House of Representatives
2 May 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 2. 15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1581

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Pensioners: Home Maintenance Loans

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

That it is necessary for the Commonwealth Government to renew for a further term of a least 3 years the States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974-77, renewed for one year expiring on the 30 June 1978.

The demand for dwellings has not slackened as the waiting list (all States) of 12,060 single and 4,120 couples as at the 30 June 1977 showeth.

Your petitioners respectfully draw the attention of the Commonwealth Government to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Aged Persons’ Housing 1975 under the Chairmanship of the Rev. K. Seaman (now Governor of South Australia) which recommended additional funds to State housing authorities to meet the demand for low-rental accommodation in the proportion of $4 to $ 1 with the proviso that the States do not reduce their existing expenditure and

That the Act include married pensioners eligible for supplementary assistance and migrants as specified by the Seaman Report and that particular consideration be paid to the special needs and requirements of the prospective tenants in the location and design of such dwellings.

Furthermore, your petitioners desire to draw the Government’s attention to the hardship of many pensioner home owners caused by the high cost of maintenance.

The Social Security Annual Report 1976-77 shows that 24.6 per cent, or 283,000 home owning pensioners, have a weekly income in excess of the pension of less than $6 per week.

Your petitioners strongly urge the Commonwealth Government to establish a fund whereby loans can be made to means tested pensioners for the purpose of effecting necessary maintenance to their homes. Such a loan to be at minimal interest rates sufficient to cover administrative costs and to be repaid by the estate upon the death of a single pensioner before probate or upon the death of the surviving spouse in the case of married pensioners or where two pensioners jointly own the dwelling. Administration to be carried out by local government bodies.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Anthony, Mr Burns, Mr Carlton, Mr Dobie, Mr Fife, Mr Gillard, Mr Howard, Mr Les Johnson, Dr Klugman, Mr Lusher, Mr MacKenzie, Mr Les McMahon, Mr Ian Robinson, Mr Uren and Mr E. G. Whitlam.

Petitions received.

Aurukun and Mornington Island Aboriginal Communities: Self-Management

To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that we believe that the Federal Government should act to ensure that the Queensland State Government does not take over the Aurukun and Mornington Island missions from the Uniting Church against the wishes of the Aboriginal people living there.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should ensure that the Aborigines of the Aurukun and Mornington Island missions be given the right of self-determination.

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

Petitions received.

Health Funds: Overseas Liabilities

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of Gunter Alfred Wilhelm Rose, respectfully showeth that since the introduction of Medibank, on July 1 1975, the German Insurance Companies have stopped paying their monthly contributions of DM 1 1 5 to German pensioners residing in Australia. This money was provided so that those people could privately insure themselves and pay for medical prescriptions. We note that our Australian health funds, HBA, ANA, Manchester Unity et cetera have to meet their liabilities. It is for this reason, that we protest that a foreign health fund should be exempt from meeting its liabilities, at the expense of the Australian taxpayer.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that our gracious Government and the Government of West Germany, will reach an amicable agreement which will justly foot the bill to the insurance company that received the premiums.

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

Petition received.

Finance for Bridges

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

  1. The bridges on Oakes Road and Old Windsor Road, Old Toongabbie, within the area of the Parramatta City Council floods.
  2. There have been a number of fatal accidents when the creek is in flood, two young people having been killed on Oakes Road bridge last week.
  3. Two new high-level bridges are essential as a matter of urgency and finance should be provided to the Parramatta City Council to enable this to be done at the earliest opportunity before any further fatalities occur.
  4. Flood mitigation work as recommended by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation report should commence upstream forthwith.

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

Petition received.

Pensioners: Telephone Installation

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the division of Isaacs respectfully showeth-

To many pensioners- especially the frail aged with medical certificates or women at risk who have taken out a restraining order- the possession of a telephone is a necessity. At present they cannot avail themselves of this right, because of the cost of installation. Having in mind the recent profit ($99m) declared by Telecom Australia

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that. There should be no Installation charge for these Pensioners, forthwith and that eventually, all pensioners will be granted this right. by Mr Burns.

Petition received.

Metric System

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 objection to the Metric System and request the Government to restore the Imperial system..

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

Petition received.

Migrant Education

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that in view of the wish and desire of Migrants to Australia to retrain for and/or resume the occupations they had in their countries of origin or continue their studies in this country whereas their lack of knowledge of the English language prevents them from pursuing any of the above mentioned activities due to the extreme shortness of the intensive courses available to them being two months only in length during which they are expected to learn English as a foreign language with little or no prior knowledge thereof.

Your petitioners therefore pray that the Members of the House of Representatives will have the appropriate authorities extend the existing intensive courses in English as a Foreign Language from the present two months to three months or more in length.

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

Petition received.

Dr Milan Brych

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

That we do not believe that a person’s freedom to choose their own doctor and treatment should be banished by pressure on the Government by the Australian Medical Association or any other body, nor that they should be deprived of the right to Medical Insurance rebate, to which they have been contributing for years.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that legislation abolishing health insurance rebates for treatment of cancer patients by Dr Milan Brych in the Cook Islands not be introduced.

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

Petition received.

Parkland: Australian Capital Territory

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned electors of the Division of Melba, Fraser, A.C.T., respectfully showeth-

That an unused area at the top of Carandini Street, Melba A.C.T. should be constructed as a park area for recreation. They believe that using this area as parkland would tend to lessen future traffic load and the attendant hazards.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that this area be assigned as parkland.

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

Petition received.

Australian Capital Territory : Proposed Bus Interchange

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

  1. We support the construction of the City Bus Interchange as part of the plan to upgrade Canberra’s public transport system.
  2. The facility will provide bus users with long overdue protection from Canberra’s extreme climate.
  3. It will also provide an information bureau and other amenities for bus users and drivers.
  4. That the proposed site at the corner of London Circuit and Northbourne Avenue is the most central for the majority of bus users.
  5. The site also gives the speediest bus access to Northbourne Avenue, the major traffic artery.
  6. It is envisaged that the Interchange, by encouraging greater use of public transport, will help to reduce car congestion, noise and exhaust pollution in Civic.
  7. We support first class landscaping around the building to ensure it blends in with the present environment.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House urge the Minister for the Capital Territory to take action concerning the construction of the City Bus Interchange. by Mr Fry.

Petition received.

Television Stations in Isolated Areas

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

That we have been without a television service since the introduction of television in Australia in 1956

That we have been seeking such a service for many years without success

And that we are one of the few areas remaining in Australia not enjoying what is now considered a normal facet of Australian life.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that action will be taken to provide a television service to all areas where it is not now provided.

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

Petition received.

Establishment of Immunotherapy Clinics

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

That we believe that the Minister for Health should support the principle that Australians have the right to seek Immunotherapy treatment for Cancer and that we support any moves to expand research into, and the setting up of Clinics for Immunological management of Cancer within Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all support be given to the establishment of Immunotherapy Clinics in Australia thus giving Australian Cancer Patients a choice in the management of this disease. byMrKillen.

Petition received.

Christians in the USSR

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

That Father Demitrii Dudko has already spent81/2 years innocently in a Soviet prison and may be sentenced again unless Christians in the Western World intervene.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government take appropriate diplomatic action to help persecuted Christians in the Soviet Union.

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

Petition received.

Broadcasting and Television Act

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That because television and radio

  1. affect our social and moral environment,
  2. are family media watched and heard by many children at all times, and
  3. c) present too much explicit violence and sex, they therefore need stonger control than other media and the existing standards need stricter enforcement in both national ABC, 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. for a ‘Dual System of Regulation’ enforced by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal by internal regulation and external control.
  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. byMrO’Keefe.

Petition received.

Communism

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

That the Citizens of Australia totally reject communism and call upon the Government to:

  1. ban all communist organisations; and
  2. prohibit communists from holding any position in any industrial organisation, government department or local government and standing for parliament.

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

Petition received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

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

  1. That the Federal Government recognize land rights in the States, such as Queensland, in a similar manner to the recognition of land rights in the Northern Territory i.e. enact an Aboriginal Land Rights Act for Queensland;
  2. That the Federal Government support the abolition of the Aborigines Act (Queensland) 1971 and the Torres Strait Islanders Act (Queensland) 1971 and take such action as they may deem necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Queensland Discriminatory Laws Act 1975 and the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 be enforced in so far as they relate to Aborigines and Islanders;
  3. That the Federal Government assume responsibility for Aboriginal Affairs in Queensland under the powers given them by the Referendum of 1967. The State Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement Queensland should be abolished and Aboriginal and Island reserves in Queensland should have the choice to be self-governed with local government status.

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

Petition received.

Citizen Forces: Long Service and Good Conduct Medals

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned members and ex-members of the Citizens Forces of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. On 14 February1975, the then Australian Government deprived the officers and men of the Australian Citizen Naval Military and Air Forces of the distinctive and historic Decorations and Medals for long service and good conduct. namely the Reserve Decoration, the Efficiency Decoration, the Air Efficiency Award, the Efficiency Medal and Long Service and Good Conduct Medals, awarded for long and meritorious voluntary service in the citizen forces.
  2. The proposed substitution of the National Medal for these Decorations and Medals varies the principle of selective recognition of efficient voluntary service in the citizen forces in that it recognises the period of service only and embraces also full time service as well in the defence forces as in the police, fire brigade and ambulance services.
  3. This deprivation caused and is continuing to cause serious discontent amongst personnel of the Citizens Forces who willingly and cheerfully give of their spare time outside their normal full time civilian careers, to serve Her Majesty and Australia.
  4. The Reserve Forces of Australia have been recognised by the present Government as a valuable- and costeffective component of the Defence Forces. Anomalously, whilst the Government is actually supporting recruiting for these Forces it has imposed and continued this deprivation which as aforesaid has depressed the morale of the Citizen Forces.
  5. Her Majesty has not cancelled the said Decorations and Medals.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray

Your Honourable House take appropriate action to resume the award of the several distinctive Reserve Forces Decorations and Medals for Long Service and Good Conduct to members of the Royal Australian Naval Reserve, Army Reserve (CMF) and the RAAF Citizens Air Force. by Mr E. G. Whitlam.

Petition received.

page 1584

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

- Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) left Australia on 22 April for discussions in China and the Philippines. He is expected to return on 7 May. During his absence the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) will act as Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) left Australia on 23 April for discussions in Europe and Mexico. He is expected to return later this week and, during his absence, the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) will act as Minister for Primary Industry. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) will perform the Duties of Leader of the House. The Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) is taking leave from his ministerial duties while the inquiry into certain allegations made in respect of the 1977 electoral redistributions in Queensland is proceeding. The Treasurer (Mr Howard) is Acting Minister for Finance.

page 1584

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Notice of Motion

Mr CHAPMAN:
Kingston

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

That this House censures the Leader of the Opposition for his mischievous and misleading public statements relating to the Australian motor vehicle manufacturing industry.

page 1584

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1584

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND ABORIGINAL LEGISLATION

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask a question of the Prime Minister. I refer him to the Local Government (Aboriginal Lands) Bill 1978, introduced into the Queensland Parliament on 26 April. I ask the Prime Minister: Is it a fact that, under this proposed legislation, the Queensland Government can amend the shire boundaries of Mornington Island and Aurukun, that after the formality of contact with the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs it can dissolve those councils unilaterally and that it can reserve areas within those shire boundaries for the purpose of mining. Furthermore, is it a fact that under that legislation, the Queensland Government retains full control over mineral exploration and development within those areas and that the by-law making authority of the councils can be modified by the views of co-ordinating and advisory committees set up in respect of each shire area and that three of the four members of each such committee are Government Ministers? Will the Prime Minister indicate in the firmest terms that this legislation is thoroughly unacceptable and further indicate to the Parliament what steps the Government has in mind and when it can make a full statement to the Parliament as to what action it will take to protect the rights of Aboriginal people at those two places?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The Government has examined this matter and is in communication with the Government of Queensland in relation to it. Until the results of those communications are known, I have nothing to add or to say or to comment on in relation to these particular matters. I only hope that I can assume a view from the Leader of the Opposition, and indeed all members of this Parliament, that what every person in this Parliament will be concerned with is the well being of the Aboriginal people and will not seek to make political points merely for the purpose of making such points.

page 1584

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr COTTER:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications a question. I refer to a question I asked on 16 March in relation to extension of the free connection radius of telephones in country areas. Can the Minister now inform the House of the result of his discussions with

Telecom Australia? Because of the intense interest of people in remote areas, can he inform the House when the pre-election commitment will be implemented?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I would hope that the Minister can give as happy an answer as the honourable member for Kalgoorlie announced for himself last week.

Mr STALEY:
Minister for Post and Telecommunications · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– I thank the honourable member for his question. I am not aware of what circumstance Mr Speaker was referring to. I shall discuss that matter with the honourable member later. May I simply say that the matter which he raised in this House earlier has been the subject of some discussions between myself and the Commission? There is a difference between myself and the Commission over the nature and extent of the Government’s commitment made at the last election where the Commission believed that the promise to extend the free line plant entitlement from 12 kilometres to 16 kilometres should be with respect only to those areas which are programmed for conversion to automatic within two years or where there is already an automatic exchange. The Government’s view is that the commitment should be fulfilled without qualification. I have put that view in writing to the Chairman of the Commission, and I await a reply.

page 1585

QUESTION

WORLD ECONOMY

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Prime Minister aware of the extreme confusion generated in the community generally as to where he stands in relation to the expansion of the world economy and the growth of world trade? Is he still constrained by his attack-inflation-only attitude, or has he noted the International Monetary Fund’s warning of the vicious circle of deflation threat faced by the world if the present contractionary policies continue? At the same time could he tell us what was the purpose of his most recent overseas trip, on this occasion to Japan?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I think the policies of the Government in relation to inflation, activity and employment are well known. We have stated on many occasions that if there is to be a long and sustained improvement in the Australian economy inflation must be overcome as a prerequisite to renewed confidence, renewed investment, renewed employment opportunities and a greater level of activity within Australia for Australian corporations, enterprises and farms. In recent days we have seen the very plain results- the very marked success- of that policy in consumer price index figures which are better than they have been for many, many years. That represents a very marked improvement and has been widely acclaimed throughout the community. I would have thought that the honourable gentleman would have been very much aware of that.

I think it might be too early to comment on what has happened at the International Monetary Fund because I have not yet had a full report of that. The Treasurer may well have. The report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on the Australian economy is one to which I hope the honourable gentleman has also referred because some comments in that report are well worth noting. In its conclusions the report states in part:

During the same period, the rate of inflation, which has been the main focus of policy attention, has been approximately halved and is now running at a rate of around 8 or 9 per cent. This is an important achievement, and has brought Australia nearly into line with the OECD average.

The report goes on:

Australia has suffered, in acute form, two problems common to many OECD countries: Rapid inflation and an increase in real wages well in excess of productivity. Although their timing was broadly the same as elsewhere, the proximate cause of these problems was not, as in many countries, the import price rise for oil and other raw materials but a domestic wage explosion.

If the document had not been an apolitical document, I have no doubt that the authors would have said that it was generated by the policies of the Labor Party when it was in office. The report goes on:

With a considerable part, but by no means all, of unemployment cyclical in nature there would, on the face of it. seem to be strong reasons to turn to more expansionary policies to try to alleviate the problem. It seems probable that such policies would indeed lead to some short-term-

The OECD emphasises 1 short-term expansion of output and reduction in unemployment, but that the net gains so achieved would be less over the longer run than what is likely to be achieved under policies broadly similar to those now being followed . . . maintenance of the present stance is broadly appropriate.

Generally it was widely accepted that the OECD report was highly favourable to the general policies of the Government and the results of those policies, as we have seen.

Mr Hurford:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Within the Standing Orders would you seek to have this answer made relevant to the question? The OECD Treasury report has been superseded by what has gone on in the IMF. My question related to the IMF. I seek an answer to it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– If the honourable gentleman asks a question for which he does not like the factual answer, so be it. He must have that on his own head. If the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development had been aware of the consumer price index figures, which were released last week when that body was writing its report, I have no doubt that the report would have been much more favourable towards Australian policy than in fact it was. It needs to be understood that the report was issued against that background.

The honourable member also asks me about the nature of discussions which were held with the Prime Minister of Japan and with other Japanese Ministers. I emphasised on a number of occasions that those discussions were not in relation to bilateral matters which, important as they are, had been discussed by a number of other Ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister, and which will be resumed at the joint ministerial discussions which will take place in Australia in June. For the first time, the discussions with Japan were on the basis of the broader international economic issues and the broader international trade issues which we recognise as vastly important to Australia. Surely every honourable member in the House will know that Australia ‘s task in achieving economic recovery will be so much easier if there is a general growth and expansion in world markets and world trade. Japan also is highly dependent upon trade and access to markets. The major focus of our discussions was the totality of what was happening in the world economic and trade scene.

It is not unnatural that that should be so. This is because of the close relationships which exist between both countries, because of a close involvement with world trade and also because of a number of formal and informal discussions which will take place throughout this year which could well set the pattern for what happens in the world trade scene for the next 10 years or towards the end of this century. If the wrong decisions are taken at the Multilateral Trade Negotiations and if there is no progress on north-south issues in relation to the common fund, there will be increasing bitterness and increasing concern towards the end of the year which could lead to a much slower growth in world markets and to a much greater move towards protectionism, especially from the European Economic Community and maybe also from the United States of America. It was against the background of expressing the need and the importance of achieving results in these international forums that the discussions with the Prime Minister of Japan took place. I believe there is a remarkable identity of view and identity of concern between Japan and Australia.

Mr Armitage:

-Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the time that the Prime Minister has taken to answer this question in the face of repeated requests by you for Ministers to cut down on the time taken to answer questions because of the few questions that it is possible for honourable members to ask at Question Time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Chifley is well aware that considerable discretion is given to both the Prime Minister and to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I think the honourable gentleman might have given credit to his colleague, the honourable member for Adelaide, for asking a question which was important and which therefore deserves a considered reply. I am seeking to give him that reply. These matters are of concern to the Parliament. The Parliament and the shadow Minister who asked the question have a right to an answer. Australia and Japan have agreed to co-operate to the maximum extent in international forums. Where our officials are attending common meetings of the Multilateral Trade Negotiations or meetings of sub-groups of the MTN, there will be close liaison and close consultation. It was a Japanese suggestion that when the joint ministerial discussions take place next month in Australia a continuation of discussions and cooperation on the broader international issues should be high on the agenda so that the agenda will deal not only with bilateral issues which have broadly filled it on past occasions. I have no doubt that when those ministerial discussions take place, bilateral issues will have a very important and vital place. I think that the value of those ministerial discussions will be enhanced by Japan and Australia continuing the dialogue and deepening the co-operation on the broader international issues.

It is vitally important to try to make the trade negotiations that have taken place this year a success. This is so on two counts: A success of the negotiations would prevent a reversion to protectionism amongst a number of countries and at the same time, not merely being content with that negative advantage, we could work towards positive results. The other point which Australia was stressing, and which I believed is accepted by Japan, was that to achieve positive results commodities and agriculture must be included. If honourable members look at the 40 per cent linear tariff reduction proposal, they will see that, in fact, it covers less than 20 per cent of world trade. We must exclude all the intra-European Economic Community trade. The proposal involves an average tariff of about 10 per cent from 1980 with a half per cent reduction each year. Nobody can really see that as providing the major expansion of markets or market opportunities that the world requires at the moment. If the negotiations are to be successful therefore, agriculture will have to be included, contrary to past occasions when agriculture has ended up by being excluded. Again, I believe that in these matters there is a remarkable identity of view between Japan and Australia. Knowing that, we can each work more effectively towards a responsible conclusion.

page 1587

QUESTION

SPECIALIST RHEUMATOLOGIST FOR TASMANIA

Mr BURR:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that the only full time specialist rheumatologist in Tasmania has resigned to take up an appointment in South Australia? Has the Government made a decision on the request for assistance made by the Rheumatism and Arthritis Foundation of Tasmania on 17 January 1978? Will the Government contribute to the appointment of a rheumatologist and an occupational therapist to work in Tasmania?

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

– In view of the very serious consideration that has been given to the problems facing Tasmania, naturally the Government will consider the problem of the shortage of rheumatologists there, but basically it is a State problem. I will look at the matter, but I will give no undertaking to meet such a request.

page 1587

QUESTION

TRADE PROTECTION POLICIES

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask the Prime Minister a question supplementary to that asked of him by the honourable member for Adelaide. Is it a fact that a report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in April of this year was intensely critical of the trade barrier policies of the Australian Government? Is it a fact that research work, especially that carried out by the Industries Assistance Commission, shows that Australia has the second highest average level of protection in the world? Does this imply that the Prime Minister intends to reduce dramatically the trade barriers which this country has erected? If so, will he indicate clearly the nature of the reductions and the areas where the reductions will fall? Futhermore, in view of his criticisms of the European Economic Community for not accepting Australian primary produce exports, can we expect that the same sort of barriers which exist against the importation of New Zealand dairy products and meats will be dramatically reduced and that a cause for complaint from countries such as Fiji about total prohibitions against the importation of sugar will be considered sympathetically? In short, is the Prime Minister recommending on a very short term basis a substantial and dramatic recasting of the protection policies of the Government?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The honourable gentleman has been in the forefront of the free trade movement in the Australian Labor Party. We know also that he was significantly responsible for that infamous Rattigan report in 1973 or 1974, which was going to indicate to what extent unemployment would be increased when tariffs were reduced by 25 per cent across the board. The present Leader of the Opposition connived with the then Prime Minister in keeping that report secret. I am advised that it was not even given to their colleagues during a Cabinet discussion. The report indicated plainly that unemployment would increase by tens of thousands. Quite plainly implicit in the honourable gentleman’s question is a preparedness to adopt the same kinds of policies over again. Whether it will be Bellyache Bill or Unemployment Bill, I do not quite know.

Mr Hayden:

– I raise a point of order. I will forego the opportunity of indicating where the Prime Minister gives me a pain and say that he is totally misrepresenting the matter that has been presented to him. Mr Speaker, I ask you to ask him to answer the question. Is he dissembling once again?

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The honourable gentleman is incapable of remembering his own past and of reading properly the conclusions in the OECD report, for on the point of protection the report states:

As regards selective protection measures in Australia, as in all countries, it seems probable that the balance of advantage in the long term lies in lower levels or protection.

If one reads the Government’s White Paper on Manufacturing Industry or the broad statements of the Government one finds no difference at all from that view. That was the conclusion. The honourable gentleman has tried to depict it as intense criticism of the Government and the Government’s policies. That again is part of his continual efforts to write down Australia and at the same time to give copy to Australia’s critics overseas which will enhance their cause when we are negotiating with them on trade matters. It is time that the Leader of the Opposition recognised, as indeed the Deputy Leader of the Opposition well understands, if I recall correctly an AM program on which he was heard a week or so ago, that there are national occasions when a national approach ought to be adopted in relation to these matters.

page 1588

QUESTION

SOCIAL SECURITY AND UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

Mr THOMSON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

-I ask the Minister for Health: Is the Government concerned about allegations of people fraudulently obtaining social security and unemployment benefits? Has the Government taken those allegations seriously and is any action being taken to investigate ways and means of protecting taxpayers generally from abuses of the social security system?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– The Government is very concerned about the increased evidence that has become available to it of abuse of social service benefits and allegations of abuses in the areas of social security benefits, health benefits and education allowances. It is utterly intolerable that people should wilfully defraud the system at the expense of other taxpayers in the community. The Government has given consideration to a number of measures. Indeed a number of actions have already been taken in the social security area to lessen the opportunity for fraud. A number of actions have also been taken in the health insurance area to uncover cases of fraud and to deal with them. However, the Government has decided to send officials overseas to cany out investigations of provisions that have been implemented in other countries to stop fraud and abuse.

Suggestions have been made that people who are receiving benefits should be identified as a means of reducing the possibility of fraud. The Government is not committed to that policy but it will be looking at what has been done in that regard in other areas. One thing that is certain is that the Government is not prepared to stand by and allow fraud and abuse to take place in the areas of social service benefits, health insurance arrangements and education allowances at the expense of the rest of the community. In other words, we are not going to allow a minority of the people to bludge on the majority.

page 1588

QUESTION

URANIUM MINING

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a question to the Treasurer. Has the Treasury made an in depth analysis of, or prepared a paper showing, the short term and long term economic implications for Australia of the proposed uranium mining? If it has, will the paper be made available to the House? If it has not, will the Treasurer advise when a paper will be made available?

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The honourable gentleman has asked whether the Treasury as such has made an in depth analysis of the short term and long term economic significance of uranium mining. I will find out whether I can give to the honourable gentleman after Question Time a fuller answer than I am about to give. I can assure him that over a considerable period of time a number of government departments, including the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Resources, as it now is, and its predecessor departments, have been involved in an on-going fashion in analysing the economic implications to Australia of the development and sensible exploitation of our uranium reserves. I am sure that the honourable gentleman and other members of the House are aware of the number of projections that have been made in relation to the economic potential of Australia’s uranium reserves. I shall make inquiries whether a more precise study of the kind referred to by the honourable member has been undertaken, and I shall advise him of my findings. I think the customary practice, of which the honourable member would be aware from his previous ministerial experience, is that a large number of the advisings of this character is properly confidential to government. In any event, I shall make further inquiries for him and let him know.

page 1588

QUESTION

TAX SHARING PROPOSALS

Mr DEAN:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether the Government has received full co-operation from the State Premiers in the implementation of Stage 2 of the Government’s tax sharing proposals?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I do not suppose one could say that the Government has received the fullest co-operation from all Premiers in relation to the matter about which the honourable gentleman asks. But it is interesting to note that in the period before there was a prospect of State governments having access to income tax as a means of raising or lowering their own revenue they all very much wanted that proposition to be put into effect. They all said: ‘We must have access to a major growth tax; that ought to be income tax. We need that so that we can be masters of our own houses and make our own decisions as sovereign State governments’. My Government took very seriously indeed those expressed views of virtually all the States because we believe that they ought to make their own decisions and ought not to have the capacity to hide behind the broad statement that the Commonwealth does not provide enough money for this or for that. Therefore we are bringing forward legislation to implement Stage 2 of the tax sharing proposals. That legislation will be passed through the Parliament. Then it will be entirely the responsibility of the States to decide what they do with its provisions.

