. A. Beard, M. W. Campbell, F. G. Dyring, G. V. Farrell, H. A. Goodwin, W. E. Llewellyn, B. E. Matthews, E. J. Narik, L. K. Rolph, D. J. Stonehouse.

The Mildura District Hospital and Medical Fund-R. N. Fleming, P. E. Byrne, E. Brown, G. Elmitt, G. Talbot, K. Smith.

Naval Health Benefits Society-G. Heys, K. O’Brien, K. L.

G. Gray, M. Grogan, J. H. Speed.

The Order of the Sons of Temperance National Division Friendly Society- R. C. Olderwood, R. Cameron, F. L. Caulfield, D. Cordingly, R. Griffett, N. Hallam, A. G. Marsh, K. Moore, C. K. Setterfield, W. J. Short, W. T. Short, C. G. Storen, S. V. Swain, J. Temple, A. M. Thompson, F. Tassell

The Protestant Alliance Friendly Society of Australasia Grant Council of Victoria-C. R. Bennett, K. D. McColl, R.

H. Marr, S. D. Wensor, W. C. Weaver, R. R. Chadband, R. H. Brehaut, K. S. Seddon, R. W. Sayer.

United Ancient Order of Druids- F. G. Bourquin, J. D. Mclnerney, R. N. Prior, P. C. Bigmore, G. W. Neilson, H. Barnett, C. Britt, R. A. Collis, H. Geoffrey, B. E. Jager, J. V. Kirby.L. S.Valentine.

The Victorian District Independent Order of Rechabites Friendly Society-R. Warwick, E. W. Clarke, F. T. Jones, G. D. Williams, V. C. Harkness, G. R. Wallace, K. Bottomley, W. A. R. Dyer, P. L. Peacock, H. C. Pratt.

The Yallourn Medical and Hospital Society- G. E. Seear, R. Miles, J. Robertson, K.. Davy, R. Ellis, B. Hansford, F. Meadows, T. F. Pye, R. Beilharz

  1. State Law

Companies Act- Geelong Medical and Hospital Benefits Association Limited; The Hospital Benefits Association Ltd; The Yallourn Medical and Hospital Society.

Benefits Associations Act-The Mildura District Hospital and Medical Fund.

Hospitals and Charities Act- Latrobe Valley Hospitals and Health Services Association.

Friendly Societies Act-The Ancient Order of Foresters in Victoria, Friendly Society; Australian Natives’ Association; Cheetham Hospital Benefits Fund; Grand United Hospital Benefit Society (Incorporating The Grand United Order of Oddfellows) in Victoria Friendly Society; The Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society, Victoria District No. 1; Independent Order of Oddfellows of Victoria; The Irish National Foresters’ Benefit Society; The Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows, in Victoria; The Order of the Sons of Temperance National Division Friendly Society; The Protestant Alliance Friendly Society of Australasia Grand Council of Victoria; United Ancient Order of Druids; The Victorian District Independent Order of Rechabites Friendly Society.

Commonwealth Law

Health Insurance Commission Act 1973- Health Insurance Commission (Medibank Private).

The Army Health Benefits Society and the Naval Health Benefits Society are not incorporated under either State or Commonwealth law.

  1. Neither Commonwealth law nor the relevant State legislation makes provision for the election of governing boards by contributors to the fund.

With regard to organisations registered under the Friendly Societies Act apart from the Friendly Society referred to hereunder, the position is that, in general, contributors to these funds do not per se have any voice in the control of the friendly societies’ affairs including administration of health funds. Control is vested in lodge membership. Members of lodges elect their office bearers and their delegates to higher bodies which in turn elect their directorate. Contributors to such funds are not required to be members of the societies.

The following sets out the position regarding those organisations which make some provision for the election of governing boards by contributors, either by way of their rules, Memorandum and Articles of Association or such:

Cheetham Hospital Benefits Fund (registered under the Friendly Societies Act)- The rules provide that the organisation shall be governed by a committee of five members elected by contributors at the annual general meeting.

Geelong Medical and Hospital Benefits Association LimitedThe organisation’s Memorandum and Articles of Association provides for a governing body appointed as follows:

  1. eight members appointed by contributors at the annual general meeting;

    1. three members, appointed by the Geelong Hospital;
    2. one member appointed by the Federated Pharmaceutical Guild of Australia; and
    3. one further member- at the present time this member is a representative of the Geelong Branch of the Australian Medical Association.

The Hospital Benefits Association Ltd- The organisation’s Memorandum and Articles of Association provide to

the effect that all members of the company must have been contributors for at least three years prior to becoming a member of the association. Of the 24 association members, eight are elected by the contributors at a public meeting of contributors.

From the 24 members, 1 1 are drawn each year to form a board of directors. The board must include four of the members elected by the contributors.

Latrobe Valley Hospitals and Health Services AssociationIn accordance with the organisation’s Constitution the Management Committee consists of a maximum of 12 members. Before a contributor is entitled to vote in or contest elections of directors of the governing body (Council) he must first be an Association member. Any person, whether or not a medical or hospital fund contributor may become an Association member by paying an annual subscription of $2.00.

Mildura District Hospital and Medical Fund -The organisation’s constitution provides that the control shall be vested in a Committee of not more than six contributors who shall be elected by contributors for a period of three years.

The Yallourn Medical and Hospital Society-The organisation’s Articles of Association provide for a board of management consisting of nine members. All contributors of the organisation are entitled to be nominated for office and to vote in the election of the Board members.

Occupied Hospital Bed Costs (Question No. 1119)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the (a) average and (b) median daily cost per occupied hospital bed for each State and Territory and for Australia for each of the last five financial years.
  2. Are any figures available comparing costs in (a) metropolitan, (b) teaching and (c) country hospitals.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) All of the figures in the following tables have been provided by the respective State or Territorial hospital or health authorities. In many cases only a limited amount of information is available and to date no information has been received from Victoria. The Victorian hospital authorities have advised that the information will be furnished as soon as possible and on its receipt I will be pleased to forward it on to the honourable member.

Some hospital authorities are unable to separate or have experienced difficulties in separating out from total operating costs, those costs associated with non-inpatient (outpatient) services. Accordingly, the methods used to produce the tables vary from State to State and the figures are not entirely comparable; nor is it possible to produce a meaningful figure for Australia as a whole from the information supplied. Further, there is variation between States as to their ability to segregate costs into the categories referred to in part (2 ) of the honourable member’s question.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The National Health and Medical Research Council has established an ad hoc sub-committee on lead in petrol and this has met several times to consider certain health aspects of the fifth report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum. Lead filters have also come under close examination by the committee.

Council will receive the committee’s report at its 84th Session to be held on 24-25 November 1977.

Petroleum: Lead Hazard (Question No. 1316)

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

am asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 25 August 1977:

What steps has his Department yet taken to eliminate the lead hazard revealed in the Petroleum Royal Commission’s fifth report tabled on 16 November 1976 (Hansard, 8 December 1976, page 3468).

Mr W. F. Toomer: Charges (Question No. 1374)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 6 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did the Director-General of Health issue a direction to the Director of Health, Western Australia, in March 1 974, to the effect that any consideration of charging Mr Toomer under the Public Service Act should be thought through to the penalty to be imposed. If so, what was the exact text of this direction.
  2. Were charges recently laid against Mr Toomer by the Director of Health, Western Australia.
  3. If so, were these charges initiated and decided in accordance with the direction referred to in ( 1 ) above.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) No. I presume the honourable member is referring to a letter addressed personally by the Director-General of Health to the then Director of the Western Australian Division of the Department, Dr J. Bryan Mathieson, on 6 March 1974. The letter was to clarify for Dr Mathieson the Director-General’s understanding of the Western Australian Public Service Inspector’s attitude, in broad terms, to the question of future charges under section 55. In no way could this letter be construed as a direction.
  2. Yes.
  3. See(l).

Quarantine Procedures, New South Wales (Question No. 1463)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 14 September 1977:

Is he satisfied that quarantine procedures in New South Wales are properly administered. If not, what action has he taken to ensure (hat procedures are improved.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Yes, in general. In any business organisation occasional errors take place. When each occurs immediate action is taken to overcome any deficiency revealed.