Mr Wran appealed to a number of other Premiers for support in his opposition to the proposals. He received a very short answer from Sir Charles Court who pointed out that Mr Wran knows as well as anyone else that the machinery the Commonwealth proposes is entirely at the discretion of the States. He also knows that the Commonwealth is committed to taxation reductions. Indeed, even Mr Corcoran in South Australia had made it plain that South Australia would not join in with the opposition of the New South Wales Government. But there is one thing that puzzles me about Mr Wran; he is always talking about more tax cuts and lower taxation. He says that he is an advocate of lower taxation. It is perfectly plain that under Stage 2 of our federalism proposals he would be able, if he wished, to offer all New South Wales taxpaying citizens a 1 per cent, 2 per cent, 3 per cent, 4 per cent, 5 per cent or whatever percent rebate that he wanted. As a result of the generosity of the general tax arrangements we have made with the States, he would be well able to do just that if he were really sincere in his wish to lower the taxation burden on the Australian people.

page 1589

QUESTION

PENSIONER CONTRIBUTIONS TO PUBLIC HOSPITALS

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is it true that the Minister for Health is now looking at what he euphemistically calls long term hospital benefits for elderly patients? Does that not mean that for the first time pensioners in Australia will have to contribute almost all of their pensions when in public hospitals?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– The implication in the question asked by the honourable member for Prospect, of course, is that every pensioner who enters a hospital will make a patient contribution. That, of course, is a blatant exaggeration. Let us put the question into perspective. All of the State Ministers for Health, all of their officials and my officials, as well as myself, have been looking at the prospect of ensuring that there is proper use of resources within the public hospital system. As the honourable member for Prospect would know, there are quite a number of nursing-home type patients in our public hospital system, and they are there because there is not adequate facility for them in nursing homes. Most of the State Ministers- indeed, most of the officials who have a responsibility for the administration of the hospital system- agree that such long-stay patients who would otherwise be in nursing homes should receive the Commonwealth benefit or a benefit from an insurance fund as a nursing home patient and that, therefore, the patient would make a contribution out of his or her pension towards that stay in hospital.

The honourable member might be interested to know that his counterparts in the New South Wales Labor Government are not averse to that idea. The honourable member might be like the Irishman who believes he is the only one in step. So quite clearly there is an awareness and a willingness on the part of most Ministers- indeed, all hospital administrators whom I have met- to recognise and to face up to the problem of ensuring that the resources of the hospital system are used to the best advantage and that the nursinghome type patients who are in hospital for longstay purposes make a contribution towards their board and lodging, as they would do if they were in a nursing home.

page 1589

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT PROSPECTS IN INDUSTRY

Mr CHAPMAN:

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the future of employment in Australian industry assisted by statements that major firms are about to go out of business?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-One thing which is important in any country is confidence both in the future and in what is happening. Just as that is important for a country as a whole, it is important also for a particular manufacturer. If statements that a particular firm is in trouble have any credibility, quite plainly they would affect the current sales of that firm. I am quite certain that recent sales by a notable motor manufacturer in South Australia would not be affected by statements by the Leader of the Opposition, because those statements in fact have no credibility. But that does not destroy the fact that statements of that kind are totally irresponsible and appalling. Those statements have been rejected by the company and by the South Australian Government through Mr Corcoran. I am not at all surprised that they were rejected by both, because such statements would affect the company and would affect employment.

These statements are typical of what we have come to expect from the Leader of the Opposition. We know quite well what he has been doing. He has been trying to talk down and destroy the value of the Australian dollar; he has been trying to talk down and destroy the position of Australia’s balance of payments. Now, through his statements in relation to the Chrysler organisation, he is trying to talk down Australian investment and employment. No wonder the Austraiian Labor Party worries about a certain lack of support in some areas. I do not think Australians like a bunch of whingers or people who can only belly-ache from one day to the next. I refer the House to a report in which the Australian Labor Party was involved, which was prepared by a committee headed by Mr Hayden and Mr Hawke. Its secretary was one of the Labor Party’s bright new members of Parliament, namely, Dr Neal Blewett.

In a brief report to the Executive a week ago Dr Blewett said that the committee had identified a number of particular groups and areas which appeared vital to Labor’s recovery. These were the peripheral States of Western Australia, Queensland and Tasmania. The areas which are considered vital to Labor’s recovery are of course the areas in which Labor has no support at the moment. The report went on to state that rural voters, women voters, future trends amongst white collar voters, declining solidarity of blue collar working support and middle aged voters were the weakest cohorts for Labor. If the honourable gentlemen had tried to find a section of the Australian community where support for the Australian Labor Party was strong they would have had a blank piece of paper in front of them. It is no wonder that we have the constant belly-aching, which comes from the Leader of the Opposition, with no pride in Australia and no pride in Australia’s nationalism.

page 1590

QUESTION

INCIDENCE OF CANCER

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I direct my question to the Minister for Health. Is he aware of the results of studies by Dr Thomas Mancuso and Dr Alice Stewart on the medical records of United States nuclear industry employees? Is he aware that these studies suggest that workers exposed to low levels of radiation run a higher risk of cancer than had previously been believed? If these reports are verified, can the Minister say whether they mean that uranium miners in Australia would face a greater risk of contracting cancer than is presently assumed? Has the Minister sought the advice of Austraiian experts on the findings of Dr Mancuso and Dr Stewart?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– I am not fully aware of the study to which the honourable gentleman refers. However, my Department has access to a number of studies and a quite considerable amount of information that leads one to believe that uranium mining has, in fact, increased the incidence of lung cancer. I responded to a question on notice from the honourable member for Prospect and provided him with what information was available to my Department. The honourable member will recall that when the Australian Labor Party Government was in office the Department of Health was instructed to draw up a code for the mining and milling of uranium ores and the Government regards that code as being probably the most advanced code of its type in the world. It was prepared in association with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and it draws upon the most modern scientific advice available and ensures that uranium mining in Australia will be undertaken in accordance with the strictest code that has ever been applied.

Whilst one would be foolish to assume that the mining of uranium is without danger- no mining occupation is free of danger- one would assume that as a result of the application of the code that was drawn up during the term of the former Labor Government and adopted by this Government the dangers and extent of lung cancer or any other type of cancer would be lessened. I will take the trouble to draw my Department’s attention to the report referred to by the honourable member and let him know the Department’s view in due course.

page 1590

QUESTION

MALTA

Mr CADMAN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and concerns Australia’s relations with Malta. What is the basis of the recent criticism the Maltese Government has directed to Australia? Are such criticisms justified? Is the Australian Government concerned that the Maltese Government’s actions have led to a deterioration in the bilateral relationship?

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

-It is no secret that there have been differences between successive Australian governments and the Maltese Government over a number of aspects of our bilateral relationship. The Maltese Government feels that Australia should make significant contributions in the form of aid to Malta’s economic development and the Maltese Prime Minister, Mr Mintoff, has publicly criticised the Australian Government for allegedly refusing to receive high level delegations from Malta. Naturally the Australian Government regrets that these criticisms have been made in a highly charged public atmosphere and in a manner which, frankly, has served further to exacerbate the differences. The suggestion that Australia owes Malta assistance because of the contributions made to our development by large numbers of Maltese immigrants I find hard to accept.

Mr Armitage:

– Why?

Mr PEACOCK:

– It ought to be obvious. I recognise the interjector and I realise that he has no comprehension whatsoever of Australia’s development assistance programs. Quite frankly, there are many countries that must be considered ahead of Malta in determining which country is to be the recipient of our large scale aid programs. We readily acknowledge the contribution of those who have come to Australia from Malta. Fine contributions have been made by the Maltese community in this country. I would be surprised if the members of that community thought that that ought to be the criterion for the determination of Australia’s aid programs. Mr Mintoff has also drawn attention to the imbalance of bilateral trade in Australia’s favour. Australia is a multilateral trader, as are most countries in the world, and we seek to balance our trade multilaterally. Nevertheless, I am informed that the Department of Trade and Resources is continuing to assist Maltese efforts to increase exports to Australia and to encourage Australian investment in Malta.

On the question of high level visits to Australia, what Mr Mintoff has failed to mention, and he is well aware of it, is the exceptionally short notice given, apart from the pressure of business, in regard to the delegations that sought to come to Australia in the early part of 1 976. We have indicated that we would have been pleased to receive a delegation at a more convenient time. Any suggestion that we rejected outright proposals for visits is quite incorrect. The Australian Government would like to see its relations with Malta restored to their former warmth. That is more likely to be achieved by quiet diplomacy than by a public exchange of grievances. Official channels exist for this to be done and it is to be hoped that they can be properly utilised.

page 1591

QUESTION

PRESENTATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY

Dr JENKINS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-I ask the Prime Minister whether a consultant was engaged by his Department during the current financial year to advise on the public presentation of Government policy. If so, who was the consultant, what were his terms of reference, what fee was he paid and is this a proper use of public funds?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I am not too sure whether the terms are appropriate, but a person who had been engaged by a number of successive governments has also been engaged by my Government.

page 1591

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Mr Hyde having addressed a question to the Prime Minister-

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Moore is suggesting a course of action, not asking a question. The question is out of order.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-Mr Speaker, I would like to answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is out of order.

page 1591

QUESTION

FILM AUSTRALIA: FUNDING

Dr CASS:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Home Affairs. Is it a fact that before making a decision on the funding of the film The Unknown Industrial Prisoner, the Minister received a unanimous recommendation from the Australian Film Commission in favour of the funding? Why did the Minister ask the Commission to review its advice? Did the Commission provide a second report, supported by advice from two well known, highly successful commercial film producers, again recommending funding of the film on the grounds of both artistic and commercial viability? In view of this consistent, broadly based advice, on what grounds has the Minister decided to censor Film Australia?

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The suggestion by the honourable gentleman that I have censored Film Australia is rather offensive. The fact is that I have not censored it. He means there has been -

Mr Young:

-But you-

Mr ELLICOTT:

-Just a minute Little Sir Echo; wait until the answer comes through. The fact is that under the Australian Film Commission Act one of my, perhaps, unenviable tasks is to approve of every film produced by Film Australia. That means, of course, that I have to give consideration to every film. In approaching that task I do not regard the Minister as being a rubber stamp and I do not think this House would expect me to be a rubber stamp. On the other hand I do not have a view that Film Australia cannot produce a feature film. If it wishes to produce a feature film that in itself is no basis for an objection to its doing so. Again, if it is going to produce a feature film which will be shown in public cinemas, there ought to be a special reason for its doing so instead of the private sector doing it. That is a consideration. I do not think the honourable gentleman would disagree with that proposition.

If Film Australia feels that there are special reasons for making a feature film, it seems to me that if the purpose is to show the private industry that it can make a serious film on a serious subject and have it receive popular acclaim through the box office there ought to be a reasonable chance of its receiving such acclaim. Again I hope the honourable gentleman would not disagree with that proposition. I say at the outset that no so-called political censorship whatsoever was involved in this matter. I purposely did not see the script. I saw a synopsis of this film and throughout the whole matter I relied entirely on advice which was given to me by the Australian Film Commission or on documents supplied to me by the Commission.

Mr Young:

– Thank God for the rubber stamp.

Mr ELLICOTT:

-Just a minute. The honourable member ought not to talk too soon. I have to base my assessment on what is put in front of me. One of the things that were put in front of me was the synopsis. I am quite happy to table the synopsis if the honourable gentleman would like me to do so. Is the honourable gentleman happy about that? I will table the synopsis. Further, I had a letter from Mr Rose who I think is distribution manager of Hoyts Theatres, one of the largest distributors of films in Australia. He has seen the film script. I will read what he says. The people in the public gallery might perhaps–

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. There has been a series of interjections which are not adding to any public information. I ask honourable members to remain silent.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– And, with great respect, Mr Speaker, the people in the gods might keep quiet too.

Mr Hayden:

– They are not entitled to laugh if you make a fool of yourself, are they?

Mr ELLICOTT:

-Neither are you entitled to interrupt while I am answering a question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I called upon the members on my left to remain silent. It does not help if the Minister refers to my ruling. That provokes from others, such as the Leader of the Opposition, a response. I ask the Minister to resume his answer and the House to listen to it in silence.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Ask him to get on with it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Newcastle will remain silent.

Mr ELLICOTT:

-I refer to what Mr Rose has written. After looking at the script this is what he wrote:

As my ramblings on the attached page suggest, in its present format I believe the film would have limited audience appeal and will be difficult to market. However, some further work and a more commercial title and some careful commercial casting I believe the project could become more viable.

In the pages that he wrote on this particular matter -

Mr Holding:

– They should have put you in as the principal.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Melbourne Ports.

Mr ELLICOTT:

-. . . he says this, among other things, though this is the material part:

  1. . 1 belie ve the script is well written.
  2. 1 do believe that the script needs further work since if developed could be in the genre of ‘One Flew Over The Cuckoo ‘s Nest’. At present the script gave me the impression of an ‘art-house’ movie, appealing particularly to middle class socialists re-enforcing their view that work is depicted in the script as a dehumanizing process.
  3. The audience at present for such a film is limited and given its present structure would be a hard film to market. The title ‘The Unknown Prisoner’ gives one the impression of a war movie.
  4. The major weakness in the film to my mind is ‘Home Beautiful ‘.

This is an allegorical film which would suggest to one’s mind perhaps John Bunyan ‘s Pilgrims Progress when one looks at the synopsis. There was another document.

Mr Young:

– Will you table the one from Hoyts?

Mr ELLICOTT:

– Yes, no problem.

Mr Young:

– Is Hoyts a Government adviser?

Mr ELLICOTT:

-Well known. This is a document supplied to the Australian Film Commission. Here is another so-called specialist’s advice which I accept- Phillip Adam’s comments. This is what Phillip Adams says:

  1. . Astonishingly interesting script, confronting the system. Amazing political audacity. All strength to Film Australia. You will be backed up by everyone.
  2. Do not know any Australian who could direct it. Not one.
  3. Suggested cast is too small and naturalistic aussie in style. Ewart will make it ordinary oz. Should not give fundamental oz performances. Casting should be freakier, less conventional. Thompson OK. Maybe Graham Kennedy who has strange face. Mellion not grandoise enough. Surreal needed. Build the madness (Abos in LAST WAVE).
  4. Not commercial but don’t let that stop you. Likely very good first four to five weeks then fade. Thereafter cult movie.
  5. Most justifiable at $550,000 festivals and great honour overseas.

So it is quite clear what he thought. I will table this document too. He went on:

    1. Audience. Will not get to the prisoners. You must face that. Well meaning films don’t. Bazza was meant to debunk the Aussie, instead it became his apotheosis.
  1. ‘All would back you (F.A.) -

I do not know what that means; I suppose it means Film Australia-

  1. . to the cult in doing this’.

That is another assessment supplied to me. I have also been supplied with assessments from other people. Mr Branley of the marketing branch of the Australian Film Commission stated:

There are dangers of course in such a production in that the subject is so powerful that it is always in danger of neglecting to entertain and make patrons happier to have paid their $4 admission fee.

Another gentleman who is in the organisation said:

The Unknown Industrial Prisoner as a novel has attracted a lot of attention from producers as a possible screenplay source. The majority of them have shied away from the property because in their opinion it cannot be made commercial enough. Phillip Adams said that in our position, he would not let that stop him for a minute.

I pointed out at the beginning that I took the view- I stand by it- that for a feature film to be produced for public movie presentation there ought to be a reasonable chance of it being commercially acceptable through the box office. After looking at those documents I wrote to the chairman of Film Australia and asked the organisation to reconsider its decision. The Commission told me by the way that the film had been approved unanimously. It may have been approved unanimously in the sense that all those present at a meeting had approved it, but in fact one person was away at the time. He was a Mr Burke who was present at the meeting after I asked the organisation to reassess it. Mr Burke represents Roadshow Cinemas which is Australia’s largest distribution organisation and one of Australia’s largest exhibitors. He said:

To me a lecture. The message is laboured and one that perhaps had more relevance in 1925. In my view it will play to the comfortable converted and after the first week when the Gucci socialists and pipe smoking educators have been, I think word of mouth will be bad due to the preaching and in no small part to the ‘home beautiful’ device which suspends reality and will lessen the ordinary man’s ability to relate to the characters.

He went on:

To me it is a hazardous project as it will be most difficult to execute artistically and either way (win or lose) is likely to lose commercially. It reminded me of Lindsay Anderson’s

O Lucky Man which some thought brilliant, but died for the reasons this film will die.

I think we are crazy to proceed with a project on which the original outside assessments are clearly quite bad.

Phillip Adams says that not one Australian can direct it and that it will not be commercial.

Peter Rose says that the script needs further work and is an art house movie appealing to middle-class socialists re-inforcing their views.

Alan Wardrope says it needs more work.

Cyril Branley says there is a danger it will not entertain.

He then goes on to make other points. I do not want to labour the matter. But I wish to explain one thing.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I really believe that the Minister for Home Affairs has gone far enough in his answer.

Mr ELLICOTT:

- Mr Speaker, in fairness to a person whose statement I quoted previously, I ask for your indulgence to continue my answer a little longer.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I grant that.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– In this letter there is a statement by Mr Peter Rose to whom I referred earlier. He was telephoned and this message came through the line:

  1. Believe script excellently written and well structured.
  2. Believe content should be more humorous.
  3. Title of film non-commercial.
  4. Casting crucial to make package promotionable to general audience, e.g. John Waters, Garry McDonald, Graham Kennedy, etc.

In short, film would need careful managing and promotion, but could fall into the category of a sleeper, should be reasonably successful at the box office.

That was inconsistent with the previous letter to which I have referred and which I shall table. I have spoken to Mr Rose and he says that on the basis of what is presently before him- and that is what ispresently before me- this film will have limited audience appeal. Mr Speaker, I say this in conclusion: I have set out the matter in full because I know that there have been allegations of political censorship. If the Australian Film Commission came to me together with somebody from the private sector who would be prepared to put a large amount of money into this film and who showed an intention that it might be commercially viable, that film may well get my approval.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Before the Minister resumes his seat, he had better shuffle those papers from which he has read and see which ones are to be tabled.

Mr ELLICOTT:

- Mr Speaker, you have cut me short. In deference to the time factor, I cut short my answer. I table the comments by Phillip Adams and I table the other document from which I quoted. There is also a letter from the Australian Film Commission. I am happy for that to be tabled or to be included in Hansard. There is a letter that I wrote refusing approval at this stage. There is also another letter that I wrote asking that the matter be reconsidered. I ask for leave to table those documents.

Leave granted.

page 1594

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Mr SPEAKER:

– We have present in the gallery this afternoon a party of members of the Public Accounts Committee of the Papua New Guinea Parliament led by the Chairman, Mr Warren Dutton. On behalf of the House, I extend to the visitors a warm welcome.

Honourable members- Hear, hear!

page 1594

QUESTION

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: NOTICE OF MOTION OF CENSURE

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

-The motion must be submitted in writing.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I have done so.

Mr Fife:

- Mr Speaker, I wish to point out that the Government will facilitate this debate. With the leave of the House, I will move for the suspension of so much of the Standing Orders as would prevent the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Chapman) moving his motion forthwith.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Acting Leader of the House to resume his seat. I take it that the course of action which has been foreshadowed by the Acting Leader of the House could be proceeded with if the Leader of the Opposition were to withdraw his motion.

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I will withdraw the motion.

Mr Fife:

– I propose to move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Kingston moving forthwith the motion of censure of the Leader of the Opposition of which he has given notice for the next day of sitting.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Leader of Opposition ask for leave to withdraw his motion?

Mr Hayden:

– Yes, I do.

Leave granted.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Acting Leader of the House ask for leave to move for the suspension of Standing Orders?

Mr Fife:

– Yes.

Leave granted.

Motion (by Mr Fife) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Kingston moving forthwith the motion of censure of the Leader of the Opposition of which he has given notice for the next sitting.

Motion of Censure

Mr CHAPMAN:
Kingston

-I move:

The honeymoon for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) is over. Every new political leader enjoys a honeymoon period during which blunders may be overlooked and treatment by the Press is kind and perhaps even favourable. However, the uninformed statement by the Leader of the Opposition on motor vehicle manufacturing in Australia, motivated by political partisanship, must signal the end to the honeymoon for this inadequate pretender to the Prime Ministership. The Leader of the Opposition must be brought to account for his continuing negative and destructive influence, on Australia ‘s economic life.

Mr Hodgman:

– He is an economic traitor.

Mr CHAPMAN:

-Those remarks of the honourable member for Denison are absolutely accurate. The people of Australia should be reminded that the aura of responsibility of the current Leader of the Opposition is a mere facade. This is shown by direct reference to his performance when the Australian Labor Party Government was in power. As a senior Minister in the Whitlam Labor Government, he must share responsibility for all its disastrous policies. More specifically, as Minister for Social Security, he initiated massive increases in health and welfare expenditure which the nation could illafford. In 1972-73, expenditure on health and welfare was $2.88 billion. By 1975-76, this expenditure had expanded to $8 billion. Of more significance, expenditure on health and welfare, as a share of total government expenditure, expanded from 28.3 per cent in 1972-73 to 36.7 per cent by 1975-76. The Leader of the Opposition also engineered the Medibank rip-off which created an environment for the massive explosion in health costs. Then, as Treasurer, he expanded Government spending by 23 per cent.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

-Mr Speaker, I rise to take a point of order. Without trying to confine the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Chapman), I point out that his motion relates to remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) in recent times. The honourable member is now giving a diatribe of a long history going way back which has no relationship to the subject matter of his motion. I submit that the honourable member is out of order. The credibility of the Leader of the Opposition is not on trial. On that basis, the remarks of the honourable member are becoming an offensive harangue against the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Howard:

- Mr Speaker, I wish to speak to the point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Before the Treasurer speaks to the point of order, I ask the Clerk for the terms of the motion. They are:

That this House censures the Leader of the Opposition for his mischievous and misleading public statements relating to the Australian motor vehicle manufacturing industry.

Mr Howard:

- Mr Speaker, I would have thought that the substance of the motion moved by the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Chapman) related to the remarks of economic irresponsibility of the nature attributed to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) and that in those circumstances it is quite proper and relevant for the honourable member for Kingston to remind the House of other examples of economic irresponsibility by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member is entitled to make his remarks relevant but he is not entitled to concentrate on that issue.

Mr CHAPMAN:

-As Treasurer in the Labor Government, the present Leader of the Opposition expanded Government spending by 23 per cent in his 1975-76 Budget. This was restraintLabor style- only by comparison with the 46 per cent explosion in expenditure in the previous Budget introduced by the then Treasurer, Dr J. F. Cairns.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will make sure that his remarks remain relevant to the motion before the House.

Mr CHAPMAN:

– So as Treasurer once again his credibility was strongly in question. After the Labor Party’s 1975 election thrashing the now Leader did not want to be leader of the Labor Party. We can see why from his inadequate performance since his change of heart.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman’s remarks are not relevant to the motion.

Mr CHAPMAN:

-With due respect, Mr Speaker, I am developing that right now.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman should develop it very quickly.

Mr CHAPMAN:

-The Leader’s performance, as demonstrated by his statement on the car industry, is essentially negative and destructive, out of touch with reality and out of touch with the Australian people. He has sacrificed Australia’s national interest in the pursuit of a partisan political interest. This statement on the car industry follows earlier encouragement of speculation with regard to Australia’s exchange rate for the dollar. That was roundly condemned as disgraceful behaviour on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. However, notwithstanding the continuing story of gloom and despair that the Leader has been telling ever since he was banished to the Opposition benches by the Australian people, he has failed to make any impact either inside or outside the Parliament with his attacks on the policies of the Fraser Government. As successive months and quarters pass, the Fraser Government’s economic strategy has been demonstrated by the available statistics to be absolutely correct.

Having failed to make any impact in dealing with policies, the Leader turned to buckettipping, firstly concerning the stand of the Prime Minister over computer contracts, and secondly over the legitimate business interests of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. But these merely compounded the Leader’s failure to make any impact on the Parliament.

Hence, hoping that people outside Parliament would be, perhaps, more gullible, he embarked on what he called a ‘get-to-know’ campaign. The first ‘get-to-know’ exercise was a visit to the Ford Motor Company’s plant at Broadmeadows. On the completion of that visit he made a totally unjustified attack on the Fraser Government’s manufacturing industry policy, with particular reference to motor vehicle manufacturing. During his statement to the assembled Press conference he blithely announced that one manufacturer had his back against the wall and might well go under and that it was inconceivable that the Government should allow several thousand people directly and indirectly to suffer without further government intervention. Other comments by the Leader made it plain that he was referring to Chrysler Australia Ltd, based in the electorate of Kingston in Adelaide. Apart from anything else, such a statement outside an opposition company’s plant reveals the man’s ignorance. In addition to owing Chrysler an apology, the leader owes the Ford Motor Company an apology for causing it such embarrassment.

I am not sure about the nature of this so-called get-to-know’ campaign of the Leader. If it is meant to be that the Leader is aiming at getting to know more about, for example, the motor vehicle industry, he has more to learn than a Leader of the Opposition should have to learn. On the other hand, if the ‘get-to-know’ campaign is aimed at management in industry getting to know him, I can assure him that from the reaction following his statement, management in the vehicle industry has absolutely no wish to know him. The Leader has revealed complete ignorance of the motor vehicle industry, and he has not even done it with eloquence, rather with partisanly motivated political malice. It was Hayden ‘s clanger, as one newspaper headline termed it.

In particular, the Leader is ill informed about Chrysler’s current position and future prospects, which I will mention in a few moments. Equally amazing was his demand for further heavyhanded government intervention. Motor vehicle manufacturing in Australia is basically sound and is improving its position. It has overcome many of its problems, although some remain to be tackled. Since coming to office the Fraser Government has adopted a consistent approach to this industry. The history of the industry highlights the folly of government intervention and control in private enterprise. It is incomprehensible that the Leader, like Oliver Twist, should ask for more.

The policies of the Fraser Government at three levels have gone a long way towards overcoming the industry’s problems. These policies, widely known and well supported in the community, need only brief summary in today’s debate. Firstly, the Government’s overall approach to economic management has stabilised costs in industry and restored confidence, as once again demonstrated in the recent consumer price index figures. Secondly, polices of more specific benefit to manufacturing industry, such as the investment allowance, have further assisted this important sector of the economy. The Government’s White Paper on manufacturing industry clearly points the way to the future and directs attention to modernisation and the need for the restructuring of industry. The Crawford Committee will produce recommendations for government action in this regard.

At the third level the Fraser Government, soon after coming to office, instituted a policy of 85 per cent local content for vehicle manufacturers in Australia, combined with a 45 per cent tariff on imported vehicles and parts. This lower local content allows manufacturers to rationalise the source of their components and to become more competitive against imported vehicles. The industry has been further supported by the institution of quotas, reserving 80 per cent of the local market for local manufacturers. Hence, at three levels the Government has provided a consistent approach to establish a prosperous environment in which the motor vehicle industry can nourish in the future.

The Leader well knows that the Government has been pursuing policies of significant benefit to motor vehicle manufacturers. Only six months ago he stated in this very House with reference to Ford Australia that motor vehicle manufacturers were being generously treated by the Fraser Government. He accused the Ford Company then of remitting excessive profits to its parent Company in the United States. At that time he sought Government intervention in the form of a special tax to hinder that profitability. Now, only six months later, he would have us believe that the motor vehicle industry is in such dire straits that it needs extra Government intervention to help it. Sir Brian Inglis, Managing Director of Ford Australia, had to correct the leader’s ignorance six months ago. Ian Webber, Deputy Chairman of Chrysler, and Des Corcoran, Deputy Premier of South Australia and a Labor Party colleague, has had to correct the Leader’s ignorance on this more recent occasion. Of course, this complete about-face within the short space of six months reveals the Leader’s attitude on both occasions for what it is, namely a thinly disguised partisan political sham which totally destroys his credibility. The Leader knows that the Government’s policies are correct and are leading to prosperity in the industry.

Mr Hurford:

-Come off it. Tell the Chrysler workers that nonsense.

Mr CHAPMAN:

– The honourable member for Adelaide had better be careful with his interjections, because I know what the industry thinks of his policies and attitudes. The continuing problems of the industry are not a consequence of Government policy but of other factors. Some of those factors the Leader of the Opposition ought to be able to do something about if his concern for the industry is genuine. A major continuing problem of the industry is industrial unrest. That has been reflected in a variety of ways recently, such as in the recent demand for a wage increase of $25 a week by the trade unions involved in the motor industry; the attempt by the Vehicle Building Employees Federation to usurp the role of management to determine employment in the industry; the Victorian power strike, which hindered productivity for motor vehicle manufacturers; and continuing industrial sabotage which occurs in motor vehicle manufacturing plants. The Leader would much better serve the interests of the industry if he used his influence to establish a more rational attitude among his Labor movement colleagues in the car industry unions. His misleading statements about the state of the industry are only detrimental to its future prosperity.

In general, and with particular reference to Chrysler Australia, the Leader’s statements are misleading and irresponsible. Ian Webber, the Deputy Chairman of Chrysler, summarised what ought to be the attitude of this House to those statements when he said: ‘ Hayden ‘s remarks are not worthy of comment except to say that they undermine confidence in the Australian car industry, with consequent effects on employment and economic recovery’. The honourable member for Adelaide, who is shadow Minister for Industry and Commerce, ought equally to be condemned for statements that he made on a recent radio talk-back program when he criticised multinational companies on the basis that Detroit was making a decision to close down a plant in Australia. The impact on confidence in Adelaide, which is already struggling under the millstone of the Dunstan Government, is clear from its effect on retail stores. I understand that Myer’s sales were down $330,000 in the week following the Leader’s blatant misrepresentation of Chrysler’s situation. So the fact is that the broad consequences of his statement highlighted the Leader’s irresponsibility on the basis of his being so inaccurate.

The plain fact is that Chrysler is functioning successfully. Its initiative in developing the Sigma, the best new car on the Australian market for years, has guaranteed Chrysler’s continued viability in Australia. That is demonstrated by reference to sales figures for the Sigma. In January 1085 were sold, in February 1820, in March 1966, and in April 2375, demonstrating a dramatic and continuing improvement in sales for the product. That statement is further enhanced when one notes that in March there were 2 1 selling days and therefore average sales were 94 a day, and in April, with only 19 selling days, average sales were 125 a day. So in the space of just one month sales of the Sigma increased by one-third. Strength of that sort in the marketplace is hardly the showing of a manufacturer who is going to the wall, as the Leader of the Opposition would have us believe.

The impact on the market of the Scorpion sports sedan and the Sigma station wagon is yet to be experienced. Chrysler expect a demand for some 300 to 400 Scorpions a month, whilst normally one station wagon is sold for every two sedans. On the basis of current trends and its projections Chrysler confidently expects a vast increase in sales. In fact, the company believes that it will achieve easily its initial sales projection of 30,000 vehicles a year for the Sigma. Indeed, in South Australia in March Chrysler ranked second in sales to General-Motors Holden, outselling Ford and, as this advertisement I hold states, it is now pursuing the General as it heads for market leadership in the Australian motor vehicle market.

Mr Young:

– You are giving commercials.

Mr Bourchier:

– Are you from South Australia, Mick, or are you always against them there?

Mr CHAPMAN:

– He is always knocking South Australia. He knocks Chrysler quite often too. The successful market impact of the Sigma will be multiplied with the release of the new model Valiant. The Valiant has been significantly upgraded, with improved suspension and handling and an electronic lean burn ignition system which will give pre-emission control fuel economy for that motor car.

Mr Young:

– What sort of tyres has it got?

Mr CHAPMAN:

– It will have good tyres too. It will be a good motor vehicle and will make a significant impact on the market. This vehicle has been well received in the motoring Press and should achieve a substantial market share. Chrysler also has other new products in the pipeline which for security reasons obviously it has not yet made public. So the company’s market prospects are extremely healthy.

Chrysler’s investment program further gives the lie to the Leader’s claims. In the last two years, $45m has been invested in getting the Lonsdale engine plant under way to produce locally the renowned Astron 2-litre engine. There also has been investment in plant to produce the Sigma at an 85 per cent local content level. Negotiations are continuing for equity investment by the Japanese Mitsubishi organisation which will further strengthen the company’s capital base. Mitsubishi is hardly likely to consider investing in a venture that is going to the wall. Chrysler has also won substantial outside contracts for the supply of goods to the motor industry. For example, it has a $20m contract over 5 years with the Nissan company to supply engine blocks and engine parts. Certainly there has been a retrenchment of 1002 employees at Chrysler this financial year, but if the Leader of the Opposition thinks that that reflects the impending closure of the plant, that highlights his ignorance of the industry.

Over the period of those retrenchments, production at Chrysler’s plant increased from 160 units a day to 166 units a day. Chrysler has commendably directed its attention to rationalisation for more efficient and economic production to ensure its survival as an Australian manufacturer. The need for rationalisation and efficiency is something about which the Leader of the Opposition often makes statements, and he is to be commended for that. Rationalisation and improved productivity are essential for the survival of the motor vehicle industry in Australia. Having preached that, the Leader of the Opposition can hardly claim that its occurrence indicates the company is going to the wall and still retain his credibility.

Mr Hodgman:

– Shocking.

Mr CHAPMAN:

– He has no credibility at all, as the honourable member for Denison says. The employment situation also reflects changes in the model mix as a result of consumer preference for 4-cylinder cars. The Leader’s irresponsible statements, by destroying confidence in the Valiant, will have hastened the shift to 4-cylinder vehicles and therefore further damaged employment in the industry.

Chrysler is establishing a sound base of operation for the next decade. It faces the future with confidence and it strongly resents the political opportunism of the Leader of the Opposition. His statements have no basis in fact. I welcome this opportunity to move the censure motion concerning the misleading statements of the Leader of Opposition in order to highlight his irresponsibility.

It is said that good oppositions make for good government. If that statement is true, the Fraser Government deserves special commendation because it is providing good government under a considerable handicap. It faces a weak Opposition with pathetic leadership.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr Wilson:

– I second the motion and reserve my right to speak to it.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– My sin is not what I said but the fact that I exposed the Government’s deficiency in another area of national economic responsibility, another serious defect in government administration. The motor vehicle industry in this country today is a potential disaster area. If it is to be saved substantially, it requires much more off-setting action than the Government has given any indication that it is prepared to undertake. I make no apology for criticising shortcomings in government administration wherever I see them. That is my responsibility. Should I fail to do that I fail in my responsibility not only to my party but also to the Australian community. I go further than that. I have consistently outlined the sorts of things that we will undertake when we are in government to expand the economy in a moderate and carefully controlled way so that the sort of malaise which is debilitating it now can be overcome. Inflation could be brought down consistent with an improvement in the unemployment situation and a pick-up in business activity. I repeat that I make no apologies for being a consistent critic where I believe that criticism is justified, and I will continue to do so.

Moreover, having made criticisms on major points, and in spite of the fact that in a craven way the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) seeks to invoke national responsibility and suggest that there is some lack of patriotism involved in raising these matters, I am reassured to find that I have been proved consistently correct. I pointed out in 1976, and I might say that I did it with a great deal of melancholy, that unless the Government took immediate action the rapid deterioration in our external balance would become a very serious matter. I predicted that it was inevitable, through neglect, that there would be a substantial devaluation. I did that not because I wanted to- I believe that I had sat quietly for too long and had forsaken my responsibility in this matter- but because I recognised that action would have to be taken. I was not the only person to say it publicly, and that is lost sight of.

I was somewhat flattered to hear all of the credit extended to me by Government spokesmen as to how much power I have over the community when I make a comment on economic matters. One would think that a comment from me alone is enough to change the whole economic destiny of this country. But I was helped by one other person. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) made a similar comment at about the same time, and let us bear that in mind because it is on record. He pointed out the weakness of the balance of payments and the problems which were arising as a consequence of that. I was proved right then and I was justified in taking the action that I did, the sort of action that comes from the sheer frustration of recognising that this country is administered by a totally incompetent group of people who do not understand even fundamental economic principles.

The cost of this Government’s administration is too great to bear. The cost in the coming year of lost production in this country as a result of the Government’s economic policies will be of the order of $6,000m, and to that can be added the cost of unemployment benefits of about $ 1,500m. I would have thought that the reports this morning of the International Monetary Fund would have a rather sobering influence on any thinking group in the community. There is no evidence that the warning heralded by the International Monetary Fund has yet reached or will ever reach this Government. It is determined to drive this country deeper down the vortex of depression. I indicated that the wages-prices freeze taken on so impulsively by the Prime Minister in that conventional style of his that unnerves so many thinking people in the community, and even the few of them among his own Ministers, would be aborted in a very short time, and it was aborted in six weeks. I make no apologies for pointing that out either. Similarly, I pointed out early last year that our external account was in a weakening position and that the Government ought to move to borrow overseas, to revalue gold, and to make a firm statement as to its intent in regard to the protection of the Australian dollar. I believe now, as I believed then- I have believed this consistently in the intervening period- that if that had been done confidently and firmly by means of a comprehensive statement we would not have the problems that we are facing today in relation to the external account. It was the grudging and the unsure way in which the Government approached this matter which led to uncertainty in the community generally.

I am not alone in raising this issue. The honourable member for Kingston (Mr Chapman) has raised it in the Parliament today. If he is concerned about the financial viability of Chrysler Australia Ltd, I pose one simple question to him: Why has he raised the matter in this Parliament? Is he as hypocritical as his colleagues who in 1976 condemned me for raising the likelihood, or the inevitability, to put it more properly, of a devaluation. Those honourable members rose in this Parliament and said: ‘That is the sort of thing which will undermine the Australian dollar’. They did the very thing that they claimed was wrong. It is being done again. There is the culprit. It is the honourable member for

Chrysler, as he is generally known in the community, the honourable member for Kingston, who raised this matter today. If he were genuinely concerned about the financial strength of Chrysler, he would not have raised it. It is nothing more than political posturing. He has seen the opportunity to grab a platform and he has sought to make a little bit of mileage out of it.

The other observation I want to make- it is highly pertinent to do so when discussing these matters- is that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has not joined in this debate. He never does. He is quite adept at Question Time at ignoring the questions which are directed to him, rambling widely and irrelevantly in his answers; but when it comes to defending his own Government he will never, if it is possible to avoid doing so, face up to that challenge in the Parliament. I ask honourable members to reflect on all of the occasions in the two years- 1976 and 1977- when motions of great importance, going to the very heart of the integrity and standing of this Government, were raised in the Parliament. I refer to matters of public importance and motions of censure against the Government. Inevitably the Prime Minister sought to absent himself from the Parliament. He is no debater. He has no confidence in his ability to mobilise an argument in defence of what the Government is doing. I must say that it would take much more than reasonable average ability to be able to do that.

I say that I am not the only person who is expressing concern about the motor vehicle industry. As the honourable member for Chrysler does not care to take on board seriously my views, let us look at what the Australian Financial Review had to say recently. It said:

As is now well known 1977 turned out to be an abysmal year, - for the motor car industry ‘ can be added- . . the worst for the industry in five years, and culminated in the biggest loss ever recorded by a motor company in Australia when Chrysler posted a deficit of $27.8 million and the first loss ($8.4 million) ever recorded by General MotorsHolden ‘s since it began manufacture in the 1940s.

If the same conditions prevail for the remainder of 1978 the industry will be in dire straits.

I am quoting nothing more than what informed commentators are saying publicly: The motor car industry in Australia is a potential disaster area.

The honourable member for Chrysler must have been chewing poppy seeds before he prepared his speech. He threw away such classic lines as: ‘The motor vehicle industry is sound and improving’; and: ‘The Government’s approach will allow the motor vehicle industry to flourish in future’; and ‘Government policies are correct and are leading to prosperity in the industry’. No one else believes that, least of all the people in the industry- either the industrialists or the members of the industrial movement. Let me again read from an article which appeared in the Australian Financial Review in March of this year. Speaking specifically about Chrysler, it said:

All the indications are that it will be a most expensive funeral for at least one vehicle builder.

That was said long before I made the comment I made. I shall come in a few seconds to the comment I made. Before I do that, let me indicate to the honourable member that the people who work in the industry are gravely alarmed. About 250,000 jobs directly and indirectly are dependent upon the health of the motor vehicle industry. It is particularly sick now. Employees in the industry are wanting action. People in the honourable member’s own electorate who are employed by Chrysler, employed in the industry, have so much confidence in him and in his ability to understand their problems and the problems of the industry that when they came here a fortnight ago making representations on behalf of their industry to Opposition members, seeking us to raise the matter in order to get the Government to take some action, they indicated to Opposition members that they would have no truck or that they would have no communication with the honourable member for Chrysler, because they do not believe that so far he has been able to represent them adequately, or the industry effectively. So much for the standing of the honourable member for Chrysler!

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will cease using that term.

Mr HAYDEN:

-If the honourable member for Kingston believes that the motor vehicle industry is in such fine fettle, how is it that the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in its April catalogue on registrations of new motor vehicles, points out that the number of registrations of motor vehicles has gone down year by year since 1973-74. Registrations have gone down from 409,983 motor vehicles registered in that year to 365,624 motor vehicles registered in 1976-77. The publication Automotive Industry Matters had some comments to make. These are two highly relevant quotations. That publication said:

Much of the industry is now rethinking 1978- and the years following. Ford’s postponement of the Ingleburn N.S.W. project (the latest in a line of Ford PR embarrasments . . .) is, according to some observers, only one of a number of coming reappraisals among the car manufacturers.

In another recent edition that publication also says:

The implication of the sales slump is now beginning to dawn on the factories: the 1980 vehicle market projections upon which most of them have been working- of a market of 700,000-750,000-is now highly unlikely to be reached. In fact, some observers are saying: ‘We will be lucky if it reaches 650,000 in 1 980-very lucky indeed ‘.

So much for all the prosperity; so much for the solid basis upon which the Government seeks to establish a motor vehicle industry in this country. The industry has been set back, and set back severely. Chrysler’s loss in 1977 was expressed in terms of the number of vehicles sold falling by in excess of 4,000. Every motor car manufacturer today is suffering the problem of idle capacity. Every motor vehicle manufacturer today is enduring the problem of stock-piling, of production that cannot be sold. If the honourable member thinks that things are so good, let me now quote from an article which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald. I quote these sources to indicate that it is not me alone who has all this power over the thinking of the community. There are informed people outside who see through the patent hypocrisy of members of the Government as they posture about on great issues such as the motor vehicle industry and its depressed condition and who recognise that the Government is doing nothing more than posturing and that there is a need for action. The Sydney Morning Herald had this to say about Chrysler’s financial results: . . increased costs due to abnormally high stock inventories, depressed consumer confidence and buyer resistance to unavoidable price increases.

Everything that I have been saying is on record. One of the problems with the motor car industry, taking on board the article to which I just referred, is the enormous increase in the cost of a motor vehicle. In 1975 the average motor vehicle cost the equivalent of 35 weeks’ average weekly earnings. In 1978 it is expected a motor vehicle will cost 45 weeks’ average weekly earnings. That is a substantial increase. It is a 30 per cent increase in the cost of a motor vehicle. No wonder people are not buying. Buyer resistance is settling in. One of the major influences in the cost of motor vehicles being pushed up is the very high cost involved in companies carrying idle capital equipment and carrying at very high cost production which is being stock-piled.

I come to my comments in Melbourne. What I said was that the industry was in difficulties and that, in the absence of government action to assist the industry, one manufacturer could- I repeat, could- go to the wall. Action must be taken. I recommend that there should be a substantial and permanent reduction in the rate of tax imposed on motor vehicle sales in this country. Reducing the cost of motor vehicles is one of the effective ways by which these motor vehicles could be moved out of stockpile, production could pick up again and jobs could be guaranteed. That is what I am arguing.

I am arguing also that government can, as we did when we were in government, take a number of specific measures to guarantee the viability of an organisation such as Chrysler. Chrysler is about to go into a joint venture with the Mitsubishi organisation. I challenge the Government to deny that it is considering, as a special concession to Chrysler and Mitsubishi, a reduction in the Australian content plan; that is, there will be a greater proportion of imported equipment at the expense of Australian jobs. That way sales might go up temporarily, but the number of jobs will go down and ultimately the recession will be far worse.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-The motion draws attention to statements made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) and censures him for his mischievous and misleading public statements. He has repeated them today. He has added to them. He is creating even greater difficulties for the industry about which he claims he is concerned. He criticised the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Chapman) for raising the matter in this House. The Leader of the Opposition is the one who initiated the debate and caused and exaggerated the difficulty being faced by the car industry. He seeks to be a prophet of doom and then to bring about the doom and gloom which he phophesied. He is critical of those people who want to draw to the attention of the public the irresponsibility of his actions.

In the last statement he made this afternoon, when he suggested that a solution to the problem would be a reduction in the rate of sales tax imposed on motor cars, he was again creating mischief because as a result of that statement speculation will run through the community. He, as Leader of the Opposition, has put forward this suggestion. As a result of his actions car sales over the next few weeks could fall significantly. The Leader of the Opposition was a member of a government which undertook a series of actions which were damaging to the motor car industry and other industries. The Leader of the Opposition was a member of a government which reduced tariffs by 25 per cent. He was a member of a government which took that action in the face of a report which indicated that there would be a substantial reduction in employment as a consequence of that action. He now makes statements concerning the established motor car manufacturers in Australia, indicating that one manufacturer in particular in his view could be in difficulty.

What he fails to do now is what he failed to do when he was a party to the tariff reduction of 25 per cent, namely, to understand the implications of his statements to a significant, settlement region area of employment. If we look at the consequences of the 25 per cent tariff reduction we find that unemployment was increased in a number of small settlements, in country towns, in Tasmania and in other areas away from the major cities of Melbourne and Sydney where there were no or very few alternative job opportunities. In calling into question the viability of the motor car manufacturers of Australia and in pointing in particular to Chrysler Australia, whose one industrial plant in Australia is in South Australia, the Leader of the Opposition is undermining the economic viability of metropolitan Adelaide and of South Australia generally. This is one of the most serious consequences of his statements. This indicates that this House would be quite justified in declaring those statements to be utterly and completely mischievous. The difficulty which his statements could cause in metropolitan Adelaide is of very great proportions. He, along with the South Australian Government, is slowly- and, in more recent times, quickly- taking away the confidence of private industry.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– They cannot deny that statement.

Mr WILSON:

– They cannot deny those facts. All the statistics indicate that the industrial base of South Australia and of Adelaide in particular is being seriously weakened now by a combination of the actions of the Leader of the Opposition here and of Dunstan, the South Australian Premier.

If we look at the employment figures for South Australia we find that there has been an astounding drop in employment in manufacturing industry. Although this reflects in part an Australiawide trend, the drop in employment in South Australia has been accentuated by the actions of Labor politicians, in particular by supporters of the South Australian Dunstan Government. The disappearing confidence which is being brought about by that Government is being accentuated by the activities of the Leader of the Opposition, who has failed to appreciate and understand the regional implications of his statements.

On the other hand, the Fraser Government has recognised the importance of regions and in its amendments to legislation concerning the Industries Assistance Commission has required that body, in examining any tariff changes, to take account of the impact on employment in significant population settlements- a unique, new and significant move. The efforts of such a body could be brought to nought by irresponsible statements such as those which we recently heard from the Leader of the Opposition. He, along with his colleagues in the South Australian Parliament, is creating a serious situation for South Australia. Recently an article entitled ‘Spartans are at Adelaide’s walls’, appeared in the Australian Financial Review. The article stated:

South Australia is facing an industrial slow down, highlighted by slack investment, losses or retrenchments in the vital whitegoods area and acres of unsold new cars.

In recent weeks we have found the Leader of the Opposition accentuating the causes of those problems and supporting the irresponsible activities of the South Australian Labor Government, which is bringing about the loss of confidence of business leaders in metropolitan Adelaide, a flight of capital and a significant movement of people away from metropolitan Adelaide and, as a result, is causing not only a down turn in the industries directly affected but also a significant fall in job opportunities in related industries as far afield as the housing industry.

Let me return to the article in question which appeared recently not only in the Australian Financial Review as a report by Christopher Jay but also in papers in metropolitan Adelaide. It is important that the people of South Australia realise that their past prosperity is being destroyed by the Dunstan Government and that the destruction by that Government of the economic viability of a community of 800,000 to 1,000,000 people is being promoted by the gloom and doom of the Leader of the Opposition. Let us look at what Mr Jay had to say about the housing industry in South Australia. Reporting on a recent conference which had been held, he spoke of papers which had been presented at that conference, and which contained projections of reduced housing demand in various parts of Australia. Mr Jay referred to a conversation with an official of the South Australian Government. Mr Jay reported:

But when the results were being digested later in the day, one South Australian official confided cheerfully that on some projections Adelaide hardly needed to be building any new houses at all at present.

This prophet of doom, having pointed the bone at Chrysler Australia Ltd, will now set about with the same missionary zeal he displayed in his forecasts of doom in relation to devaluation and our overseas balances, to bring in reality the death of that organisation. Insofar as he achieves that goal the implications for metropolitan Adelaide and the people of South Australia are vast indeed. The time is coming fast when those people must recognise that the Leader of the Opposition and his socialist colleagues in the Government of South Australia are destroying the lifestyle that the people of South Australia have enjoyed since the Liberal Government was in office in that State.

It is important that the people of South Australia appreciate that the typical socialist technique is to apply the tourniquet treatment. Let me illustrate this by drawing the attention of the House to the State Labor Government’s promotion of so-called industrial democracy. The hard liners in the Labor Government of South Australia would compulsorily have union and Government representatives on boards, leaving the shareholder representatives in a minority. Every now and again the Premier tries to call people together and say: ‘Look, we do not really mean what we say’. That releases the tourniquet for a while. People relax but the tourniquet is not fully released. In a few months the Premier again will make a statement which is consistent with his party’s policies. So, as a result of those statements and of the concern they cause amongst industrial leaders and business enterprises in South Australia, those enterprises go not off-shore but off-State. They leave South Australia. They move their headquarters to other States. Perhaps the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), who I heard interjecting earlier, would not mind this because he is pursuing his own vested interests. He would like to see an expansion of the enterprises of the Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd and he knows that they will expand if he can encourage the Leader of the Opposition to prophesy doom concerning Chrysler’s manufacturing plant in South Australia. Let members of the Labor Party deny that a possible conspiracy can be assumed from the irresponsible statements made by the Leader of the Opposition.

In South Australia manufacturing industry has been a very significant employer of labour but over recent years, as a result of the policies of the Dunstan Government, job opportunities in manufacturing industry have declined rapidly. The slack has been taken up to some extent by government employment and South Australia has the highest percentage of government employees of any State. But that situation has been brought about because of the temporary availability of the proceeds of the sale of the State’s railways. There is not much more of the farm that can be sold, nor are there any buyers who would pay the sort of price that Whitlam paid for those railways. Of the South Australian Government ‘s Budget of $ 1 , 171m, an amount of $5 30m is spent on salaries. The Deputy Premier of South Australia, Mr Corcoran, recently said that a number of new factories and businesses had been established in South Australia in the last 12 months. I call upon him to give a detailed list of the names and number of employees of those industrial establishments. I call upon him also to identify the number of establishments which have closed or which have reduced their work forces. I am concerned to know that in recent weeks surveys are tending to indicate that the number of job opportunities available in manufacturing industry in metropolitan Adelaide has been declining rapidly. This situation is becoming permanent.