Grounding of Tanker Morgedal (Question No. 1538)

Mr Morris:

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

  1. 1 ) Is his Department investigating the grounding of the Norwegian tanker Morgedal in Western Australia in July 1977.
  2. If so, (a) when does he expect the investigation will be completed, (b) on whose initiation is the investigation taking place, (c) what is the name, classification and employing agency of each (i) Australian Government officer and (ii) State Government officer working on the investigation.
  3. Will he undertake to table in the Parliament the report of the investigation.
  4. Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Daily Commercial News of 25 July 1977 stating that the West Australian Minister for Transport has asked the Fremantle Port Authority for recommendations on how to avoid a similar grounding.
  5. If so, will his Department’s investigation take these recommendations into account when preparing its report.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A departmental inquiry into this incident has already been conducted.
  2. (a) The inquiry has been completed, (b) As part of normal departmental procedures, but it was not a formal inquiry under the Navigation Act in accordance with Section 377A of the Navigation Act. (c) The Commonwealth officer involved was Captain M. D. Kiely, Marine Surveyor, Department of Transport.
  3. The report is in the form of an internal minute of the Department of Transport and is not appropriate for release.
  4. Yes.
  5. My Department has already completed its report on the incident and has indicated its willingness to assist the Fremantle Port Authority with notification to industry of any changes in procedures that the Authority may require as a result of the incident.

Incident Involving Tanker B.P. Endeavour (Question No. 1545)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 22 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to an incident involving the tanker B.P. Endeavour and a 23 ft boat off Diamond Bay, New South Wales, on 14 August 1 977. If so, what action has he taken in respect of the accident.
  2. Is he able to say what were the circumstances involved, and what steps can be taken to prevent similar incidents in the future.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. A preliminary investigation pursuant to section 377 A of the Navigation Act has been held.
  2. Broadly the circumstances are that a small fishing vessel the Barossa Girl capsized with the subsequent loss of one life following the passage of B.P. Endeavour in proximity to the boat about four miles south east of Sydney Heads, New South Wales, on 14 August 1977.

The recommendations of the preliminary investigation, which I have accepted, are that the matter does not call for a Court of Marine Inquiry. It is expected however that there will be a Coroner’s inquiry into the death of the fisherman concerned. My Department is also issuing a Marine Notice drawing the attention of navigators of all sizes of vessels to the potential hazards of passing too close to each other.

Selection and Purchase of Livestock for Aid Projects: Administrative Arrangements (Question No. 1565)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 4 October 1977:

  1. What are the current administrative arrangements for the selection and purchase of Australian livestock for foreign aid projects.
  2. Do these arrangements guarantee that genetically superior rather than show ring livestock are selected.
  3. Has Australia’s reputation suffered in the past because the selection process sometimes resulted in inferior quality stock being sent to certain recipient countries, when compared with livestock from other Western nations.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. An increasing proportion of cattle requested for foreign aid projects have the requirement of registration with the appropriate breed society in addition to technical requirements. In these cases, the breed society concerned has been involved in the selection of the animals. In other cases public tenders continue to be called (see answer to Question 1246 Hansard, House of Representatives 1 December 1976, page 3091).
  2. Yes. The stringent specifications relate to characteristics other than show ring performance, and for example in the case of dairy cattle emphasis is placed on milk production.
  3. On one occasion in 1973 some cattle purchased by public tender were criticised for being undersized and having deformities and ringworm scars. The assessment of the reputation of Australian and other donors’ stock must be highly subjective. I am convinced that our current arrangements provide good quality stock, that all potential suppliers have the opportunity to oner their stock, and that the price paid is appropriate.

Darwin Trader: Operating Results (Question No. 1605)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 October 1977:

What were the operating results of the Australian National Line vessel Darwin Trader in its service to Darwin for the year ended 30 June 1 977.

Mr Nixon:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: lam advised that during the year ended 30 June 1 977, the operation of the Australian National Line vessel Darwin Trader in its service to Darwin incurred a loss of $647,000.