Mr Chapman:

– They are going interstate.

Mr WILSON:

– As my colleague says, the jobs are going interstate. They are being replaced by machines and capital is leaving also simply because in South Australia we have a socialist Government which enters and takes over industry. The South Australian Government has expanded its insurance corporation; it has entered the clothing hardware industry and it has indirectly entered other industries, through the mechanism of the State Bank of South Australia and the Savings Bank of South Australia, by imposing non-banking conditions on the circumstances under which loans will be made available. It is time we recognised that the statements of the Leader of the Opposition are causing mischief to the development and expansion of South Australia and that he has conspired in this action, either directly or indirectly, with his colleagues in the State Government. The sooner this House recognises that the industrial viability of metropolitan Adelaide is threatened by members of the Labor Party, the sooner it can adopt policies which will ensure that Adelaide can continue to expand and to provide the opportunities for employment and lifestyle that the people of that State, through their hard work in the past, deserve now and in the future.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-This censure motion dealing with the car industry has been developed by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) into a debate on the acceptance or otherwise of the State Government of

South Australia. I must say that if my name were Ian Cameron Bonython Wilson I would also be a little disturbed about a Labor government in South Australia. The Australian Labor Party does not have to rebut the statements made about the Government of South Australia. The electorate of South Australia does that very convincingly every three years when a substantial number of South Australians overwhelmingly return the Dunstan Government to administer that State. We do have a very good lifestyle in South Australia. For 1 3 years- after the next election it will be 16 years- the Dunstan Government has given South Australians a lifestyle which I believe is superior to the lifestyle of people in any other part of Australia, especially those who have to live under the regime in Queensland.

This is an extremely interesting debate. The honourable member for Kingston (Mr Chapman) has introduced a censure motion dealing with the Government’s concern that someone should say something about the car industry which in one way or another may be interpreted to mean that the car industry is not going all that well and that the Government may have to take further action in relation to the industry. We should all be shocked and surprised that a leading politician in this country should say something about one of the major employers in Australia. There are very few bigger employers in Australia than in the automotive and associated industries. But we are all to remain silent about them. No one is to say anything about them. The National Country Party can bleat all day about the beef industry and Government supporters can do all they like for the lawyers and doctors but we on this side of the House are not to say anything at all for the employees of the automotive and associated industries. A very strange- although it is becoming quite traditional- attitude is taken by the media in this country to whoever holds the position of Leader of the Opposition or Leader of the Australian Labor Party. For ten years the monopolised media in this country utilised its enormous power, a power not allowed in any other country, to try to destroy one of the finest politicians in this country- Gough Whitlam. Now they have started on Bill Hayden. Bill Hayden raises a question about the future of the car industry. All of a sudden Rupert Murdoch locked up in New York and Warwick Fairfax sitting out on Double Bay with his quarter of a million dollars handout from John Fairfax and Co. become very disturbed, because Bill Hayden asked the question. It does not matter whether anybody on the Government side of the House raises the matter.

The honourable member for Sturt talked about the car industry. There have been so many plans for the car industry that those of us who have been here long enough are getting dizzy from talking about it. The honourable member for Kingston said in one of his strange statements that the car industry does not want anything to do with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) and that it has completely debarred any further discussion with him. I carry with me this week an invitation from Chrysler Australia Ltd and General Motors-Holden’s Ltd to shadow spokesmen on this side of the House, together with the Leader of the Opposition, to meet with the management to talk about the future of the car industry. Things are going on in the car industry about which employees and the Opposition in this Parliament are entitled to know. We are not going to be made silent by the honourable member for Chrysler coming in here and asking that we carry a motion of censure against the Leader of the Opposition for discussing an industry that has as its responsibility the employment of something like 100,000 people. We are talking about an industry that at the moment is producing a smaller number of vehicles than it did two years ago. On the figures that were predicted two years ago, the Australian car industry would have 80 per cent of a market of something like 620,000 units in 1978. That is small enough by world standards. A few years ago there would have been three manufacturers splitting up 80 per cent of 620,000 vehicles. Today, because of the Government’s car plan we will have in Australia five manufacturers producing 80 per cent, not of 620,000 units, but according to Chrysler’s predictions 530,000 units. So the total domestic market is getting smaller and an increased number of manufacturers is coming into the field to supply the Australian domestic market. Obviously it is a ground for trouble. It is the ground for trouble in the original plan that was adopted.

I say again that to have such a small domestic market with the number of manufacturers that has now been invited under the protective umbrella of the Australian scheme is a recipe for problems. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) has said, all the problems have not been thrashed out and there will be greater trouble unless the Government sits down and is honest with all the industry and with all the representatives of the employees. For this statement, the newspaper proprietors and the Government go almost insane. They say: ‘How dare you say anything about the motor industry? You can talk about the neutron bomb or the beef industry or anything you like but do not start speculation about the car industry’.

Just two and a half weeks ago a representative group of nine employees came to Canberra to meet Mr Lynch. Mr Lynch was very good; he gave them an hour and a half in which to discuss the problems of Chrysler. The main objection of the employees of Chrysler is that they are being left out in the dark. They do not know what will happen. Chrysler used to work with 4,500 employees. Now it is working with 2,500 employees.

Mr Hurford:

– That is the problem. The decisions should be made in Australia.

Mr YOUNG:

– They want to know what is going on. This is the way in which the multinationals operate. The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) is quite right. The Australian people are just strung along by the way these people operate. Chrysler Australia says: We cannot tell you, we are not involved; it is Chrysler Detroit with Mitsubishi which is involved’. So the people in Detroit are talking with the people in Tokyo about what will happen to the people who live in Adelaide. Now we are not supposed to say anything in the National Parliament about it. Honourable members opposite can sit around playing the role of the mute on these questions but they can rest assured that we are going to speak out on the questions which are alive- the political and industrial questions which are of major consequence to the people of Australia.

We think that it is only decent that the companies involved, Chrysler and Mitsubishi, should tell not only the employees but also the Australian Government- and the Australian Government should make it clear to everybody in Australia- what will happen. No single attitude has been adopted by the car industry. If we talk to Sir Brian Inglis or Ian Webber or the people from the various industries, they will all give us their lines. There are five manufacturers and they will adopt on occasions five separate lines towards the industry. We cannot sit down and talk on the basis of one group attitude. Nissan and Toyota, the latest additions to the car plan, have a totally different attitude to what they want of Australia than does GMH and Ford. Chrysler is somewhere in between.

We know, as does everybody who examines the car industry, that changes will have to be made. But why should we make the workers of Chrysler, Ford or GMH the sacrificial lambs?

The honourable member for Kingston asks why the workers in the car industry are asking for more money. He says they are only causing industrial unrest.

It may interest members of the national Parliament to know- these things are sometimes a little foreign to us- that when the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Hayden, and I visited Ford two weeks ago, we sat around a table for a bit over an hour with 10 employees of Ford. They take home on average the magnificent sum of $135 a week; $ 1 35 a week is the average take home pay for the worker at Broadmeadows. Honourable members opposite want to know why they are putting in for pay increases. I will tell them how to understand it in the simplest possible fashion. They should give themselves $135 each week for a month on which to live and then they will understand why the employees are asking for more money. It is as simple as that. If honourable members opposite do not understand that they are only trying to draw red herrings across the path.

The car plan in Australia at the moment is basically the umbrella- the protection and the sort of security- that the Labor Government gave the car industry. There is very little new in what this Government has done over the last two and a half years. The 85 per cent content plan is basically the Labor Government plan which was made when we rejected the Industries Assistance Commission report. In addition, the local industry is provided with 80 per cent of the market. As I have said, the important feature of that argument is that it is a diminishing market. Until such time as the people of Australia are prepared to turn their cars over more quickly, and until such time as the scrappage of new cars in Australia becomes greater, the car industry in Australia will be faced with that problem.

How do workers in Australia on $135 a week- we are talking about thousands and thousands of workers, not just those in the car industrysit home on the weekend and discuss whether they will buy a new Ford, Holden or Valiant? The real problem that we are faced with here is buyer resistance. It is a new ingredient, a new kerb, a new problem as far as the car industry is concerned. A lot of people who used to buy new cars are now buying second hand vehicles because that is what suits their budget. We cannot maintain the quick turnover of new cars that we have had or expect the same growth rate in the car industry unless the conditions which used to prevail return.

On the matter of the total amount that is taken home by the workers in these industries, we have a government that is continually going into the national wage case and saying that we cannot afford full wage indexation. That means that over the last two years every wage and salary earner has had a real reduction in his wages. That is reflected in the sort of consumer goods that wage and salary earners can purchase. So of course there will be problems in the car industry. The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to raise these questions. It is, as he says, his responsibility. In relation to the total picture of the car industry, why did Ford just a few weeks ago cancel its plans to build a new $80m plant at Ingleburn? It described Ingleburn as the most suitable area in which to build a car plant in Australia. Why would it cancel its plans to build at Ingleburn? Obviously it is because the Australian auto industry already has over production capacity.

GMH and Ford are perhaps working at somewhere between 70 per cent and 80 per cent of their capacity. We do not know what Chrysler is working at but we do know that Nissan and Toyota are having difficulty in reaching 85 per cent. All that we are asking for and demanding on this side of the House is that someone who is involved in the industry that is making the decisions be honest with the people involved. That includes us, because we have a responsibility as the Opposition in the national Parliament. I repeat to honourable members who want to know why the plans for Ingleburn were cancelled, it is tied up with the total picture of the car industry.

There is one other important aspect concerning the employment of people in the car industry. For some time during the late 1950s and 1960s we built up a substantial skill in the car industry in Australia. Many members, not only of the Vehicle Builders Union, the Metal Workers Union and other blue collar unions operating in this field, will be affected. The car industry in Australia was a good outlet for people such as draftsmen and other skilled people involved in the design of motor cars. All of that has come to an end in Australia as the organisations which control the car industry throughout the world are concentrating more and more on world models. People overseas are now being given the opportunity to design the products which Australians will have to purchase and use. Nowadays, when people are laid off in the car industry it is not just the vehicle builder, the bloke working on the assembly line or the fellow doing perhaps the tooling up, but a lot of others including white collar workers also are being laid off. The car industry is undergoing a massive transformation. The statements of the honourable member for Kingston and the honourable member for Sturt, who came in here roaring like lions and told us that the Opposition should not speak about one of the most massive employers in Australia, ought to be rejected out of hand by every thinking parliamentarian.

Question put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 76

NOES: 36

Majority 40

In division:

AYES

NOES

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-If the honourable member is attempting to raise a point of order I inform him that what arrangements are made is not a matter of concern to the Chair. There is no point of order.

Mr Hayden:

– We do not know anything about it.

Mr Bourchier:

– It should be recorded.

Mr Scholes:

– I take a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is voting in this debate because the motion is one of censure of him. As a member of this Parliament he is entitled to record his vote for a motion in which it is sought to censure him.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1606

DEPARTMENT OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for the year ended 30 June 1977.

page 1606

FOURTH INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW SEMINAR

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · Stirling · LP

For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Fourth International Trade Law Seminar held in Canberra in April 1977.

page 1606

FISHING INDUSTRY RESEARCH ACT 1969

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for the Northern Territory and Minister Assisting the Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 19 of the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969, I present the eighth annual report of the

Fishing Industry Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1977.

page 1607

FISHING INDUSTRY ACT 1956

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for the Northern Territory and Minister Assisting the Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 8 of the Fishing Industry Act 1956,I present the twenty-first annual report on the operation of that Act during the year ended 30 June 1977.

page 1607

DARWIN CYCLONE TRACY RELIEF TRUST FUND

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for the Northern Territory and Minister Assisting the Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the monthly report of the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund for March 1978.

page 1607

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

Mr STALEY:
Minister for Post and Telecommunications · Chisholm · LP

– Pursuant to section 28 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, I present the annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal for the period 1 January to 30 June 1977, which incorporates the annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board for the period 1 July to 31 December 1976.

page 1607

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on razors, razor blades and razor blade blanks.

page 1607

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Temporary Assistance Authority on thin wood based panels.

page 1607

TAXATION LEGISLATION: RETROSPECTIVITY

Ministerial Statement

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

-by leave- I wish to provide the House with some information regarding a matter arising from my second reading speech on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1978. I think it is proper that I provide the House with this information. Since the House last met, and as a result of an inquiry that I made of the Australian Taxation Office, my attention has been drawn to the contents of a letter written in September of last year by the then Minister Assisting the Treasurer, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner), dealing with matters relating to the retrospectivity of tax legislation. I believe that 1 should draw its contents to the attention of the House by tabling it, as there is a possibility that some people may see its contents as in some fashion qualifying the paragraph on page 5 of my second reading speech.

In tabling the letter, I should make it very clear that I was not aware of it at the time of the preparation and introduction of the legislation. 1 should also make it clear that if I had been aware of it, it would not have altered my decision or the Government’s decision regarding this matter. I take this opportunity to reiterate the terms of the Government’s decision, both in respect of the general provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill and the section of that Bill which has attracted some comment and some controversy in recent weeks, that is, the decision of the Government to apply retrospectively the provisions striking down the so-called Curran schemes from 16 August 1977.

I believe that this letter was written in the context of the general approach taken by the Government, that is, that it is undesirable to have retrospective legislation. As I have said on a number of occasions, the main basis of the Government’s decision in this area is that having put into balance the two competing principles of non-retrospectivity and the equity of the tax system, the Government has decided that on this occasion the latter of those two principles must be given greater weight. For that reason the Government has firmly decided to proceed with this legislation.

page 1607

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

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

-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

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

– Yes. On 12 April last at Question Time, as reported at page 1424 of Hansard, I asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) relating to the electoral problems in Queensland. I asked whether he would conduct a judicial inquiry which would give immunity to witnesses and guarantee that there would be cross-examination. In reply, the

Prime Minister said that I did not understand the situation. He went on to say: . . what is proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a nonsense suggestion.

I now draw the attention of the House to the fact that the honourable gentleman on 24 April in Alice Springs said that a judicial inquiry would fully protect all witnesses called to give evidence and would allow the full testing and probing of evidence.

page 1608

QUESTION

AIRLINE SERVICES IN CENTRAL AUSTRALIA

Ministerial Statement

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– by leave- I am compelled to make this statement to the House because of charges laid by Mr R. R. Cavill, Managing Director of SAATAS- South Australian and Territorial Air Services Pty Ltd- and the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Peter Morris). I am making a statement so that the Parliament itself can consider the charges and impose its own judgment on those involved. The charges question the integrity not only of myself as Minister for Transport, but of officers of my Department, of the former Ministers responsible for civil aviation in previous governments, of the Directors of Connair Pty Ltd, of the owners and operators of several charter air services in central Australia, of certain members of the National Party in the Northern Territory and of the Government.

I want to say at the start that the charges are totally false and malicious and clearly demonstrably so; and that it is regrettable that the Labor Opposition, through the member for Shortland, has become actively involved in what I will call the Cavill Affair. This matter was first raised on 13 April by the member for Shortland in this House during the debate on the Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill. He made certain charges concerning air service operations in the Northern Territory. He quoted from a statement by Mr Cavill of SAATAS, not then available in Canberra, which had been given to him prematurely by Mr Cavill. I have not received nor seen a copy of Mr Cavill’s purported Press statement of 1 3 April. I understand however that it is similar to a telex sent to me on 3 1 March. Mr Cavill repeated his charges on at least two occasions- on A.M. and This Day Tonight on 14 April. The member for Shortland supported Mr Cavill with a statement on 20 April and an interview on A.M. on 2 1 April.

To the best of my belief the charges by Mr Cavill and the member for Shortland are contained in Hansard of 13 April, their Press statement of 20 April, interviews with This Day Tonight on 14 April, A.M. of the same date and A.M. on 21 April. The major charge is that Connair as the so-called opposition airline to SAATAS has been given unfair Government assistance and I and the National Country Party stand accused of pork barrel politics and discrimination. The charge is quite mischievous and clearly cannot be sustained on the facts. For the information of honourable members I table a report prepared by my Department following the charges made by Mr Cavill and the member for Shortland. I draw honourable members’ attention to the first part of my Department’s report headed ‘Types of Service’, which shows the sharp distinction between the two operators. Quite clearly SAATAS is not and has never been an opposition airline to Connair. Connair is the airline providing regular regional scheduled services in the Northern Territory. There are only five airlines of this type in Australia, namely, Ansett Airlines of Australia, Trans-Australia Airlines, Qantas Airways Ltd, East-West Airlines Ltd and Connair. SAATAS on the other hand is a charter operator in competition with other charter operators of which there are more than 480 in Australia.

Mr Cavill has known since at least October 1972 the position of the Commonwealth when the then Minister for Civil Aviation, Senator Cotton, wrote to Mr Cavill stating:

The position of the Commonwealth in these matters is as follows:

It has restricted the issue of air service licences in the Territory in an effort to ensure orderly, economic and efficient development of the industry there;

Your company is one of the favoured few who have been fortunate to gain an operating licence for the Territory;

In granting this licence to you originally, it was made perfectly clear what the relationship between Connair and the Commonwealth was:

The Commonwealth’s contract with Connair is a perfectly normal subsidy contract of a type which has been entered into with subsidised operators for many years;

This contract enables the Commonwealth to carry out all necessary investigations into the company’s affairs and to control its operations so as to ensure that subsidy costs are kept to a minimum;

The fundamental role of Connair, and the basis of its original foundation and development, is the provision of regular air services to remote localities in circumstances where uneconomic services are unavoidable; nevertheless, the company should be encouraged to develop other operations likely to reduce its subsidy requirement;

There is no evidence to suggest that SAATAS, for example, could perform the task allotted to Connair at a significantly different order of cost to the Commonwealth;

The late Sir Donald Anderson, when DirectorGeneral of Civil Aviation, had written to Mr Cavill on 14 January 1972, and listed seven benefits his company had accrued as a result of Commonwealth policy or action. That letter states:

I find it somewhat puzzling to note your apparent belief that this Department, or the Government, has acted to the disadvantage of SAATAS. Let me recapitulate some of the benefits which have accrued to the company as a result of Commonwealth policy or action:

SAATAS has been permitted to commence and expand operations in the Northern Territory even though this might have resulted in some increase in the subsidy requirements of Connair;

In the interests of SAATAS (and other existing operators) additional licences for services in the Northern Territory have been refused or severely restricted;

The limitations on charter flights over airline routes in the Territory provided under ANR 197 (2) have been administered liberally in the case of SAATAS;

SAATAS operations to Ayers Rock have been facilitated, and recently, at the request of the company, a higher fare was approved for this route;

The Department did all it could to promote the commencement of services to and within Indonesia by SAATAS; lt has been insisted that charter services by the subsidised operator, Connair Pty Ltd, which would be competitive with SAATAS services, should bc quoted for at charter rates based on full costs plus profit allowance so that no unfair advantage would be gained by Connair as a result of the Commonwealth subsidy;

The Department has assisted SAATAS considerably in making available hangar accommodation at Darwin Airport.

That letter puts the matter into the correct perspective. Our policy has never deviated from that described in October 1972. Mr Cavill and his colleagues have always been aware of it. Mr Cavill ‘s claim that Connair Pty Ltd has been given unfair Government assistance therefore is ludicrous. Clearly, the overall operations of the two companies are not comparable, nor are the services they provide. My Department’s report which I have just tabled sets out the history of the Government’s financial arrangements with Connair.

The report shows that since its inception in 1939 successive Commonwealth governments have supported, with financial assistance, the operation of the only regular scheduled regional airline for central Australia. Attachment I to the report sets out the payments made to Connair since the new agreement was entered into in 1965. The table shows that subsidy was continued during the three years of the Labor

Government even though that Government made a decision to phase out the subsidy.

To suggest that the National Country Party of Australia is in some way responsible for the agreement is ludicrous. In the first place until December 1975 when I became Minister in charge of the Department of Transport, no member of my party had held ministerial responsibility for aviation matters since before the current agreement was negotiated in 1 965. In addition, as my Department’s report demonstrates, all decisions relating to payments of financial assistance to Connair have been made on the basis of decisions by the Government, that is, the Cabinet. No individual Minister has been in a position to act without Cabinet’s direction and approval.

It should be clearly understood that the basis of the financial assistance to Connair was an agreement negotiated in 1 965 and approved by the then Government. I point out that the 1977 interdepartmental committee referred to in the Department’s report made the following recommendation:

The Committee recommends that the basis of Connair Pty Ltd, be confirmed as that of a regional airline.

The committee further recommended:

That the Government does not accept the option of doing nothing for Connair Pty Ltd, and thereby bringing about its immediate demise.

As I have said, Connair is central Australia ‘s regional airline. It is quite distinct and separate from charter operators such as SAATAS Pty Ltd. The airline was the brainchild of those living at the time in central Australia who saw a need for such a service. Since its inception it has served the people in the Northern Territory and central Australia well. It has been necessary for the Government to provide financial assistance to Connair to ensure that regular air transport services were provided for people requiring them in the remote areas of the region. But as I have said the details of that assistance have always been publicly available and approved by governments, not individual Ministers.

The second charge is that I, as Minister, have consistently refused Mr Cavill the opportunity to meet me. I was curious that Mr Cavill could take this view. All he had to do was ask. In fact, I held a meeting with Mr Cavill on 6 October 1 977 and have had regular correspondence with him. In addition my records show Mr Cavill has not sought a meeting with me since 6 October. All Mr Cavill has done is to say he is prepared to meet me if I formally call a meeting. On 23 March this year, Mr Cavill sent me a telex saying the directors of SAATAS were considering closing their Australian flying operations the following week, Mr Cavill did not seek a meeting. What he said was:

The Directors are prepared to discuss the proposed close down and any other matters if you wish.

On 30 March I sent a telex to Mr Cavill saying that his company must, of course, make its own commercial decisions but that if he felt a meeting could be of benefit I was happy to meet with him. Mr Cavill sent a reply on 3 1 March 1978 which stated: 1 remain happy to meet with you … I would however suggest that such a meeting would need to be called by you and a specific agenda be sei by you . . .

My reply to Mr Cavill on 13 April said that because SAATAS was responsible for its own commercial decisions it was not proper for me to call for a meeting or specify the agenda. I then repeated my earlier offer to meet with the company if Mr Cavill saw advantage in such a meeting. I have not heard since from Mr Cavill. Clearly I have never refused to meet with Mr Cavill. What I have done is to refuse to allow Mr Cavill to use my ministerial office to assist his commercial activities.

The third charge is that the Commonwealth in granting air service licences to Chartair and Tillair had acted in a discriminatory manner actionable in the High Court of Australia. The Department’s report sets out the details followed in granting or extending air service licences to Chartair and Tillair late last year. I am not sure what Mr Cavill ‘s own legal advisers are telling him. What I am sure of, however, is that my Department’s actions have been quite correct and in accordance with Government policy and established procedures. On 20 October 1977 I approved the issue or extension of charter licences to Rossair Pty Ltd- trading as Chartair- to Mr John Tilley of Katherine, Mr Frank Ashton of Tennant Creek, the Port Keats Mission in the Northern Territory and the Balgo Hills Mission in Western Australia. The decision to issue the licences was not an arbitrary one. It was made in consultation with the responsible member in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and the licences were expressly recommended by interdepartmental committee set up to examine air links in the area currently serviced by Connair.

Charter operators by their very nature cannot expect to be given a guaranteed monopoly by governments. As 1 have said there are more than 480 operators like SAATAS in Australia. There was, therefore, nothing discriminatory in issuing the charter licences on 20 October 1977. The Department’s report deals at length with the granting of financial assistance to undertake Connair’s mail services out of Alice Springs and new services of a similar type out of Katherine and Tennant Creek. The report speaks for itself and SAATAS was given an equal opportunity with the other operators in the region to bid for two routes. In both instances their bid was higher and, therefore, more expensive for the Government than the successful bidders, Chartair and Tillair. Again the report speaks for itself. In Alice Springs, Chartair indicated it required $20,514 per annum from the Government to undertake the mail service whereas SAATAS said it would require $22,350 per annum. At Katherine Tillair undertook to run the service for a payment of $20,280 whereas SAATAS stated that it would require $26,180. Clearly there was nothing discriminatory in awarding the services to the most economical and, therefore, efficient operators. After all taxpayers funds were involved.

Mr Cavill appears to be confused about the timing of the approval to the two operators to run these services. The department’s report states the position quite clearly, however. I repeat that Mr Cavil] and his company were provided with an equal opportunity to bid for the services, and the Government’s duty is to do no more than this. The operators’ decision to commence the services without waiting for government approval on the levels of subsidy required was theirs to make as charter operators. SAATAS could have done the same. After being given an equal opportunity to bid for mail routes and after being unsuccessful because its bid was too high, SAATAS complained to my Department. It believed the method of seeking offers was unconventional and could give rise to legal challenge. At that time my Department sought legal confirmation that its approach had been correct. Such confirmation was given by the Assistant Crown Solicitor.

Again I point out that the proposed arrangements were developed by my Department, the Postal Commission and the Department of Finance in consultation. The decisions on maximum levels of financial assistance were recently finalised by the Minister for Finance and me in consultation. There was clearly no discrimination, nor could there have been under the procedures followed in the matter. All procedures followed by the Government, me as Minister, my Department, Australia Post, and the Department of Finance and its Minister have been proper, responsible and totally fair. The Department’s report shows clearly that all the charges by Mr Cavill and the honourable member for Shortland are totally false. There has been no discrimination against SAATAS or any other operator. There has been no pork-barrelling by the National Country Party or any other party. No individual or single company has been given unfair advantage.

That brings me to the next point. What were Mr Cavill ‘s true intentions and those of the honourable member for Shortland in this matter? An examination of all the relevant papers has led me to only one clear conclusion- Mr Cavill has consistently sought a position of monopoly and unfair advantage over other operators in the Northern Territory. The honourable member for Shortland claims he has evidence proving the charges that he and Mr Cavill have made. Mr Cavill says that he has evidence with respect to malpractice by the Government and personally by the Country Party in the Northern Territory. I have already invited the honourable member for Shortland to publish such papers, but to no avail. If Mr Cavill would like to have the honourable member for Shortland table all the correspondence he has had with me and my Department in the last ten years or so, I will accommodate him. I would be surprised, however, if Mr Cavill would want to table his correspondence- correspondence aimed at securing for himself and his company a privileged position in the Northern Territory. As far back as February 1968, Mr Cavill wrote to the late Sir Donald Anderson, and I quote from that letter:

What my company seeks is a fair distribution of work given by Government Departments.

Again, on 29 November 1976, the Managing Director of SAATAS wrote to a senior officer of my Department stating:

  1. . we ask that your Department does these things: assists and encourages Connair to scale down. scales down the Connair subsidy in accordance with a logical formula. processes favourably all our applications under ANR 203. rejects all applications by Connair to subcontract its routes under AN R 20 1 . refrains from introducing any new operators to the Northern Territory, at least until the IDC has done its work. allows SAATAS to be the sole operator on the Alice Springs- Ayers Rock route.

In another letter of the same day to my Department’s South Australian/Northern Territory regional director, the Managing Director of SAATAS stated:

We demand, therefore, when Connair phases out, that we are permitted to run Alice Springs/Ayers Rock as a monopoly . . .

That letter of 29 November really gave SAATAS ‘ game away when it said:

Now, then more than ever, we need the economies of scale and we really believe that the service we have given has earned us the right to become the scheduled operator for the Northern Territory.

It is clear from the documents available that Mr Cavill and SAATAS have run a deliberate campaign aimed at causing the demise of Connair and the imposition of SAATAS in its place as the scheduled airline in Central Australia.

Let me give the House an indication of the lengths to which Mr Cavill has gone in his campaign. In December 1 97 1 Mr Cavill, on his own initiative, provided the late Sir Donald Anderson with what he described as ‘an assessment I have made of the financial operations of Connair’. The ‘assessment’ painted a picture of unrelieved gloom and showed Connair in a hopeless financial position. Sir Donald dismissed Mr Cavill ‘s assessment’ on 14 January 1972 in the following words- ‘interesting but inaccurate in a number of respects’. Sir Donald went on to say:

I see no particular point in continuing this exercise. If Connair is willing to make public its accounts, estimates such as you have made will be unnecessary. If the company does not wish to take this step, it would be improper for the Department to comment on your efforts, and discussion based on incorrect assumptions would be fruitless.

That attempt to have a Commonwealth department of state provide an opinion of a private company’s operations and financial structure to another company demonstrates a complete lack of business ethics by Mr Cavill.

A more sinister move occurred on 8 April 1972 when Mr Cavill wrote to the Chairman of Connair asking if the company would be prepared to negotiate a sale. To assist SAATAS, Connair made available copies of the loan agreement and subsidy agreement to Mr Cavill. Then, on 1 1 May 1972, Mr Cavill sent a document titled Northern Territory Air Services: Proposals for Reconstruction’ to a senior officer of the Department of Civil Aviation. The document proposed the formation of a new company to run air services in the Northern Territory with SAATAS holding 5 1 per cent of the shares and the Commonwealth holding 49 per cent. In the document Mr Cavill proposed that his company should absorb:

  1. . those elements of CONNAIR Pty Ltd and South Australian and Territorial Air Services Pty Ltd that were considered desirable . . .

Eventually CONNAIR Pty Ltd as it exists now could be liquidated thus avoiding continued tenure of embarrassing accoutrements.

Because no takeover offer was ever received the Connair board formally rejected SAATAS’ takeover suggestion on 20 December 1972. The letter from Connair to Mr Cavill said in part:

The Board . . . wishes to emphasise, once again, and finally, that our correspondence, and our release of information to you have been entirely in response to your declared intention to make a cash offer for all the shares in our company. This has not eventuated, and we regard the matter as closed.

I do not wish to take up the time of the House in disclosing any further Mr Cavill ‘s activities in seeking the demise of Connair and its replacement with his own company or with a company or organisation of his own choosing. On the 19 August last year Mr Cavill wrote to me saying that his company: . . could, with notice of a few days only, provide all those services needed in the Northern Territory, as mentionedmy previous correspondence with your Department- - without subsidy and with efficiency.

In the light of this claim by SAATAS, the capacity of the company to undertake the services should be examined. Just 9 days before Mr Cavill wrote to me on 19 August the Department of Construction had complained bitterly to SAATAS describing the service the company provided as most unsatisfactory. The Department’s complaints ranged from SAATAS being late for scheduled take off times and the inability of the company to have a light single aircraft on site to the fact they had to pay the hiring cost of a 9-seater aircraft to carry just one person. Unfortunately, the internal operations of SAATAS do nothing for the company’s image. From the brief outline I have given of the actions of Mr Cavill and his company during recent years and its aviation performance the House will see what Mr Cavill has been up to. It now appears that Mr Cavill has made some unwise commercial decisions in the past and is trying to blame everyone but himself for those mistakes. I am not sure what the company’s financial position is and what mistakes have been made with its management. On 29 November 1976, however, the Managing Director of SAATAS, in a letter to a senior officer of my Department said:

Today our ability to survive is being eroded in two ways. Firstly the Austraiian Government’s cost-cutting program has caused a serious decline in the demand for air charter in the Northern Territory. Secondly, our Indonesian operation has gone sour with our large foreign customers pulling out of the country. No longer can the profits from Indonesia prop up the struggling charter business in the Northern Territory.

As I have said, SAATAS is a charter operator, one of more than 480 in Australia. It is a private operator and, therefore, free to make its own commercial decisions. Its mistakes are of its own making and its future of its own choosing.

The role of the honourable member for Shortland in this unsavoury matter is curious and sad. On 8 December 1972, six days after the change of government, Mr Cavill wrote to the then Director-General of Civil Aviation and said:

A change of Government sets the stage for essential civil aviation reforms particularly in that section involving my company.

He effectively repeated that comment in a letter to me on 4 February 1976 when he said:

I feel that a practical and positive solution to this problem can now be achieved particularly having regard to the changed political environment.

That statement may come as a surprise to the honourable member for Shortland and those of his colleagues who were under the impression Mr Cavill was one of theirs. His actions clearly show a devious duplicity. In 1972 Mr Cavill was meeting with the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) to press his case. During 1973 Mr Cavill was negotiating with the Labor Government, using pressure from the Dunstan Government. In 1975 he was seeking me, in Opposition, to press his case again.

I am quite sure that my predecessor, the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones), could have warned the honourable member for Shortland about Mr Cavill’s methods. I am pleased to say he did not get anywhere with the honourable member for Newcastle and I am pleased to be able to show the House he has not got anywhere with me and will not. I regret that the honourable member for Shortland has not shown the perception and understanding of his colleague, the former Minister. The honourable member for Shortland, of course, has not had the sobering experience of ministerial office. Perhaps after his performance in this matter he never will.

The charges brought by the honourable member for Shortland at the instigation of Mr Cavill were indeed serious. They were given public airing on at least two national media programs. It is never my wish to disclose damaging information or evidence against any member of the public or member of this House. However, if the media are used to bring charges which are totally false and mischievous- charges which if unrebutted are personally damaging to the integrity and character of those they have been brought against- the persons bringing them must be exposed. It is my sincere wish that the honourable member for Shortland has learnt his lesson. It is my sincere wish that on future occasions the honourable member will make sure of his facts before making such outrageous statements and allowing himself to be used by devious operators for commercial reasons. I thank the House and present the following papers:

Airline Services in Central Australia- Ministerial Statement, 2 May 1978; Report by Department of Transport, dated 1 May 1978.

Motion (by Mr Fife) proposed:

That the House take note of the papers.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-The Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) stated that he has not seen the Press statement of Mr Cavill of 13 April. The truth is, and Hansard may record this, that I passed him a copy of the Press statement across the table during the debate. I think that the Minister now recalls that. At the time he asked me what it was and he took it away with him. So he did have a copy of the statement at the time it was released. I made some statements in this Parliament on that date relating to the information provided to me, and I will come to that later, but I did not make any charges against anybody. I simply referred to statements and said that if they could be substantiated the situation was serious. Again, I will refer to that later. I released a Press statement on 20 April, and I point out that it was my Press release, not ‘their’ Press release, that is, the Press release of Cavill and Morris, as the Minister said in the statement he has just concluded. Again, that was an inaccuracy. In that statement I said that I believed a senior Cabinet Minister was seeking to cover up the Government’s financial dealings with an airline operator that has close links with the National Country Party. I have no reason to alter that statement in the light of what the Minister has said and what he has tabled in this Parliament. I went on to say:

The manner in which the Transport Minister, Mr Nixon, has handled the issue of air charter licences in the Northern Territory and the payment of government subsidies to Connair Pty Ltd can only be described as a public scandal. I have documents which show the Minister has made misleading public statements about the Government’s sustained preferential treatment of Connair and its discrimination against a rival operator, South Australian and Territorial Air Services.

I stand by that statement, and I will be able to show that there was a reasonable basis for making it. On the program AM on 2 1 April I said:

I would be extremely surprised at any public statement from the Government on this issue which would provide all of the information that needs to be examined.

I think that that is the best way to summarise the Minister’s statement. It does provide some of the information but it contains a number of inaccuracies and distortions, and I will come to those a little later. The Opposition welcomes the Minister’s statement relating to the provision of air services in the Northern Territory. The report mentioned by the Minister has only just been made available to me. I have not had a chance to look at it closely but I do have a general understanding of it. Despite the inaccuracies and deficiencies in the Minister’s statement, he has created an opportunity for Parliament to examine more closely the manipulations that have taken place in this area of government responsibility. On a personal basis, I must confess that I am touched, in fact I am flattered, by the Minister’s show of concern for me, but I wish that he could have been more truthful in his remarks. The Minister has previously misled the Parliament and the public on the South Australian and Territorial Air Services Pty Ltd and Connair Pty Ltd subsidy issue, and his statement today further compounds his earlier actions.

Let us consider the background of the events that have occurred in what I term Australia’s own Nixon affair. Both SAATAS and Connair have operated air services in the Northern Territory for many years. Connair is the holder of a registered public transport licence and has recieved a $9m subsidy from taxpayers’ funds over that period. SAATAS has operated as a private enterprise charter operator without subsidy. It has not sought a subsidy, nor is it seeking one. No doubt each has been vigorous in its own area of responsibility and activity within the marketplace. I think it is reasonable to expect that, if private enterprise is to have competition, a competitive keenness would be displayed and there would be some offers to buy and some offers to sell in order to get the major competitor out of the market if possible. In his statement the Minister referred to that being the normal to-ing and fro-ing of the commercial marketplace. SAATAS has claimed for years that it could provide without subsidy similar services to those provided by Connair, and there is the core of the issue. That is the case SAATAS has been putting. It has not received a subsidy and it is not seeking one. It claims that it can provide the services without a subsidy.

I do not have a brief for Connair nor do I have a brief for SAATAS. The Opposition is concerned about the proper and responsible disbursement of public funds and the proper and responsible administration of government affairs. The issues before the Parliament are why, how and in what manner some $9m of public money has been paid to Connair, and whether the Minister has acted in the discharge of his responsibilities in a proper and responsible way. On the evidence that I have seen, and it is available to the Minister, I say quite firmly that he has not. The close affiliation of the Minister’s party and Connair has already been documented and I will not waste the time of the House by going over that again. From the very beginning the subsidy arrangements have been shrouded in secrecy. I want to refer particularly to a document that was circulated by CAPL, as it was then known, on 9 November 1965 referring to assistance to the company. It states:

You will have read my memorandum of 1 1 October regarding the recent Government decision. Since then you will have seen or heard of the Press release made by the Minister, Senator Henty, covering the same subject. No mention was made in this of the Government financial assistance re capital, of f 50,000 to shift to 7-Mile, and f 200,000 to assist completion of re-equipment. This omission was made for very good political reasons, as publicity for this Government action would only result in criticism from some section of the general public, which could be detrimental to us . . .

Mr Nixon:

– Who is that from?

Mr MORRIS:

-It was circulated by the managing director of CAPL, I am informed.

Mr Nixon:

-The managing director of what?

Mr MORRIS:

-The managing director of CAPL.

Mr Nixon:

– What is CAPL?

Mr MORRIS:

-Connellan Airways Pty Ltd. Surely the Minister remembers that. I will seek leave from the Minister to table any of the papers to which I refer.

Mr Nixon:

– You can incorporate them in Hansard too.

Mr MORRIS:

– Do you want them incorporated in Hansard!

Mr Nixon:

– I do not mind.

Mr MORRIS:

-I want firstly to rebut the falsities in the Minister’s statement. I first spoke with Mr Cavill approximately one and a half hours before I raised this matter in the Parliament on 13 April. Mr Cavill rang me and read to me the contents of a Press statement he was going to make. He telexed to me a copy of his Press release, which I brought into this House and gave the Minister. I made no charges at that time, and page 1528 of Hansard sets out what I said:

  1. . if the claims made by Mr Cavill and his airline are substantiated there are serious grounds for the resignation of the Minister or at least the holding of a royal commission of inquiry, which is what Mr Cavill has called for.

The only time I met Mr Cavill was the next day when I inspected the correspondence and copies of telexes between himself, his company, the Department and the Minister. I shall refer to those later. The Minister referred on page 2 of his prepared statement to ‘their’ Press statement of 20 April 1978. ‘Their’ Press statement did not exist. I issued a Press statement on 20 April. No joint Press statement was ever made. On pages 7 and 8 of his statement the Minister states that Mr Cavill had not sought a meeting with him since 6 October 1977. The facts are to be found in a telex sent to the Minister and dated 20 October 1977. The first section of the telex reads:

This telex urgently requests that no further charter licences be issued in the Northern Territory until such time as my company has had the opportunity of presenting an objection to you and of having the merits of that objection considered by you.

I respectfully point out that we have not had the opportunity of discussing the whole matter of Connair Pty Ltd and the Northern Territory with you and that at our recent meeting in Canberra this opportunity was not made available to us.

The second last paragraph on page 3 of the same telex reads: . . I request again that before any further alterations to policy be made or before any further licences be issued in the Northern Territory I be given an opportunity of presenting the matter again and discussing the merits with you and the Deputy Prime Minister.

There is clear evidence of Mr Cavill having sought an interview. There was no response to that request. At a later stage Mr Cavill notified the Minister of the situation in the Northern Territory. The Minister has sought to convey the impression that when he received a request for a meeting from SAATAS he agreed to the meeting posthaste. The fact is that the meeting was sought in the telex of 20 October, which I read to the Parliament. No response to that request for a meeting was received. Correspondence was received which went all around the Cape but which did not answer specifically the request for a discussion with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister. In his speech the Minister referred to being advised on 30 March of the closure of SAATAS. The facts are that the telex was despatched to the Minister on 29 March. It reads as follows:

I refer to my telex of 23 March 1978. 1 confirm that I have had no reply to that telex.

The decision to run down SAATAS’ Northern Territory operations for the reasons set out in my telexes was taken today and, accordingly, action has been taken.

Once satisfied that SAATAS was out of the arena, once it was confirmed that the company was closing down, the Minister immediately telexed back, but that was five months after he received the request. I suppose that is not too bad by National Country Party standards. He responded in these terms:

Refer to your decision conveyed to me by telex today. You must of course make your own commercial decisions on this matter, but if you believe it would be of assistance to you I would be happy to meet with you in Canberra.

So that is the fact of the situation. The Minister ignored for five months the company’s request for a meeting with the principals of the company. Once he received information that the company had closed down in the Northern Territory, he agreed to a meeting. He has since misrepresented that. On page 8 of his statement he refers to his letter to Mr Cavill of 13 April. Whilst that letter has been datestamped 13 April by the Department of Transport when it was sent off for his signature, it was received in Adelaide on 26 April- 13 days later. So again the Minister has been a little tardy. On page 10 of his prepared statement, the Minister referred to quotes for services by SAATAS and other airlines. He did not refer in this House on 13 April to quotes and he did not refer to bids. On page 1536 of Hansard he referred to tenders. He sought to inform the House that what had happened in the Northern Territory in the provision of these services was that tenders had been called and that SAATAS was an unsuccessful tenderer. The fact is that no tenders were called, but that quotes were invited from the various companies. I shall read the Minister’s own words:

I must tell the House that SAATAS was one of a number of tenderers for routes in the Northern Territory. It was beaten by other tenderers who had put in lower tenders for the various routes which became available when Connair Pty Ltd withdrew from agreat number of routes.

He went on to say:

If the commercial judgment of SAATAS cannot win the route by offering the lowest possible tender, I believe that there is nothing a Minister for Transport in this House can do about it.

Again he deliberately misrepresented what had occurred. In fact, what took place was that a letter from the Department of Transport, Adelaide, was sent to SAATAS on 26 October in which it was stated:

If you are interested in operating this service I would be pleased if you could advise: 1. Annual cost for operating a weekly service . . .

Then are set out the various services. The company responded to that letter. A letter dated 21 December 1977 was received from the Department of Transport, Adelaide, over the signature of Mr K. L. Collett, which was in these terms:

Thank you for your letter dated 4 November concerning the operation of regular air services out of Katherine and Alice Springs.

Your proposal -

It does not say ‘tender ‘- together with those submitted by other operators, were carefully considered with Australia Post but regret to advise your offer was not accepted.

Nowhere was the tendering process in operation. Then more than a month later, on 23 December, the company learnt that the Minister had not approved any allocation of the services for which quotes had been sought. In that case the company telexed the Minister in these terms:

We understand tenders for operations have not been called but some informal method has been adopted of allocating and authorising operators for such routes.

The company referred to the letter it had received on 21 November and pointed out that the legal advice available to it- I am not a lawyer; perhaps the Minister is- was that there was ah irregularity in the way that the matter was handled. The company requested that tenders be called so that all interested parties could have the opportunity of tendering on an equal footing and on a proper basis and policy. The Minister confirmed in his reply that tenders had not been called. He said:

You are correct in your understanding that ministerial approval has not yet been given for these services. (Extension of time granted). I thank the House. On page 12 of his prepared statement, the Minister accused Mr Cavill of having sought a position of monopoly and unfair advantage over other operators in the Northern Territory. The documents show that SAATAS has consistently operated without subsidy and has sought to operate without cost to the taxpayer. On page 19 of his statement, the Minister refers to Mr Cavill ‘s letter of 4 February 1976. The Minister quotes that letter in his speech. I am rather intrigued by the Minister’s statement, because in it he makes a comment which is really a revelation to the Parliament. For some reason he seems to judge the behaviour of others by his own standards. What he seeks to imply is that if a person is not of the political complexion of the Government the Minister should not have to deal with him. To my mind that confirms that Connair was of the political complexion of the Government and therefore had to be looked after. The Minister is deciding the disbursement of public moneys on the basis of a very strange set of priorities and a very strange set of moral standards. We on this side of the House are concerned for the proper and responsible disbursement of public money.

The Minister mentioned the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones). The honourable member for Newcastle, when he was Minister for Transport, would not have fallen into this ‘trap’, so-called by the Minister. On 18 September 1974 the honourable member for Newcastle also wrote to Mr Cavill. This one extract from his letter dennes his attitude towards Connair:

Dear Mr Cavill,

At the outset let me say I can understand your indignation at the privileged subsidised position which Connair enjoyed under the previous Liberal-Country Party Administration.

That advice was given to the honourable member for Newcastle, the then Minister for Transport, from the same officers -

Mr MORRIS:

– The former Minister said that it was a rort agreement. The Department which gave him his advice is the same Department which is advising the present Minister. Someone in that Department has done a really topsy turn exercise by informing the present Minister for Transport in a manner opposite to the way in which the previous Minister was advised. The Minister has complained that I have not made documents available to him. The truth is that he did not ask me.

Mr Nixon:

– I did ask.

Mr MORRIS:

-The Minister did not ask me. I gave him the Press release without his asking for it. I have offered him the rest.

Mr Nixon:

– I publicly invited you to supply them.

Mr MORRIS:

-No, the Minister did not do so publicly. He did not ask me. What is at question is the Minister’s credibility. Let us track back over the Minister’s credibility. Firstly he said that he did not get a copy of the Press release; he had it all the time.

Mr Hurford:

– Incredibility?

Mr MORRIS:

– Lack of credibility. In 1976, on the issue of airworthiness directives- Hansard records this- he told us that they were being issued and did not cease being issued. Hansard now records that for three months they were not issued. This reveals the Minister’s complete untruthfulness.

Then we have the matter of the retrospective payment of a subsidy to Connair. When this matter was raised in the Parliament he told me by way of answer the dates in April and June 1976 when the subsidy was granted retrospectively and he told me the Cabinet decisions. Hansard records his reply in response to a question on notice:

The statement of the Department’s explanatory notes presented to the Senate Estimates Committee was misleading and any inconvenience is sincerely regretted.

We are getting too many misleading statements and too many errors for all of them to be the responsibility of the officers of the Department of Transport. Sixteen weeks after the change of Government in 1975 we had a retrospective decision to increase the subsidy.

I turn now to the Omega affair last November, when the Minister quite brazenly and clearly stated that he had no knowledge of or participation in the purchase of land in his electorate. When examined, the files found that he had his finger in the pie several times. He wanted the local estate agent to have a go. He wanted local property to be looked at. Even now he is still related to the same company in which Mr Smart, of other renown, is involved. As I said earlier, the Minister stated on 13 April that the tender by SAATAS was too high. We have shown that he was incorrect. In this area the word of this senior member of this corrupt conservative Governmentthis Government which said that it would maintain Medibank and there would be jobs for all- means nothing.

The keynote of the Minister’s administration of transport has been secrecy. I shall come to the interdepartmental committee report very shortly. Let us look at the access by Connair to preferential treatment. On a number of occasions the Parliament has sought to have the IDC report on Northern Territory aerial services tabled in the Parliament. We have received one answer No. Mr Connellan was able to stand up in Darwin on 3 1 August last year and quote chapter and verse from the IDC report. Mr Connellan, quoting from the report of the IDC, was able to inform the gathering that the IDC specifically recommended no HS-748s, which this Government is in the process of helping him to purchase. The IDC recommended a reduction in subsidy; the Minister increased the subsidy. The IDC recommended that Connair be left to conduct its own affairs; the Government did not do that.

Mr Nixon:

– Read the departmental report.

Mr MORRIS:

-The Minister will not table the report from the IDC. I challenged him to table the IDC report, and he had an extract from it. Then Mr Connellan said:

By the way, I was asked not to disclose the IDC proposal. 1 replied that it is my moral obligation to do so, to explain to staff and customers why we cannot continue to operate under this proposal.

I go back to page 4 of Mr Connellan ‘s speech, when he referred to the Minister. Poor old Mr Cavill talked to the Minister in February 1 976, but Connellan beat him to the punch; he was there in January. Mr Connellan said: . . in January I informed the new Government that I would have to close the Company down of necessity, because our subsidy had been reduced to a level that was sending us broke very fast indeed. The new Government, the new Minister of Transport said:

Well, hold it for a few months while we get things under control and we’ll see what we can do- we’ve got to find a way of keeping you going. ‘

There is a relationship between Connair and the Minister. Connair had access to the Minister. It also had access to the IDC. SAATAS was refused an appearance before the IDC. So we go on through this close relationship and alliance between the Minister and members of the National Country Party and the board of Connair. The Minister criticised Cavill for his approach in February 1976 but he did not mention that Connellan had seen him during the previous month. We on this side of the House make no criticism of Connair. It has a business to run and is entitled to put its case to the Minister. I have visited the head office of Connair in Alice Springs. I have met Stephen Marshall and have discussed with him the problems which that airline faces in providing services. What is in question here is the manner in which this Government has carried out its responsibilities.

I mentioned that the keynote is secrecy. Information available shows clear evidence of a direct, close and personal association between Connair and the Minister and a refusal and rebuttal of approaches made by the competitor airline SAATAS. SAATAS operates off its own bat as a private enterprise charter airline. Connair has operated in association with the National Country Party Minister for Transport to the tune of $9m over the recent years it has been in operation. The Minister in relation to this affair -

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

Mr Hunt:

– I should like to move that another extension of time be granted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-For a motion for a further extension of time to be granted the Minister would have to move the suspension of Standing Orders.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr Hunt) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Shortland concluding his speech.

Mr MORRIS:

-I thank the Minister and the House. I was saying that there is evidence of close, direct and personal association between the Minister and the company concerned. The last matter to which I refer is the fact that we have an open-ended subsidy arrangement under the terms of the agreement of 1965 which relates to the provision of a certain dividend target for the company. Looking at the 1976 report we find that out of the moneys on loan to Connair from the public purse $35,000 is on personal advance to Mr Connellan at call, at a 10.5 per cent interest rate, secured on livestock. It is no wonder that people in competitive organisations such as SAATAS get a bit upset when they find, on looking at the accounts, a public loan from the people to an airline; then from the airline, on a personal basis for personal use, to one of the proprietors. Here again, the indications are that the Government is aware of this. It would be aware from the reports which have come forward. This indicates the Government’s close association with and endorsement of the activities of that airline. We believe that the only way by which we can assess properly what has gone on in the Northern Territory is for the IDC report to be tabled in full and for an inquiry into the administration of the subsidy and into the negotiations with respect to the new service which has been granted in the Northern Territory to be undertaken.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Before I put the question, the honourable member for Shortland mentioned early in his speech his wish to have certain documents incorporated in Hansard. I want to clarify the position.