Adelaide to Crystal Brook Rail Standardisation Project (Question No. 1723)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. 1 ) Does the Government support the recommendations of the National Energy Advisory Committee that rail transport of freight is generally much more economical in the use of fuel than road transport, and that the relative amounts and types of fuel used in these various forms of transport should be taken into account in planning changes to the transportation systems.
  2. If so, will the Government reconsider its decision to cut off funds for the Crystal Brook-Adelaide standardisation project, a project which would improve the competitiveness of rail transport from Adelaide to the Eastern States.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Yes. However, before a decision is made on any transport proposal it should be properly evaluated to take account of all the relevant benefits and disbenefts. Energy considerations are of course a factor, although not necessarily the critical determinant, in such assessments.
  2. In his report on the Adelaide to Crystal Brook railway gauge standardisation project, Dr Stewart Joy made it clear that the economic benefits which would be derived from the provision of a standard gauge link to Adelaide did not justify the very large cost involved. Accordingly, the question of funding for this project has to be considered carefully in relation to the many other transport needs that the Government has to meet, and it will therefore not be possible to provide funds for the project in this financial year.

Ex-service Tuberculosis Pensions (Question No. 1817)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 18 October 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is it intended to review the cases of all ex-service pensioners receiving tuberculosis pensions.
  2. If not, which tuberculosis pensioners will be entitled to retain their pensions without review.
  3. If pensions for pulmonary tuberculosis are to be withdrawn from ex-service personnel, will they retain these pensions while trying to establish a right to other disability allowances.
  4. Does the Government intend to adopt the recommendation of Mr Justice Toose to define ‘suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis’ in the Act.
  5. How much does the Government expect to save annually by these changes.
  6. Under what circumstances will Vietnam veterans qualify for a pension for pulmonary tuberculosis.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (6) The Budget proposals to change the repatriation legislation for pulmonary tuberculosis, set out in my predecessor’s Press release of 16 August 1977, will not be made during the present session of Federal Parliament. Introduction of the legislation has been delayed at the request of the Federated T.B. Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Association.

Electoral Division of St George: Flight Glide Path (Question No. 1818)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 October 1977:

  1. 1 ) What is the present position of work being carried out to raise the flight glide path over areas within the electoral division of St George.
  2. Will the work be completed by the end of 1977.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A temporary 3° glide path was tested late last month and the results are being evaluated. If the test was successful a permanent 3° glide path will be installed.
  2. The work will not be completed by the end of 1977. Owing to difficulty in obtaining parts from overseas, the raised glide path is not expected to be operational before March 1 978 and possibly not until July 1 978.

Age Pension (Question No. 1889)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 25 October 1977:

How many persons receive the age pension (a) with and (b) without fringe benefits.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question.

At 30 June 1977 there were 933,000 age pensioners eligible to receive fringe benefits and 272,300 age pensioners not eligible. In addition, there were 20,700 wives of age pensioners in receipt of a wife’s pension and eligible to receive fringe benefits and 4,400 not eligible.

Northern Territory Transport Services (Question No. 1901)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 October 1977:

  1. Did he tell me in answer to question No. 1207 (Hansard, 8 September 1977, page 995) that he expected the Bureau of Transport Economic ‘s study of the freight transport needs of the Northern Territory to be completed by the end of September.
  2. ) If so, has he now seen the report.
  3. Will he undertake to table the report in the Parliament.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No. I am informed by the Directory of the Bureau of Transport Economics that the report is now undergoing final editing before printing.
  3. As I indicated in my reply to question No. 1207, 1 will consider the matter of publication of the report after it has been presented to me.

Hornibrook Viaduct, Queensland (Question No. 1906)

Mr Hodges:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 October 1977:

  1. 1 ) Since answering my question No. 1 168 on 14 October 1976 (Hansard, page 1931), has the Queensland Government applied for funds for the already commenced augmentation of the Hornibrook Viaduct, under the States Grants (Roads) Act.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Since I answered the honourable member’s question in October last year, the Queensland Government has submitted its 1977-78 urban arterial road construction program under the States Grants (Roads) Act in respect of which Commonwealth financial assistance is sought. The program does not include any works on the Hornibrook Viaduct.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 3 November 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1977/19771103_reps_30_hor107/>.