Mr Morris:

– There were some documents, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall sort them out and, with the permission of the Minister for Transport, I shall pass them over.

Mr Nixon:

– I will give you a hand.

Mr Morris:

– No. They got a little bit confused, to tell the truth. I said that I would seek leave to table all the documents from which I quoted. I now make that request.

Leave granted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1617

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr HURFORD:

-Yes, I do. The Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) used my name in vain in his statement about this airline service in the

Northern Territory affair. He talked about ‘devious duplicity’ in a sentence immediately prior to pointing out that Mr Cavill had approached me to help him with his case. I point out to the House that Mr Cavill is a constituent of mine. As far as I know he has only one fault, that is, that he votes for the Liberal Party. So in no way is there an association between him or me, other than the relationship between a constituent and his member. He and I and the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) and the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) have one interest in common in this affair, that is, ending the scandal whereby taxpayers’ funds have been wasted. That is what this statement is about and that is the point I have been pursuing since 1972. I am disappointed that I have not had a chance to speak in this debate but I understand that there was some arrangement which has prevented me from doing so. I make it quite clear that there is nothing devious about my relationship with Mr Cavill. I have been pursuing his cause, which I believe to be a just one, in relation to the scandalous wastage of public funds in air services in the Northern Territory.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to clear up a point raised by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford).

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr NIXON:

– Yes. I assure the honourable member for Adelaide that I had no intention of including him in any accusation of devious activity, nor, I believe, does the statement I made do so. I put it on record that I do not associate him with any devious activity. Doubtless he has properly undertaken those responsibilities of a good member of Parliament in putting forward the claims of SAATAS Pty Ltd. The honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) misrepresented me in a number of ways. I think it would be better if I wrote him a letter. He might better understand the misrepresentation after he reads the report. If I can assist him further in any way in this affair I will be happy to do so. It is quite clear that he still has a lot to learn.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes. The Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) referred to me at page 19 of his statement. He said:

I am quite sure that my predecessor, the honourable member for Newcastle, could have warned the member for Shortland about Mr Cavill ‘s methods. I am pleased to say he did not get anywhere with the honourable member for Newcastle and I am pleased to be able to show the House he has not got anywhere with me and will not.

We are not talking about Mr Cavill. We are talking about a company called Connair Pty Ltd, a family called Connellan and the great privileges they have been given by supporters of the National Country Party of Australia. I refer to the original agreement, which was negotiated by Black Jack McEwen the then Leader of the Country Party, and under which they got away with murder.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Newcastle will not refer to a former Deputy Prime Minister in that way. I ask him to withdraw that remark and to refer to the former Deputy Prime Minister as Mr McEwen.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I will withdraw my remark but I was under the impression that it was not permissible to refer to a sitting member as ‘ Black Jack McEwen ‘.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member for Newcastle to withdraw that remark.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I will refer to the then Deputy Prime Minister as Mr John McEwen, later Sir John McEwen. I do not know the name of his electorate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-That is in order. The honourable member for Newcastle may proceed.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. All honourable members know that an agreement was negotiated by the then Leader of the Country Party, Sir John McEwen, which gave great advantage -

Mr Nixon:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Newcastle claims to have been misrepresented. I am perfectly happy for him to explain the misrepresentation that occurred but quite clearly he is transgressing the proprieties of the House by entering into a debate on the matter. Let him refer to the misrepresentation.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak to the point of order. The Minister for Transport in his statement tried to involve me and to give the impression that the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) and myself were in disagreement in relation to SAATAS Pty Ltd. I pointed out in my opening remarks that one must look at both Connair and

SAATAS in this matter to show that there is no disagreement between the honourable member for Shortland and myself on the point and that in actual fact the Country Party -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Newcastle will resume his seat while I give a ruling on the Minister’s point of order. I have been watching this matter rather carefully. The honourable member for Newcastle must associate his comments with the misrepresentation by the Minister. It is not an opportunity to reopen the debate on a matter which has been disposed of already by the House. I call the honourable member for Newcastle.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-The Minister said that SAATAS had got nowhere with me just as it got nowhere with him. SAATAS got somewhere with me because it was able to show me the unfairness of the agreement entered into between the Australian Government and Connair Pty Ltd. The honourable member for Shortland quoted briefly the letter I wrote to Mr Cavill of SAATAS on 18 September 1974. 1 would like to quote the rest of it. I said:

At the outset let me say I can understand your indignation at the privileged subsidised position which Connair enjoyed under the previous Liberal/CP administration. Subsidy payments to the Company peaked at $838,000 a year and, had the trend established under that Government continued -

That was the agreement negotiated by the then Deputy Prime Minister, Sir John McEwen- then subsidy in 1974-75 would have been of the order of $1.3m. We have achieved the position where the subsidy to be paid to Connair in 1 974-7S will be about half that figure.

Mr Fife:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Clearly the honourable member for Newcastle is not abiding by the ruling that you have recently given. He is now attempting to make a speech in the guise of a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Newcastle quoted from a letter which he said gave an indication that his attitude to Mr Cavill was not as stated by the Minister for Transport.

Mr Bryant:

– There are still three pages to go.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member has reached the stage where he is bordering on re-opening the debate. He must confine his comments to one point. I think it may be a long letter from the sound of it.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I do not propose to quote the whole letter. What my colleague from Wills said is just -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member from Newcastle to quote those sections of the letter which clearly indicate that he has been misrepresented by the Minister.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I refer to the concluding two sentences of the letter which state:

Further it has been made clear to Connair that the objective of the Government is to move to the complete elimination of air service subsidies. This must afford you considerable satisfaction as I note from the papers that you have advocated this course of action for some time.

But SAATAS Pty Ltd laboured under great disadvantage because of the handouts the LiberalCountry Party Government gave Connair over the years.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Newcastle is re-opening the debate. He will resume bis seat.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I seek leave to have the letter from which the honourable member quoted tabled.

Leave not granted.

Mr Morris:

– I raise a point of order. The Minister for Transport has already given permission for the document to be tabled. I propose to make it available later.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

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

Leave not granted.

page 1619

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

States Grants (Petroleum Products) Amendment Bill 1978.

Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Bill 1978. Evidence Amendment Bill 1978.

Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill 1978.

Co-operative Farmers and Graziers Direct Meat Supply Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1978.

Superannuation Acts Amendment Bill 1978.

page 1619

QUESTION

DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING-ADJOURNMENT OF SITTINGS

Mr FIFE:
Acting Leader of the House · Farrer · LP

– by leave- I move:

That, unless otherwise ordered-

1 ) the House shall meet on the following days and at the times specified:

Unless Mr Speaker has, by telegram or letter addressed to each Member of the House, fixed an alternative day or hour of meeting.

  1. On Friday, 5 May, Friday, 26 May and Friday, 2 June, the terms of standing order No. 48 A relating to the adjournment of the House shall apply with the times ‘ 5.30 p.m. ‘ substituted for ‘ 10.30 p.m. ‘, ‘6 p.m. ‘ substituted for ‘ 1 1 p.m. ‘ and 6. 1 0 p.m. ‘ substituted for ‘ 1 1 . 1 0 p.m. ‘.

As indicated by the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) on 13 April it is proposed to change the pattern of sittings to enable the House to sit from today until Friday of this week and Monday to Thursday of next week. It is proposed that on Thursday, 1 1 May the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 23 May thus reducing the break from two weeks to one week and to sit from Tuesday to Friday of that week and Monday to Friday of the following week, The Leader of the House also indicated that it was proposed to modify the sitting hours. It is proposed that until Friday, 2 June the House meet at 10 a.m. on every sitting Thursday and Friday and on the Wednesday of the second sitting week in each of the two-week sitting periods. Finally, the Leader of the House indicated that it was proposed that on Friday 5 May, Friday 26 May and Friday 2 June the question for the adjournment of the House would be proposed at 5.30 p.m., allowing half an hour for an adjournment debate. The motion I have just moved gives effect to these proposals. It is hoped that by agreeing to the proposals consideration of the business of the House will be concluded by Friday, 2 June.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-The Opposition indicated earlier that it had no opposition to the re-arrangement of the sittings for May and the first two days of June. However, I take the opportunity to point out that when we previously made arrangements with the Government for a four-day week we ran into considerable difficulties when it was attempted to jam the business of the Government into the final one or two days of those long four-day sittings. In trying to complete this session in the four sitting weeks we have available, the Government ought to be cognisant of the fact that the hours involved are extremely long. Only the honourable members themselves involved in this chamber realise the sorts of pressures that can be brought to bear on each individual who may be here from 9 o’clock in the morning until midnight for four days a week and then return to his electoral office only to come back here on the Sunday night ready to start another four-day week.

In addition to the pressures that will be applied to the individual members, there is also a great desire of this side of the House that some of these very major matters upon which there is a distinct difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition be given sufficient time for a proper debate. I refer to the major debates on the environmental legislation regarding uranium mining in the Northern Territory in respect of which six Bills will come before the House. Next week taxation Bills will come before the House on which a number of honourable members will want to speak. We will not allow ourselves to be bulldozed into completing legislation in the early hours of the morning, without proper thought, as was attempted by the Government here just three weeks ago. We will continue to fight against the use of the House in the style that was used then by the Government to steamroll legislation or to legislate by exhaustion. We believe that the hours of sitting in the normal parliamentary week are long enough for honourable members to be able to pay due attention to the legislation which comes before them.

We think that any legislation which comes in after the hours which are prescribed now by the Acting Leader of the House (Mr Fife) in moving this motion will only reinforce the belief that the Government indeed hopes to be able to slip through legislation without proper scrutiny by the Opposition. We do not agree to the motion reluctantly; we agree to it as a test of how the Parliament can be used in four-day sittings, but we do point out that we retain the right to scrutinise all the legislation in very proper and thorough fashion as has been the practice of the Opposition all this year. We will not allow Parliament to be used to legislate by exhaustion.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-I would like to make the point to the Acting Leader of the House (Mr Fife) that at some stage in the not too distant future we should put aside some time for the Parliament or the House of Representatives to debate the matter or to have the Speaker convene the Standing Orders Committee for a proper examination of our days and hours of meeting. I think it is ridiculous for us to be starting here at 10 a.m. and going through until 1 1 p.m. Why do we not start at 9 a.m.? If we are going to meet in this pattern, is it worthwhile our giving real consideration to a five-day week and making some arrangements for our wives and families to have more travel to and from Canberra and such Uke?

There is a whole series of factors involved which ought to be considered in relation to this matter. I make the point that Ministers ‘ wives are able to travel whenever they feel it necessary. I know that honourable members will say that they have to get back to their electorates and so on but on Friday nights at what time will they get back to their electorates? At what time would they leave on Sundays and so on? If we are to make a fortnight’s foray of some sort into the Parliament we might as well do it properly, make a whole job of it and meet as much as possible during the day time. Perhaps it is better to have committees and other groups meeting in the evenings. A whole series of factors is involved in the way in which this Parliament operates resulting from new subjects coming before it. We have never given the matter proper consideration, nor have we taken enough time for people to be able to predict what we are going to do. The reason why it has not worked in the past when we have changed the times in the way I suggest is that it has always been done with only a few weeks notice. Most honourable members need five or six weeks notice so that they can clear up matters to which they have become committed. I think that the way we are meeting is idiotic. It is designed to make the place uninhabitable and the people bad tempered by the end of the week. To close down at 11 p.m. having started at 9 a.m., as most of us do, is totally nonsensical. It is no way to conduct the business of the Parliament or our own private affairs or anything else. I hope that we will very rapidly get around to considering the business of the House rather than the convenience of Ministers, Cabinets or the off-hand decisions on how to get through certain business in order to get away from the place as rapidly as possible.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– This program of sitting at the times put forward by the Government is a clear indication of the Government’s incompetence in the manner in which it is trying to run this Parliament. We sat in this chamber for the first month of this year debating the Address-in-Reply when honourable members just stood up and talked and talked a heap of garbage about nothing in particular. That was because the Government was not ready to get on with its legislation. Now legislation is being rushed through this place and the hours of the Parliament are being extended to such a degree that honourable members will be stuck here for five days of the week sitting for lengthy periods. Very few of them will have the opportunity of getting back into their electorates. Maybe it is all right for a Melbourne or Sydney member who can get back to his electorate in a reasonable time, but anyone who lives outside of those two cities will be battling to get back to his electorate by the Saturday morning. Honourable members’ constituents are entitled to see their members, to talk to them and to bring them their complaints.

With the way that the Government has this program set up, with the 6 o’clock finish on Friday nights, I think it should at least be reasonable. It should at least have a look at what the Senate has been doing for years. On a Thursday afternoon it has risen at 20 minutes to five so that senators could catch the 5.30 planes home. As far as the 6 o’clock finish on the Friday night is concerned, there will be no more planes for Sydney or Melbourne after 5.30 p.m. I do not think the transport officer can persuade the airlines to hold the flights back to 6.30 or something to that effect. I am putting forward this point of view for the Acting Leader of the House (Mr Fife) to give some consideration as to whether honourable members should be given the opportunity of getting back to their electorates to do the work that they are required to do.

Let us face the real facts of life. The real reason why this sitting is being jammed up in this manner is so that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) and the other Ministers can hop in their planes and get the hell out of the country. It is a pity they do not get out of it and stay out of it. The country would be run a lot better without Fraser being here as he is at the moment, making a botch of the economy, with the unemployment the way that it is at the present time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Would the honourable member for Newcastle kindly restrain his manner of expression a little?

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-The Prime Minister annoys me and when I get annoyed I like to express myself in the manner that is most descriptive and describe him for what I think he is- a bungler.

Mr FIFE:
Acting Leader of the House · Farrer · LP

– in reply- The comments made by the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) and the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) amaze me. I do not know where they have been in recent times. They ought to be aware, as every member of this House is, that the 4-day sitting week has been introduced for a trial period only. Indeed, the 4-day sitting week has been introduced for a trial period to see whether it will assist those honourable members who live in isolated parts of Australia, such as members who have to travel to the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Tasmania. No final decision has been taken whether the 4-day sitting week will be retained. Honourable members should know- and had they been attending the House they would know- that this is for a trial period and it has been generally agreed to. I have taken note of the points raised by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). I give him an assurance, as I do the House, that with the cooperation of the Opposition, the Government feels confident that in the program that has been announced this evening there will be adequate time for proper debate on the measures that the Government proposes to bring forward during this sitting.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1622

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

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

That Mr Armitage be discharged from attendance on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and that in his place Mr J. J. Brown be appointed a member of the Committee.

page 1622

INTERNATIONAL DISARMAMENT AND ARMS CONTROL

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Mr Speaker has received letters from both the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Chapman) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by Standing Order 107, Mr Speaker has selected one matter, that is, that proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, namely:

The urgency of full Australian support for international disarmament and arms control initiatives and the failure of the Government to inform the Parliament on these matters.

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

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

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Fife) put:

That the business of the day be called on.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr J. L. Armitage)

AYES: 71

NOES: 34

Majority…… 37

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 6.6 to 8 p.m.

page 1622

COMMONWEALTH BANKS AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 April, on motion by Mr Howard:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-The purpose of the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill 1978 is to enable the Commonwealth Development Bank to lend to a wider range of businesses than it can at present. Once again, as will happen always, when the Government has a reasonable idea to put to the nation and brings it into this Parliament in the form of legislation, the Opposition will not be opposing it; in fact we will be supporting it. I suppose the consequence of that, as all of us must realise, is that this legislation now will not get much publicity in the community. I wish to say how sorry I am that that is so because I would like many more small businesses to know about it and to be able to take advantage of it. The fact is that the fourth estate, which is very important to us and which disseminates information from this Parliament to the people, likes to report only those areas in which there is violent disagreement. There is no such disagreement on this legislation, I am happy to say. We are, however, moving an amendment at the second reading stage, but it is one of those amendments which put a point of view about the legislation without opposing it, and we certainly will not be voting against the legislation at the third reading stage.

I shall now mention a little more about the legislation. The functions of the Commonwealth Development Bank are set out in section 72 of the Commonwealth Bank Act. This section enables the Bank to provide finance to persons for two purposes. The first purpose is that of primary production. As a practitioner many years ago, before I became a member of this Parliament, I know just how valuable the legislation is to those primary producers who are lucky enough to be able to qualify for a loan. The second purpose of a Commonwealth Development Bank loan is for the establishment or development of industrial and tourist undertakings. The amendment which the Bill seeks to make to section 72 will enable the Bank to provide finance for the establishment or development of all business undertakings by removing the restrictions which confine the Bank to financing only industrial and tourist undertakings. As at present, the Development Bank will continue to be required to give emphasis to the provision of finance for small businesses as opposed to larger businesses. As is currently the case, prospective borrowers will need to establish that the finance sought is not otherwise available. I believe that they will be able to establish that easily in many cases because indeed the traditional trading bank sources are not available to small businesses in the way that we would like, particularly because of the relevant monetary squeeze that is applying in the nation at present in the wake of the Government’s present contractionary monetary and fiscal policies. I want to say more about that later.

In determining whether finance should be provided, the Development Bank will not necessarily have regard to the value of the relevant security but will have regard primarily to the prospects of the operation being successful. It is pleasing for those of us who believe that the traditional sources in the banking system in this country are too conservative and look too much to security rather than competence and administrative ability that perhaps an additional source of finance will be available not only to the innovators in the community who come to such an enormous extent from small businesses but also to the battlers who can no doubt prove that they are viable and competent and who provide such a splendid service to the Australian community in their particular forms of endeavour. The Treasurer (Mr Howard), in his second reading speech, stated:

To what extent additional funds may be required for the Development Bank’s entry into this wider field of operations cannot be determined at this stage, but the position will be closely watched.

It is claimed by the Minister that this widening of the charter of the Development Bank represents a further step in a series of initiatives’ which are in response to the Government’s awareness of increasing concern in the business community about the adequacy of funds for small business growth and development. Specifically, the move is said to have been made following consideration of the report of the task force set up to investigate the question of finance for small business.

I shall make some comments on that part of the Minister’s speech to this House in which he talked about not knowing what additional funds would be required and in which he claimed that the widening of the charter would represent a significant step forward. He cannot have it both ways. If it is to be a significant step forward, a lot more funds are required. This gets to the heart of the Opposition’s amendment which I will move at the end of my speech. We must recognise that the Commonwealth Development Bank is already using in a very worthwhile way all the resources that are available to it. If we are to widen the charter, if we are to make more people eligible to borrow from the Bank and if this is to be a significant move, quite clearly the extent to which this move is successful will be determined by the amount of funds available to the Commonwealth Development Bank. We in the Labor Opposition are extremely worried about that aspect of this measure because of the blinkered economic policies of the Government with an attack-inflation-only mentality which we believe is not sufficient to get this economy moving. Indeed the International Monetary Fund in its latest report and at meetings which have just concluded in Washington is recognising that we need more of a venturesome, expansionary attitude and we need this Government to encourage the Commonwealth Development Bank by making more funds available to it. If it does that, we can welcome this legislation far more wholeheartedly than we can at present. Once again I will return to this matter later.

Why was the report of the task force on small business finance to which I referred earlier not tabled? What did the task force recommend? Did it propose policies which the Government did not want to adopt? I think that for the sake of good government, more open government and better government for small businesses of this nation, the Liberal-National Country Party Government would have done us all a service if it had tabled the report of the task force upon which it has based this legislation. I believe that probably that task force recommended many other ways for small business- that vital and important sector in this community- to be assisted than the method we have before us. In the interests of good government, in the interests of an easier life for that important sector, I appeal to the Government to make that task force report available. The move that we are debating will not help the vast majority of small businesses since it extends only to the activities of the Development Bank and small businesses in areas other than rural, tourist and industrial activities. Therefore it is likely to give little relief to the problems to which the Government has admitted, namely, the inadequacy of funds flowing from finance organisations for growth and development of small businesses.

I believe that the report of the task force, the tabling of which I am calling for in the Parliament, would have included other recommendations. They would have helped enormously beyond the extent we are able to help the small business community under the legislation which we are debating tonight and which is related to the Commonwealth Development Bank. As I have said already, the Government gives no undertaking to increase the funds available to the Development Bank so that it can fulfil its wider functions. The only comment is- I repeat what is stated in the Minister’s second reading speech- that ‘the position will be closely watched’. This is a meaningless comment in a situation in which the Reserve Bank of Australia is required to watch closely all bank operations. The position is being watched already. What we want to hear from the Minister is that, in order to be able to cater for that wider group which now, under this legislation, is able to appeal to the Commonwealth Development Bank for funds, more funds will be available from the Bank and that no more rationing than is taking place now will take place in the future. Without additional funds, it will clearly be impossible for the Development Bank to expand its activities without contracting its lending to the rural, tourist and industrial areas.

Funds for the Development Bank come mainly from capital subscribed by the Commonwealth Government and also from lending by the Commonwealth Trading Bank and the Commonwealth Savings Bank. In a situation of tight monetary policy, it seems unlikely that the Commonwealth Trading or Savings Banks will be allowed to expand substantially their lending to the Development Bank. In the tight budgetary policy which we are hearing about each day and with the deficit soaring to about $6 billion before cuts take place, I am wondering how much will be appropriated from Commonwealth funds in order to assist the Commonwealth Development Bank to meet its wider charter. There are many other methods of bolstering small business finance, some of which have been foreshadowed by the Government. For example, the Government should enable the Development Bank to provide equity finance for small business and it should extend the activities of the Australian Industry Development Corporation. However, having said that I cite the rumours which have been circulated in the Press and to which credence has been given by word of mouth that the AIDC aspect of helping small business is now being scrapped. Perhaps an honourable member on the Government side who is more privy to the information available in this area will be able either to confirm or deny that the AIDC is not involving itself in this area.

Mr Dobie:

– If only we could.

Mr HURFORD:

– I am grateful to the honourable member for Cook for his interjection. He also belongs to the Mushroom Club.

Mr Dobie:

– No, never. I am sorry; you are misinformed. I walk in the dark but I have no hunger.

Mr HURFORD:

-For the sake of Hansard, I repeat that the honourable member said he walks in the dark but has no hunger. I think that, from the look of the honourable member, it can be said that although he is walking in the dark his hunger is being satisfied.

Mr Dobie:

– Not all my hungers are satisfied.

Mr Staley:

– He is a bachelor.

Mr HURFORD:

– Yes, he is a bachelor. I was explaining other ways in which small business with its great need for investment funds might be helped. In addition to the possibility of the AIDC providing help- that possibility now seems to be close- there is the other likelihood of forming joint ventures between State and private sector institutions for the provision of small business finance. I commend that course of action to the Commonwealth Government and the various State governments. Of course, they should make available further funds to bolster the small business sector. I am very glad to be able to say that in my Labor State of South Australia, the Department of Economic Development has a section which is devoted to making funds available to small businesses which need bolstering in this way. I know that in other States there are small business departments or sections of departments which are also devoted to the same purpose. However, the Government has proved to be tardy in introducing further measures along these lines. We live in hope. I am fortunate enough now along with the honourable member for Henty, (Mr Aldred), to be a member of the Small Business Advisory Council. We are tackling these problems of small business in an apolitical, non-partisan way. I hope that the honourable member will agree with me. It will be for the benefit of our nation if it can be shown that this is so. But on every possible occasion I reserve for myself the right to needle the Government into making more efforts for this important sector, that is the small business sector of our community.

The Government seems to have conveniently ignored the fact that the principal cause of ‘the inadequacy of funds flowing to small business’- I quote again from the Minister’s second reading speech- is the Government’s tight monetary policies. In general small companies tend to be the first hit during periods of monetary restraint. They are denied full access to the range of financial institutions available to larger companies. In addition to that, they are required to pay higher interest rates than are larger companies which have greater security. I must emphasise that point. Multinational companies have their use in our community with the technology that they bring to us. We in the Australian Labor Party believe that it will be in their interests, as well as in the interests of the Australian community generally, if we lay down codes of conduct and limitations within which multinational companies can work. But I raise the subject of multinational companies in the context of their being able to borrow virtually all the money they want, if needs be by a transfer of funds from overseas. They are not constrained in the same way so many smaller companies are constrained. Nor are the larger Australian companies constrained. They do not have the ready sources of finance from overseas- the transfers- that make them less worried by monetary constraints. Multinational companies must go to banking sources for their funds but their bigness means that they have a large clout when it comes to borrowing money from their bankers.

But all of this does not apply to small business. Small business is really worried and really troubled when it comes to the sorts of monetary squeezes that we have had applied to this nation over the last two years of mismanagement. I will sum up the position in this way: In those two years of mismanagement- the period when there should have been economic revival due to our policies- revival has been postponed by Government policy. Lack of working capital and credit restrictions contributed to nearly half the business bankruptcies in 1975-76 according to Professor Meredith in an article in the Current Affairs Bulletin of April 1977. 1 believe that we have not received the more recent figures in respect of bankruptcies for 1976-77, so we must rely on statistics from that earlier year.

In summary, while the Opposition is not opposing this Bill, it will move an amendment at the second reading stage, as I have already indicated. We are firmly of the opinion that this proposal, as with many others in the small business area, is largely an exercise in deceptive windowdressing. Although we have witnessed a series of announcements, in contrast to the virtual silence of governments before December 1972, we all have a justification for being critical and cynical about these latest moves. I will repeat that statement using other words: Prior to 1972, Liberal and National Country Party governments did nothing for the small business sector. At least we must be thankful for small mercies. We should build on the efforts made by the Whitlam Government which set up the Small Business Bureau. We acted in this area to assist small business. But at least we have some windowdressing noises these days. This could develop into something worth while. But it has not yet. For the reason set out in the amendment and for the reasons that I have indicated already, we do not know yet what funds will be available. The change indicated in this legislation, with announcements regarding further extensions to the Development Bank- I have mentioned the AIDC but that is now much in doubt- and with the instruction to the Reserve Bank that it is the Government’s policy that adequate finance should be made available to small business all means that there is a little hope of affecting something for other than an inconsequential minority of small businesses.

I must say that many of the Government’s actions have had the effect, if not always the intention, of tipping the scales even further against small business. That is why we in the Opposition are particularly pleased with any legislation that helps to redress the imbalance. I want to list the sorts of things that have caused small businesses to be worse off than their big business brothers. I refer to such actions as the downgrading of the Small Business Bureau, which was set up by the Whitlam Government and operated in an area that is perhaps one of the most vital for small business- helping small businessmen with their management problems. We must recognise that a lot of these innovative, small entrepreneurial characters who come off the shop floor have not had any experience of administration or of management. They have the ideas and the drive, but they need the training and the education to help them in what is for the most part a strange field, this field of management, of accounting, and the like. They have their own skills in the area in which they have chosen to pursue their small business interests but they do not have other management skills that are necessary. The assistance that the Small Business Bureau can give them in meeting their management needs is most important. That is why I am terribly disappointed at the downgrading of the Bureau as part of the credit squeeze during the time of the Fraser Government. That is only one of the matters that has resulted in an imbalance, and has meant that the Government has hit the small businessman to leg compared with his big brother in the larger business community.

I refer also to the Trade Practices Act allowing a greater range of anti-competitive practices to go unhindered, to discriminating aspects of the investment allowance, and to the recently announced extensions of export incentives. I believe these have not helped the small businessman to the same extent as his bigger brother. When it comes to export incentives let me put my personal view before the House. I am not suggesting in any way that bigger businesses should be excluded: They are the motor of our economy and certainly they must be helped, but we must give even more help to smaller businesses. What small business needs more than anything else is an expanding economy. What it is getting is a stagnating economy- the result of the false analysis and the false philosophies of the present Government. It is only when we get expansions in the economies of the world- particularly in our own economy, over which we have a control, as has been suggested by Dr Witteveen, the Director-General of the International Monetary Fund, and by other leaders of the world apart from our own Prime Minister- when we get an extension of government spending, particularly in public works and in training and retraining in order to meet the great need that we have for more skilled people, and when we get local employment programs to do something for the half million Australians who are now unemployed that small businesses will really be helped.

I draw attention to a letter dated 14 March 1978 that was sent to the Prime Minister by somebody from your own State, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether he is from your own electorate. He is Mr F. W. Pilgrim of 38 Dolphin Street, Scarborough, Queensland. A copy of his letter has just been sent to me. As he is a small businessman I quote some of it, because the letter has gone to the Prime Minister and I think it ought to be brought to the attention of the House. Mr Pilgrim admits that he is a Liberal. He says:

You promised when I elected you to power that you would turn the lights on . . . Now you are in your second term and for us things are getting very bleak. The lights of my Business, if I cannot get help soon, will be turned off for ever. Up until recently I employed twenty-two people -

He is a really small businessman:

  1. . over the last two weeks I have had to retrench seven because I cannot keep going.

Mr Pilgrim goes on:

The reasons for my Business failing are as follows:

Lack of contracts.

Contracts that are so poor with their profit margins because of lack of contracts, that other contractors are price cutting so much that everyone is being forced out of business. The big contractors cut prices and 1 believe they can stand it.

He is just expressing what I have just expressed: The stagnation in our economy is hitting him and all small businessmen in the same way. He goes on:

My bank will not help me with my plight, they are not interested if I fail, my house secures my overdraft so if I fail I am out in the street.

We hope that with this legislation at least the Commonwealth Development Bank will be helping some small businessmen of his type. Another point he makes is:

My bank could not care less that I retrenched seven men, all they want is my overdraft down or fold up.

Why do they want the overdraft down? Because that is what they are being instructed by the Reserve Bank as part of the monetary measures of the Fraser Government. Another point Mr Pilgrim makes is:

All that I am asking is which way 1 can turn next. Help from your Government with work, or some form of financing to see us through until you turn the lights on.

There are many Mr Pilgrims of this nation. All I can say is that at least we hope the amendment I am about to move will draw to the attention of the Government the weakness of this legislation, even though basically we support it. We want the Commonwealth Development Bank to help more people in the community, more small businesses, with development funds. Small businessmen will not get those funds unless there is a change in the economic outlook of the Fraser Government and more funds are made available to the Commonwealth Development Bank to enable it to discharge these extra responsibilities. Therefore, on behalf of the Opposition I move:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I second the amendment.

Mr ALDRED:
Henty

-At the outset I must say that on this occasion I welcome the enlightened attitude of the Opposition in supporting this Bill. I hope that that enlightened attitude passes into many other areas. I congratulate the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) on his speech which, in many respects was quite well informed and obviously well researched as to the problems of small business. However, at the beginning I must take issue with one comment he made. Perhaps I take issue with two or three of his comments, but the one I mention in particular is his remark that the Government had overemphasised the importance of combating inflation. It must be understood quite clearly that the high level of inflation we have experienced in recent years, much of which came from certain policies of the previous Government and much of which came from other sources, has been one of the root causes of many of the problems that face small business.

To attempt to downgrade the importance of reducing inflation is a little unrealistic. However, I would agree with the general assertion of the honourable member for Adelaide that one cannot become carried away with combating inflation as the only objective of economic policy. There are other objectives, but certainly combating inflation cannot be downgraded or underestimated if other problems are to be solved.

One of the most important features of the Bill is that it shows quite clearly the careful integrated policy that the Government has brought down in respect of small business. All governments from time to time are accused of acting in an ad hoc way when they introduce particular policies, simply reacting to the circumstances of the moment and doing whatever is expedient in the short term. However, over the last couple of years the Government has looked very carefully at the major problem areas confronting small business and has attempted systematically and rationally to overcome those problems. I must give due credit to the previous Labor Government, which was one of the first at the national level, through the National Small Business Bureau and some other initiatives, to take steps to examine the problems. Since then the whole matter has been taken a lot further and has been put on a much more systematic basis.

Basically we can divide the problems of small business into four major areas. There is the general burden of taxation, the need for management advice, to which the honourable member for Adelaide referred in some detail, the general question of the liaison of small business with government, and finally, the need for adequate finance for small business, which is the area with which we are concerned tonight. This Bill is in fact a response to that need. I will mention briefly what has been done in those other areas to help overcome some of the problems that small business has faced. In the taxation area a number of actions have been taken over the last couple of years. These include the investment allowance, the trading stock valuation adjustment, the increased retention allowance for private companies, tax indexation, the tax cuts that were introduced on 1 February this year, and the recent abolition of estate and gift duty, which is of tremendous benefit to small family businesses and rural enterprises. Those are the sorts of initiatives that have been taken quite systematically to relieve the general level of the taxation burden imposed upon small business.

In the area of management advice, it has been said quite correctly in this debate that one of the major problems faced by small business is that many small businessmen come from a background where they have been skilled in a particular trade and have no knowledge of or training or experience in management techniques, financial planning, bookkeeping, accounting and so on. It is very important that they be equipped with those skills if they are to overcome the problems they face. To that end, a series of booklets on management techniques has been produced by the Department of Industry and Commerce. Training material and training films have been prepared, and the Commonwealth will also become involved shortly in helping the States to train counsellors and consultants to assist small business.

In making his comments on this Bill the honourable member for Adelaide referred to the fact that the National Small Business Bureau had been done away with. In fact the National Small Business Bureau has been reintegrated into the Department of Industry and Commerce and there is now the Small Business Branch inside the Department which performs much the same role as the old National Small Business Bureau performed. The reason for taking the Bureau back into the Department was that a lot of the work the Bureau was doing was carefully tied in with the rest of the work of the Department and it was somewhat artificial to have it broken off as a separate entity from the Department of Industry and Commerce. It made good sense to move the Bureau back into the Department, particularly when the States moved into the consultancy area on a large scale and it was no longer necessary for the Commonwealth to be involved in having regional offices to advise small businessmen.

So far as the third major problem area is concerned, the question of liaison with small business, the Government’s major initiative has been the setting up of the Small Business Advisory Council, of which the honourable member for Adelaide and I are fortunate enough to be members. In that regard, I must commend the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch), who has taken personal chairmanship of that Council along with other industry advisory councils, the chairmanship of which is shared between himself and the two other Ministers involved in the industry area, the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) and the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife). Up until the time the present Minister for Industry and Commerce took over the portfolio the industry advisory councils were not chaired by a Minister but by a departmental officer. I think the Minister is to be commended for taking a personal interest in and personal charge of these very important councils, of which the Small Business Advisory Council is one of the most critical.

The remaining area of small business with which I wish to deal relates to the amendment of the charter of the Commonwealth Development Bank, which is proposed in the Bill before the House. The amendment seeks to overcome the problem of the shortage of finance from which small business has suffered. A considerable body of evidence has been put together in recent years to show that small business has major difficulties in obtaining sufficient finance, not only for expansion and development purposes but also for straight-out working capital, and this Bill attempts to overcome that problem. There are many reasons why small business has trouble in obtaining finance. One of the major reasons is that financial institutions tend to look upon small business as being a more risky enterprise than medium to larger businesses, and banks and other financial institutions are more loath to extend credit in one form or another to small business than they are to lend to other forms of enterprise. One of the major reasons why the extension of the Commonwealth Development Bank charter is so necessary is that there is hesitation on the part of financial institutions to lend money to small businesses, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly.

One of the other major causes for small business being short of finance is that, because of the tendency of the financial institutions not to extend credit freely, it has to depend very much on other forms of high cost finance such as credit companies and finance companies, often at high rates of interest. In those circumstances, it is often simply not practical for small business to enter into such commitments. As a result of those restrictions, often small business has to fall back on its own internal sources of funds for finance. In recent years, as we well know, inflation has eroded earnings because of increased operating costs, the increased cost of holding stocks and of attempting to finance expansion and development. For all of those reasons it has become much more difficult for small business to finance its own development from its own internal revenue sources. Certainly initiatives such as the increased retention allowances under Division 7 of the taxation provisions go a long way towards resolving those problems, but they are still not resolved completely. Small business is still left with the fundamental problem that it does not have sufficient capital in its own internal resources to provide sufficient money for development, and that is one of the reasons why this Bill has been introduced.

Small business today employs something of the order of two million people, with a further three million family dependants and so on who rely on the operations of small business. In fact we are talking about a total of five million people out of a population of 14 million who are either directly or indirectly dependent upon the activities of small business. In that light this Bill takes on a more critical importance and significance. Almost 40 per cent of the work force and a very large proportion of the population are dependent on what happens to small business. The Bill is aimed at extending the charter of the Commonwealth Development Bank so that it can lend freely to all forms of business undertakings, particularly small businesses. To date the Commonwealth Development Bank has been restricted mainly to lending to the industrial, tourism and rural sectors, and in those areas it has established an excellent reputation. That is one reason why the Government can with great confidence give to the Commonwealth Development Bank this extended and further role in loaning money to all forms of enterprises.

The other great advantage in extending the charter of the Commonwealth Development Bank to assist small business lies in the fact that it is one of the few bodies throughout the country which in fact has an extensive network of branches and agencies which are accessible and available to small business. There are few other bodies, particularly government bodies, which are in that fortunate position. That is another reason why this Bill represents a particularly valuable step in extending the source of finance available to small business.

I again commend the Opposition for supporting the Bill. I think it is a very important Bill. As the honourable member for Adelaide said, it is perhaps unfortunate in some ways that there is not some sort of disagreement in relation to the Bill, because had there been a major disagreement on the Bill it might have received more publicity. Let us hope that as time goes by, through the normal channels of information provided by the Government, small businessmen will become aware that this extra source of finance is now available. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The debate on the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill is, and I have no doubt will be, fairly non-controversial, because it is the attitude of the Opposition that the Government should be supported, aided and abetted to every possible extent in overcoming the malaise in business and the great difficulties that are being so widely experienced throughout Australia. I do not have great anticipation of significant results ensuing from this legislation, but hope springs eternal in the human breast. We have heard so much of Government promises in the past and we have seen so little manifestation of them. Of course, in recent times we have had the advice of the international monetary and trade organisations which have been looking at Australia and commenting on us. I refer to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund in particular. I suppose this legislation could be put up as response to the International Monetary Fund’s recommendation of last weekend, which was to the effect that the developing countries should be taking some significant steps to stimulate the economy. So far we have heard nothing else in the way of a response to that call for activity. The recommendation applies to Australia as much as it applies to any other country.

We have an appalling rate of unemployment in Australia which obviously affects the small business people as much as it affects the big business people. Who will go into business unless at the end of the line there is in evidence a buoyant consumer. Of course, while we have such an outstanding rate of unemployment that confidence and buoyancy will not be in evidence. That is also the case while we have the startling job vacancy figures that were released just a short time ago. There are 20,000 job vacancies in Australia and about 600,000 people available to fill them. One cannot help but feel that the small business entrepreneur not only will lack confidence but also will find that confidence will be denied him by those who have to support him. lt is as plain as a pikestaff that they have not been supported sufficiently by the traditional lending institutions. No doubt that is one of the reasons why this legislation has been introduced. There is a vacuum to fill.

The old ebb and flow of the market place apparently is not working out too well because the Government does not have a fundamental enthusiasm about the Commonwealth Development Bank playing a bigger part than it has to. The Government has a tendency to minimise the role of the public authorities in this country. If there is some kind of profitability in giving a hand to a small businessman or a big businessman, the Government would see that role being carried out normally by the private sector. It does not want the Australian Industry Development Corporation, the Commonwealth Development Bank or anything else of a public character getting into the act any more than they have to. It sees these instrumentalities as being ones of last resort- something to call on when the other authorities are not terribly responsive. Of course, the plight of the small businessman, the entrepreneurial person who initiates the small business, is more serious today than it has been for a long time, as I will point out in a moment.

I know that great play has been made of the Government’s intentions in relation to this matter. It was the present Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) who said in November 1975:

The tragic destruction of small business must end. We are determined that the progressive collapse of the nation’s small businesses will be arrested.

That was part of the ploy of that Deputy Prime Minister- he was not then the Deputy Prime Minister, of course; the Labor Government was in office- to win the support of the bedraggled small business people and especially the farmers whom the National Country Party traditionally let down, despite all the things that its members say about them. That comment was made in November 1975. The chickens have not yet come home to roost. The Government has not arrested this great problem in the small business area. So, this evening the Parliament has before it the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill, and only time will tell the extent to which the Bill represents pie in the sky. I see it as another little stanza, another bit of mouth to mouth resuscitation, just something to keep small businesses going, to keep the pot boiling, as it were, just to keep the propaganda going out, just to keep the carrot in front of the donkey a bit, if honourable members like. But when we come to measure the results of this legislation in three years’ time or five years’ time, if the present Government is still in office, I confidently predict that a great deal will be found wanting.

Let me deal with the purpose of the Bill. Primarily its purpose is to remove the present restrictions on the lending activities of the Commonwealth Development Bank to enable it to lend to all kinds of businesses. We know that the Treasurer (Mr Howard) indicated in his second reading speech that businesses have to be viable. I suppose that is fair enough where a public instrumentality is involved. As I indicated, we wonder about the extent to which this legislation represents a gesture to the small business people and whether it will really be successful in resurrecting their enterprises. The main provisions of the Bill, of course, are in respect of section 72 which is to be found in Part VIII of the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959. The Bill amends section 72 to enable the Bank to provide finance for the establishment or development of all types of business undertakings, particularly small business undertakings, which are described in sub-clause (3) (a) of the Bill and also to provide advice and assistance to the full range of business undertakings that will be eligible to borrow from it. That is covered in sub-clause (3) (b) of the Bill.

I think honourable members will recall that in 1974 the Labor Government, under the Commonwealth Banks Act 1974, extended the charter of the Commonwealth Development Bank to allow the Bank to provide finance for tourist development projects, especially smaller projects in selected areas. I am surprised that in the context of the second reading debate the Parliament and the people have not had the benefit of advice as to the stewardship of this Government in giving effect to that Act. We hear a lot of conjecture and contention to the effect that the tourist industry should be encouraged in Australia. We made it possible in 1974 for the Commonwealth Development Bank to do something about the tourist industry. I suggest that, although that objective is very much in keeping with the amending legislation which is before the House at the moment, there has been a lack of enthusiasm in relation to the amendments with which we are dealing now and that there is not much to show in terms of results from assistance given to the tourist industry.

A subsequent speaker in the debate can pick me up if I am wrong in making this statement: It would have been appropriate for the Treasurer to have said in his second reading speech: ‘In 1974 our predecessors extended the powers of the Commonwealth Development Bank in respect of an industry which is often languishing and we want to exhibit our enthusiasm by giving effect to that’. Not one solitary word has been said about that matter. Why is that so? There is not much to show in the report of the Development Bank because not much has been included there. I have that report before me at present.

This Bill widens the lending activities of the Bank further by allowing it to go outside the rural, industrial and tourist sectors into new sectors, such as wholesaling, retailing, professional services, entertainment and the service industries generally. There is a great smorgasbord. There will not be much of an excuse when the Government comes to the reckoning table, say, on the eve of the next Federal election. I think that this will be a very good issue to resurrect at that time.

The Bank will provide finance only if it is not otherwise available on reasonable and suitable terms and conditions. It will supplement and not compete with other banks or sources of finance. The Treasurer said in his second reading speech: . . prospective borrowers need to establish, to the satisfaction of the Bank, that the finance sought is not otherwise available on reasonable and suitable terms and conditions.

One wonders why we have a public bank so hobbled; when no one else wants the business the Commonwealth Development Bank can take it up. The Bank must satisfy itself that the business will be viable. This Government has never thought of putting the Commonwealth Development Bank into a virile competitive situation with the other banks. It is only when nobody else wants the business that the Development Bank will be able to offer its services, but then only to a limited extent.

Before I lose sight of the objectives of the Bill, I point out that included in the other measures announced in October 1977 was the intention that the Development Bank be enabled to provide equity finance to small business. I have noticed- I do not think any honourable member will deny what I am saying- that this Bill does not implement that decision in any way. Possibly that matter is still under examination by the Government. Hopefully the matters concerning the prospects of assistance by the Australian Industry Development Corporation might also be the subject of a governmental announcement on some future occasion.

Underlying this whole matter is the question of funds, because the sources of finance for the Development Bank in the past have been the capital market, the Commonwealth Savings Bank and the Commonwealth Government. The Treasurer stated in his second reading speech that the extent of additional funds required for the wider operations of the Bank is not yet known. None have been provided at this stage. Quoting the Treasurer’s exact words, he stated:

To what extent additional funds may be required for the Development Bank’s entry into this wider field of operations cannot be determined at this stage, but the position will be closely watched.

A previous Minister for Industry and Commerce was tantalised with this problem when he appeared on a P.M. program on 30 October 1970. He was reminded that the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) had raised the matter of the tight monetary policy. The honourable member for Adelaide is consistent, is he not, because that is the very essence of the amendment which has been moved by the Opposition tonight. This whole objective can be made to materialise provided additional funds are made available to the Bank. The interviewer on the P.M. program on 30 October put this proposition to the former Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Sir Robert Cotton, who will be going off to more embellished and hopefully rewarding fields.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– And superior accommodation.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I certainly hope he will have superior accommodation. Senator Cotton replied:

You know, what you have to consider in this matter is that there is money in the Australian system. There is money in the savings banks, there is money in the SRD -

That is, statutory reserve deposits- there is money in the Reserve Bank. And in an emergency situation of gravity and this is being seen to be a situation of gravity, the Government has been able to find money and will be able to find money. Now Mr Hurford ought to know enough about monetary policy if he claims to be a shadow Treasurer not to ask lunatic questions.

The honourable member for Adelaide is persisting, as we have seen in the amendment which has been moved tonight. Apparently in the interim Senator Sir Robert Cotton has not found the money; indeed, neither has his successor nor the Treasurer because we are still wallowing in this uncertainty. We have had the good intentions, but, as I indicated by reading from the Treasurer’s speech just a short time ago, we do not know the extent to which the Development Bank is to be given the wherewithal to get on with the job. That is the very essence of the proposition which the Opposition is putting forward.

I notice that on that same P.M. program a man who seems to be very involved in these matters, a Mr Charles Connolly of the Small Business and Self-employed Association of Australia, dealt with the point about money and taxation. He dealt also with a number of other points, but I shall not have time to deal with them. Mr Connolly said:

Taxation is growing at a rate twice as fast as the retail price indices. It is having a disastrous effect on many facets of lives and I believe that what we might be seeing is a situation of putting a Band-aid on a man who is bleeding to death.

That is what Mr Connolly thought about what the Government has done in terms of taxation to help the small businessmen and what it has done in terms of making funds available through the development Bank and the AIDC and all the other measures. As you know, Mr Deputy

Speaker, the Labor Government did move on this matter. In May 1974 we established the National Small Business Bureau. Regrettably there has been this process of devolution, that is, of undoing what the Labor Government did. This Government wants to find its own way, but is has not really identified its own way. As long as it tips overboard the enactments of the Labor Government it seems to regard that as progress.

This Government downgraded the National Small Business Bureau and made it the Finance and Small Business Branch of the Tertiary Industry Division of the Treasury. It is poked away in an obscure back cupboard or pigeonhole in a ministry which has virtually lost its significance to the small business people of this country. All this represents a very unhappy situation. As I look back I know that these are the facts of life: In the financial year 1976-77, according to the Australian Statistician, there were 1,270 business bankruptcies and 926 non-business bankruptcies, representing a total of 2,196 bankruptcies, which is near the record level. We are told that the current rate is that in the vicinity of 230 small businesses are failing each week.

As I read through the report of Senator Sir Robert Cotton, the former Minister for Industry and Commerce, which I have quoted tonight, I can see the buck passing that he has engaged in in turning over to the States so many of the Commonwealth Government’s obligations. In terms of the new federalism policy the Government has not given the States sufficient funds to enable them to make a significant contribution to the alleviation of problems in the small business area. As I look at these problems- there is no time to go through them- I realise that the Government has little more than some intentions. Whether they are good intentions only the passing of time will prove. Judging by the record of this Government, which already has had several years to give expression to those objectives so enthusiastically espoused on the hustings in 1975, 1 would say that, given time, it will prove to be a disaster.

Mr DOBIE:
Cook

– I speak on the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill with real pleasure because I believe that the enactment of this legislation will add another form of government action which will reflect the real concern of this Government for the welfare of active small business people. After listening to the two previous Opposition speakers, whom I respect as individuals, it became glaringly clear that one of the tragedies of the Opposition is that it has never understood what the banking system in Australia is all about. I can recall that when the shadow Treasurer of 17 years became the

Treasurer of this country he had an interview with some visiting merchant bankers from overseas. I disclose no confidences when I tell the House that his remarks to the visiting merchant banker were that he did not really know whether there was a future role for merchant banks in Australia and, he asked: ‘Anyway, what do they do?’ Honourable members can imagine the terror into which this put the visiting merchant bankers. Here was a man who they thought would control them. He had no idea of what they did and no idea of how to control them. There was a glorious ignorance in the Whitlam Government with regard to the money market and the banking system of this country.

Mr Cohen:

– You tell us.

Mr DOBIE:

-I see that the honourable member for Robertson has just crept into the House.

Mr Cohen:

– Silent Sam.

Mr DOBIE:

– Silent Sam they call him. He has just crept into the House and is talking about the banking system. It is a shame that as a small businessman himself he has not been here for the whole debate. Let us recall what the Government has done. Reference has been made already to the fact that in October last year, Senator Sir Robert Cotton- I do not think he was knighted then; he was certainly the Minister for Industry and Commerce- presaged this legislation in the Senate in a substantial statement dealing with small business finance. I recommend that statement to all honourable members on both sides of this House. It was equally heartening to those on this side of the House to hear the Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, state again in his policy speech last year the need for some action and of his intention to move in this matter. I congratulate the Treasurer (Mr Howard) for bringing this legislation before the House so soon after the recent election.

My friend the honourable member for Henty (Mr Aldred) has described in a most excellent manner the positive achievements of the Fraser Government since last December. I have no need to repeat his sentiments. I am very happy to endorse them. What he described and what the House and the country must take note of is the fact that our whole approach to the problem of small business has been systematic and planned. Of course there can be no doubting that this is a most unfortunate section of the community. It is a section of the community that everybody has overlooked, except, if I may say so, the socialists of this country. One of the easiest ways for socialists to nationalise a country is to see that small businessmen of all categories are put out of business, receive no encouragement and are taken over and controlled by large businesses which the socialists then proceed to nationalise one by one. If we do not really understand this situation let us look at some of the countries where the so-called social democrats have taken over. This has been their exact method of operation and, with due respect, it was the exact method of operation of the Whitlam Government. Any government which could introduce a 25 per cent tariff cut across the board could have had no concern for the small businesses that were thrown out of business almost immediately. Let the small businesses of Australia remember that Act which was introduced by the people who today maintain that they and they alone have an interest and a concern for small businessmen. They talk with forked tongue.

Getting back to the legislation and resisting the temptation to talk about the Opposition, I point out it is vital that we protect and encourage those small businesses currently in difficulty. As my friend from Henty asked earlier: ‘Who got them into that difficulty’? It is worth remembering that it was not the present Government. We must also consciously encourage the establishment of new, vigorous, virile small businesses throughout Australia. They are the very lifeblood of the Australia we want to see coming about. I hope that the Treasurer, on assuming the new role of becoming more involved than previously with the Commonwealth Development Bank’s borrowing program, will instruct that Bank that it must remain aware of the need for and of new small business enterprises when determining its new style lending policy, as required by this legislation. It should not merely provide developmental finance for established small businesses only. This new lending policy must be applied to new entrepreneurs who have been restricted from getting under way because of a lack of developmental finance. The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) mentioned Senator Sir Robert Cotton’s remarks in the Senate last October. Let me quote from that speech. Senator Sir Robert Cotton went on to say:

The Reserve Bank has been advised that it is the Government’s policy that adequate finance should be made available to small business and that no arbitrary limits should be placed on such finance. It has been asked to inform the major groups of financial institutions that lending criteria should be reviewed in the light of the Government’s policy and to approach finance industry groups with a view to achieving better communications within their respective areas, aimed at improving the finance facilities available to small businesses.

All honourable members on both sides of the House have had constituents come to them and say that they have been informed by their local bank manager that the reason they have not been given a loan is because Reserve Bank restrictions have forced bank managers to reject a particular overdraft application. Mr Deputy Speaker, you and I have taken this matter up with the present Treasurer and previous Treasurers on each occasion we have had this matter before us. On each occasion we have had a firm and reliable assurance from these men that no credit restrictions were in force, most certainly not with regard to small business. Perhaps there have been instances of bank managers making these excuses as an easy way out when in fact the application for credit has been refused either because of the inability of the business involved to meet the requirements of trading banks, which are not in a position to provide developmental finance, or because of the incapacity of the business man or woman to show proof of an ability to service a larger debt in the necessarily short term nature of trading bank overdrafts. We heard the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) talk about the Commonwealth Development Bank as if it were just another trading bank competing with the trading banks around the town. Obviously the Opposition does not have a clue in creation as to what on earth a Commonwealth Development Bank is meant to be. It is meant to provide funds that are not available anywhere else in our banking system. We heard the sarcasm of the honourable member for Hughes about the statement that ‘prospective borrowers will need to establish’- I quote from the Minister’s speech, as did he- ‘to the satisfaction of the bank, that the finance sought is not otherwise available on reasonable and suitable terms and conditions’. That shows that honourable members opposite do not have even the first clue about what development finance is all about. It is like their hide, luxuriating in this ignorance, to move an amendment to this legislation.

It is significant that the Commonwealth Development Bank can now make the longer term loan that development finance involves. It is very significant- and I hope all speakers on the other side are aware of it- that the Commonwealth Development Bank will also provide assistance and advice for the full range of business undertakings that will now benefit under this newly expanded area of the Commonwealth Development Bank. The honourable member for Hughes also mentioned as a fact that this side of the

House had no interest in the Commonwealth Development Bank. My God, it was this Government that brought the Commonwealth Development Bank into existence. It was my party which saw the real need for a development bank. It saw the need for that development bank to be under the auspices of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. I think that even though it had difficulties in the beginning in determining what its role was it has provided a useful service to business people in Australia. Anyone who is at all concerned about small business should be delighted that we brought this legislation forward. I am pleased to see the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in the chamber. I repeat that he is to be congratulated on bringing in this legislation so quickly after the recent election.

I refer to one point about the Commonwealth Development Bank that may not win me many friends. I hope that the Commonwealth Development Bank will not be using this new area of lending responsibility as a means of encouraging small businesses to take all their banking business to the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. I know that it has always been within the charter of the Commonwealth Development Bank not to require any organisation seeking developmental finance from it to bring all its banking business to the Commonwealth Trading Bank or Commonwealth Savings Bank. Honourable members will realise that the three banks are the constituent members of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. However, Mr Deputy Speaker, from my own experience 1 have never been convinced that in fact this is not the case. I hope that the passing of this legislation will give the Treasurer a fresh opportunity of reminding the Executive of the Commonwealth Development Bank that it is there to service the customers of all the trading banks and that no pressure should be brought to bear on clients of the trading banks to see that their accounts are transferred to other members of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. That is a fact that I have lived with for a long time as a former banker.

I do not suggest that the officers of the Commonwealth Development Bank are in any way acting with malice or mischief. I believe that these things may have come about through an over-abundance of enthusiasm on the part of the officers. I accept that this professional enthusiasm on their pan has caused them to encourage accounts to be transferred to the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and its other member banks, namely, the Commonwealth Trading Bank and the Commonwealth Savings Bank. I beg the Treasurer to take up this matter and to see that this policy is very firmly brought in again. I do not wish to be contentious on this Bill. I feel that it is beyond that. I know of the deep concern of the following speaker, the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), for finance for small businesses, of his personal experience in small business and successful experience in several small businesses. I hope that that will allow him to look beyond the philosophy of his own party and to accept from his personal experience that this Government has had a real interest in seeing that small businesses are kept operating.

I know it must have come as an agony to the next speaker to hear the honourable member for Hughes mention that half-way during the Whitlam Ministry his party changed the Commonwealth Development Bank. The question was thrown at us of what we had done to encourage the Commonwealth Bank to get into tourism and the other areas that it extended into back in May 1974. It is a simple question. What on earth did the Whitlam Government do for the second half of its time in this place on the treasury bench in this regard or in any other regard? I put it to the House that the difference between the Opposition and the Government is quite fundamental. As one goes around the traps the sort of comment one hears is: ‘The present Government may not have done all we wanted it to do but at least we know it is helping. With that previous lot’- I quote my constituents, not myself- ‘we were convinced that they were out to destroy us That is the basic difference in our philosophies.

We may not be succeeding in certain areas, we may not have achieved the things that we desire to achieve- and as a member from this side of the House of the Small Business Advisory Council I can say that there are many areas in which I would like to see further things done- but with this legislation before the House, and I hear that apart from this incredible amendment the Opposition is going to support it, it is time for the House to sit back and say: ‘Thank goodness the Government has acted in this area. Thank goodness it has expanded its operations and is encouraging the Commonwealth Development Bank to operate.’

Mr Cohen:

– I will play ‘Hearts and Flowers’ in a minute.

Mr DOBIE:

– It is very interesting to hear the next speaker talking about hearts and flowers when we are talking of such a serious matter. I sincerely hope that his speech gets beyond hearts and flowers in his time before this House. I congratulate the new spokesman on Treasury matters in the Opposition benches and I am pleased to see that he has sat through this debate. I think we have someone from the Opposition who does understand what the money market and the money system are all about. His occupation of that position as spokesman for the Opposition is most welcome. Long may he hold that position. Mr Deputy Speaker, I strongly support this legislation. I think it is a very significant move in our systematic plan to help small business. As I said- and it is worth repeating- Treasurers are seldom popular; it is the nature of their job.

Mr Cohen:

– This one is no exception.

Mr DOBIE:

– He does not claim to be any exception but he must be popular as a result of the legislation which is before the House today and which must have the support of this House unamended.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– It is a rare and privileged occasion when the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) stands up to make his annual speech. Talk about Silent Sam. I had forgotten what his voice sounded like. He ought to speak more often; he has quite a resonant voice. But I could not let some of his absurd remarks pass. I was not proposing to speak in this debate but he started to give us some of the Liberal rhetoric about free enterprise and equated- I emphasise this- a socialist government to a government which automatically cut tariffs and therefore ruined businesses. That is a fascinating exercise. I would have thought that any government that was an anti-tariff government and believed in free trade was essentially a free enterprise government. The Treasurer (Mr Howard) is smiling, It was the height of absurdity for the honourable member for Cook to make that claim. Whether one is in favour of free trade or protection is a separate question.

I could not allow the honourable member for Cook to get away with that piece of absolute nonsense. He said: ‘I want total free enterprise. All I want is government subsidies, tax concessions, long-term low-interest loans, tariffs and quotas, but I am a free enterpriser’. That is the sort of rubbish that we hear from some honourable members. If they would only be consistent and genuinely profess to be free enterprisers I could understand it. The honourable member for Cook and the honourable member for Henty (Mr Aldred) are all of a sudden spokesmen for the small business community. I do not know how much experience they have had. I understand that the honourable member for Henty is a defrocked public servant and the honourable member for Cook is a former bank manager. In my book no bank manager is a member of the small business community- ask anyone who is involved in small business. The honourable member claimed that there had been a massive resurgence of confidence in business. I can assure him that I, as a small businessman, and a successful one, and one of the few in this House who knows what genuine small business is all about, am aware that what he says is not correct. I am not talking about someone who has inherited a business but someone who started one.

Mr Dobie:

– Are you a free enterprise man?

Mr COHEN:

– Yes, in certain areas I am, certainly.

Mr Aldred:

– You are in the wrong party. You have been misled.

Mr COHEN:

– Members on this side of the House believe in a mixed economy. If the honourable member would read the Labor Party’s platform and stop talking the sort of nonsense that he does, he would understand what this is all about. How many members in this House are genuine small businessmen who have had to start with nothing and work from the bottom up? I am one who did and I made a success of it. There are quite a few on this side of the House, for instance, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown). If one is good at business, generally speaking, one does not need government handouts. I do not need help from any government. Undoubtedly, sometimes there are occasions when government help is needed but generally speaking a genuine free enterprise businessman should not ask for help. That is the whole essence of it: One does struggle and fight and make one’s own way.

If the Government creates too many precedents like this one, everybody will expect help. That is in fact what has happened. That is what worries me about this series of legislative changes. The expectations of small businessmen are raised. The moment this new legislation comes in and development loans and such like are offered every small businessman suddenly believes he is eligible for that funding and that he has a genuine case. I am concerned that, once this happens, a lot of businessmen will be disappointed. When they learn that they are not included on the list they will go to see their bank manager and their federal member and anyone else whom they think might help. When the former Treasurer introduced legislation similar to this measure, I made a speech in which I said a lot of people would be disappointed. I have been answering some of the comments made by the honourable member for Cook who said how wonderfully business confidence had returned.

Mr Dobie:

– I did not comment on that.

Mr COHEN:

-I am sorry, but you did. You said: ‘I go around talking to businessmen and they say that things are going very well ‘.

Mr Dobie:

– No, that is not what I said. The honourable member should read Hansard tomorrow.

Mr COHEN:

– If the honourable member were to look at his speech I think he would find that he did make some comments about how wonderful business is. I can assure him that retail business is in a terrible state. Sections of it are very bad and depressed. As for the motor car industry, one need only look at the figures to see how bad it is. The building industry is in a similar situation. One could go on and on and on.

Mr Yates:
Mr COHEN:

-The honourable member for Holt pulls a face and nods his head. I can hear him from here. I try not to look at his face but he is pulling a face and endeavouring to give the impression that things are fine.

Mr Yates:

– I did not say things were fine.

Mr COHEN:

– There is no evidence to suggest that the Government’s policies are working. The effect of them has not yet been reflected in the market place.

Mr Yates:
Mr COHEN:

-We have waited for nearly 2te years but still there are no signs. Recovery is a long time coming. The Government knows that there are all sorts of problems that it is not facing up to. We are in for a fairly long period of stagnation. Whether they are all the fault of the Government, just as they were not all the fault of the former Labor Government, one does not know. There are problems with international economy. The Treasurer knows that; indeed, everyone knows it. I think Bob Hawke put it nicely when he said: ‘It is about time you came clean with the Australian community and perhaps then you will get some co-operation’. The Minister keeps telling the people that a boom is just around the corner, as the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) also implied, and then wondering why, if things are so good and business is picking up and confidence is returning, people are asking why the hell they are supposed to take wage cuts? I shall not proceed further. I merely wanted to answer some of the comments made by the honourable member for Cook.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

-I am pleased that this legislation has been brought before the House. It was mooted in October last. It was promised during the election campaign. It is good to see that promise come to fruition. It will be of great benefit to the community. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Commonwealth Banks Act to enable the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia to lend to all kinds of businesses. The present restrictions which confine lending to rural, tourism and industrial sectors will be removed. The amendments will enable the Commonwealth Development Bank to extend its lending to the establishment and development of undertakings in business sectors such as retail, wholesale, professional services, entertainment and service industries generally, something that previously has been sadly lacking. As at present, the Bank will continue to be required to give emphasis to providing finance for all small business undertakings.

I should like to make it clear that the Government attaches considerable importance to the small business sector in Australia, exemplifying as it does the essence of the free enterprise system. The Government recognises that small businesses are a vital source of innovation and entrepreneurial spirit, thereby giving vigour and drive to the private sector of the economy. Small businesses are usually defined as those which are wholly owned and operated by individuals or persons in partnership or by a proprietor company within the meaning of a companies Act, and more often than not they are managed personally by the owners. Frequently they are defined as businesses with fewer than 100 employees in manufacturing and fewer than 20 employees in the retail, wholesale and other tertiary activities.

According to recent statistics the small business sector encompasses about 200,000 enterprises in manufacturing industry, wholesale and retail trade, with a further 150,000 enterprises in the building, transport and other tertiary areas. Overall, excluding primary production, the small business sector comprises some 350,000 enterprises- over 90 per cent of all businesses- and employs nearly 40 per cent of the labour force, involving about 2 million people, as previous speakers have indicated. The importance of small business to the economic and social fabric of Australian life is greater than that indicated by the statistics. The small business sector provides a productive outlet for the energies of that large group of enterprising people who wish to be independent of large organisations in building their financial future.

Small businesses add considerably to the variety of products and services offered to the consumer because they can nourish in a limited or specialised market which would not be worthwhile or economic for a large firm to enter.

In an industry where the optimum size of the production unit on the sales outlet is small, the most efficient form of business organisation is often a small firm. In an economy in which larger multi-product companies are common small businesses provide competition, both actual and potential, and facilitate the proper working of the price mechanism in the market place. In this way they contribute to the efficient working of the economic system as a whole. Many small firms act as specialist suppliers of parts, subassemblies or components produced at a lower cost than could be achieved by the large companies which purchase them. Small businesses are an important source of innovation in products, techniques and services and as such challenge and stimulate the more established leaders of industry.

The spirit of independence and initiative fostered by small business is an essential element of our democratic society. Small businesses and individual enterprises contribute significantly to the national wealth and in so doing create opportunities for employment and assist in developing the nation’s living standard. Governments of most industrialised and developing countries, including this Government, recognise the importance of small business in their economic structure and to varying degrees have developed programs to assist them. The United States of America has a declared national policy that free competition which is basic to economic well being cannot be realised unless small business is encouraged and developed. In the United States small business receives special taxation and financial assistance, loan and equity finance, management assistance and assistance with government procurement. Japan, for instance, has a small business policy similar to that of the USA and has developed a variety of programs along similar lines. The same applies to small firms in Canada. The Canadian Government provides equity and loan financing through the Federal Business Development Bank and is involved in providing venture capital. The Federal Business Development Bank is also responsible for the operation of a small business consulting service and sponsors a large number of management training courses specially designed for small business.

In Australia we are developing policies aimed at overcoming some of the inherent disadvantages facing small business using self-help principles but avoiding an extension of direct government involvement in private enterprise. In particular, this means removing unintended and undesirable effects of legislation or procedures on small business. The Government recognises that it needs to give small business the opportunity to compete and grow in a business climate of increasing confidence and prosperity. Small businesses are very diverse, operating in all sectors of the economy. Their problems are not homogeneous, and they have been affected in different ways by adverse economic conditions. In these circumstances the Government is convinced that as economic recovery proceeds, the vitality of the private sector generally and of small business in particular will be enhanced. During the time of office of the Whitlam Government real wages outstripped productivity, and the profitability of business enterprises was squeezed. Government spending grew rapidly, and large public sector deficits led to excessive monetary expansion. Inflation, loss of confidence among consumers and businesses alike and unemployment were the results.

Inflation threatens the very survival of many small businesses. Directly or indirectly, its effects are felt through lack of orders, higher interest rates and a worsening financial position, all of which contribute to a loss of confidence. In the context of recent economic conditions claims have been made that the trade credit position of many small firms has deteriorated sharply. This suggests that in some respects small businesses may have suffered more in recent years than larger companies. Small firms suffer because they are squeezed by larger suppliers and are unable to press for prompt payment by their customers. During difficult periods large enterprises may be able to absorb in various ways increased costs and falling sales. The smaller business often does not have this capacity. For example, small business generally has fewer sources of funds on which to rely for financing its activities. Unlike public companies, private companies are prohibited from soliciting equity and debenture funds from the public. In addition few institutional sources provide risk capital to assist in financing growth and development.

The success of the economic strategy that has been pursued for the past 2% years has done much to improve the situation of the small business sector. However, against the background of particular problems facing small business, I now want to mention some of the steps that this Government has taken to assist small business. In the taxation field we have introduced a number of measures to help restore small business to economic health. In 1976 we introduced an investment allowance which applies at a rate of 40 per cent until the end of this financial year. The allowance will apply at a rate of 20 per cent from then until 30 June 1985. This incentive applies to individual items costing $500 or more and includes owner-used plant and equipment as well as that leased and acquired under hire purchase arrangements. The allowance is available to all businesses, including small businesses, although I am mindful of representations from small firms that have sought a reduction in the level of the monetary limit to which I have just referred.

The trading stock valuation adjustment introduced in 1976 has contributed to improved cash flows. Other taxation measures which have been of benefit to small businesses include the indexation of personal income tax and the adjustments of personal income tax scales introduced in the last Budget that have been in effect since the beginning of February this year. Given that 75 per cent of all small businesses are unincorporated, a large number of them will benefit from these taxation measures. The Government has recently made further moves to lighten the tax burden. We all know that these scales were introduced and are operative in this financial year. We promised in the recent election campaign to phase out estate and gift duty. This commitment will be given effect in legislation to be enacted during the current session of Parliament. Family businesses, many of which in the past have had their very existence threatened by the untimely death of one or more of their principals, will appreciate the significance of this initiative.

As mentioned previously, the Government is very conscious of the role played by small businesses in providing competition in the market place. It is essential that small businesses are encouraged to grow. This acts as a dynamic influence in the national economy as well as providing a stimulus by way of innovating a new product development. Small businesses have a great problem in accumulating capital. The cash that they accumulate is used up in paying provisional tax. This measure to give small businesses an added opportunity of gaining finance from the Commonwealth Development Bank will be of great benefit to them. Of course they will need to have exhausted every other avenue of obtaining finance, but if they are viable these funds will be made available through the Development Bank. I have very much pleasure indeed in supporting the Bill. I am pleased to note that the Opposition is substantially supporting it. It has moved an amendment to the Bill. But I think that honourable members opposite know in their hearts that this Bill is good for the Australian economy and that it is good for small business. Honourable members on this side of the House give it their full support.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I did not really expect to speak in the debate on the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill. There was an arrangement that only two speakers from each side of the House would speak in the debate. But as the opportunity to speak has arisen, I will say a few words on the Bill. As the night is wearing on and as there are other Bills to be debated, I will not spend too much of the time of the House on it. The Opposition is supporting the Bill, lt has moved an amendment which basically encourages the Government to make more money available to small businesses. But what worries me is that in this situation honourable members opposite- the disciples and the supporters of small business people in Australia- rise in the House and mouth all the erroneous platitudes that small business people do not want to hear.

First of all, we have heard honourable members opposite advance the argument constantly that the problems of small businesses today were promoted by the Labor Government. This is arrant nonsense. The figures indicate quite clearly that in Australia between 1969 and 1 972 the number of small businesses that went to the wall for any number of reasons was much greater than the number of small businesses which failed under the Labor Government between 1972 and 1975. So let us put that nonsense to bed once and for ever. The Australian Labor Party, in office, was the Party that provided some sort of vehicle or some sort of machinery for small business to have support. The small business support scheme was started by the Whitlam Government. It is very unfortunate that the present Government has seen fit to sink the scheme away in a cupboard in the back of a department. The honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) mentioned that he was a small businessman who started from nothing. So did I. We do not find it altogether exceptional that the honourable members on this side of the House have managed to succeed in their own business. We believe in a mixed economy. But we believe also that honourable members opposite should look at the real problems that are facing small business. They are not necessarily the problems which honourable members opposite have put forward.

The reason that small business is having great difficulty in Australia is that you have succeeded in giving us a non-expansive economy. The Government has allowed the economy to sink or to contract to such an extent that all the confidence of the spending public has disappeared. The reason that small business is finding it difficult to make a profit and to exist can be found in the letter that Mr Pilgrim has written to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Surely this was not a case of Pilgrim’s Progress. This was Pilgrim’s retraction. He gave all the reasons why his business was failing. Out of a staff of 22 people, he has had to retrench seven. He has written about a lack of contracts, a lack of profit and a lack of support from his bank. The stagnation of the economy is the big problem that he is facing. It is when the economy is booming, when people are prepared to spend and when they have some confidence in the country’s future that small business can see some future and can make some profit. While ever you people opposite do the things that you are doing, while ever you have this paranoia about the deficit and while ever you have this paranoia about reducing all the advantages that small business people want to see in the economy, then small businesses will fail.

Mr Bourchier:

– How many people did the Labor Government put out of business?

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The number of people we put out of business was very small.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! The House will come to order or there will be several honourable members out of business.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The unemployment rate that Australia suffered under a Labor Government was largely in Une with the rate of unemployment in all the developed countries of the world. This was also the case with the inflation rate. The difference since the change of government is that the rest of the world has been able to correct these ills while Australia has not been able to do so. Australia never will correct these ills while we have successive governments of its colour and while we have successive Treasurers who preach the sorts of policies they preach. The Government has a paranoia with the deficit and with inflation. It has a lack of regard for the fact that unemployment is the large problem in Australia. Every person who becomes unemployed becomes a non-consumer. For every non-consumer, there are three or four people who are terrified at the prospect of losing their jobs. Because they are terrified about losing their jobs, they do not spend. They do not buy a new motor car and they do not buy new conveniences for their houses. They do not want to build a house. All they want to do is to put money into the savings banks or into building societies and leave it there for the rainy day that they know is around the corner. That is the basic problem facing small business. The quicker the Government can see that this is the problem, the quicker the Government can see that the Australian people want to have some confidence in the economy which will lead them to spend, then the quicker that small business will get back on its feet.

I am speaking from hard experience. I have battled in the small business area for 25 years, I must say with a great deal of success. I am the sort of person, like the honourable member for Robertson, who is not looking for handouts. The people that honourable members opposite talk about, particularly the people that members of the National Country Party support, are the people who decry us as socialists. But they are the best practising socialists in Australia. They want support at the production end and they want support at the marketing end. They want all the benefits that they can get. A very good example of this came before the House last week in the form of a Bill which the Australian Labor Party supported. I refer to the Bill to support the Co-operative Farmers and Graziers Direct Meat Supply Ltd in Melbourne. The support we gave to that Bill demonstrates the attitude that we take to small business. We do not want to put down small business. We do not want to see it disadvantaged to the advantage of the multinational companies and the great corporate bodies. We want to see the small Australian person, who works for himself and who provides employment, prosper. That is the reason we are supporting this Bill. But I take issue with the people opposite who have been speaking arrant nonsense in respect of small businesses. The Whitlam Labor Government did all it could to bolster small business. Since returning to Government all you people have done is what you did between 1969 and 1972. You have put the little people out of work. Do not rise in this House and hypocritically say that you support the little people. You support the multinational corporations -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! The honourable member for Parramatta should address his remarks through the Chair.

The use of the word ‘you’ is not the proper way for the honourable member to address the Chair.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. How could I dare refrain from addressing my remarks through a man of your stature. I will finish on this note: The Opposition supports the Bill. I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Adelaide (MrHurford)that -

Mr Bourchier:

– He is not even here.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-He is around somewhere. We support the basis of the Bill but we would like to see it expanded to make more money available for small businesses.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Proposed new clauses.

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

After clause 3, insert the following new clauses:

Section 84 of the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959 is repealed.

After section 85 of the Commonwealth Banks Act 1 959 the following section is inserted: 85 A. ( 1 ) The Development Bank shall not, except with the approval of the Treasurer, borrow moneys other than moneys lent to, or deposited with it under section 85.

The Treasurer may give an approval for the purposes of sub-section ( 1 ) in respect of a particular borrowing or in respect of borrowings included in a particular class of borrowings.’.

Section 1 1 1 of the Commonwealth Banks Act 1 959 is amended by omitting from sub-section (3) “One thousand five hundred dollars” and substituting “$5,000 or, if another amount is prescribed for the purposes of this subsection, that other amount”.’.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

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

Third Reading

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

page 1640

PAY-ROLL TAX (TERRITORIES) ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 April, on motion by Mr Howard:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-The Bill now before the House bears some relevance to the subject of the previous debate because this, too, has important implications for small business, albeit in a restricted area of the Australian Capital Territory- nominally also in respect of the Northern Territory, but in fact for the Australian Capital Territory only. What the Bill seeks to do is to amend the Pay-Roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Act in several respects, the most important of which is to raise the general level of exemption from payroll tax in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory for an annual payroll of $48,000 as currently provided to an annual payroll of $60,000. That exemption will then be reduced by $2 for each additional $3 of payroll, so that for a payroll above $150,000 the full payroll is subject to the 5 per cent tax.

The matter of payroll tax has become of considerable importance in Australia during this decade. In 1971 the Federal Government decided to hand this tax over to the States to collect to satisfy their demands for a growth tax and increased autonomy, with the result that its incidence was quickly increased and payroll tax became the single most important revenue source for the States. Meanwhile the Australian Government continued to levy the tax in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory and has, in general, applied rates identical to those being charged by the States. The uniform rate now is 5 per cent but with some small variations as to the levels of exemption. All States except Queensland now have a basic exemption of $60,000, although there are some differences in the extent to which that exemption is tapered off. Tasmania and New South Wales write the exemption off at the rate of $2 for each additional $3 of payroll over $60,000, as is proposed in this Bill, so that all exemption ceases at $150,000. Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia use the same rate of tapering of the exemption, except that tapering ceases at payrolls of $109,500 and all payrolls at that level and above enjoy a basic exemption of $27,000. In Queensland the current basic exemption level is $100,000, with the exemption being tapered off at the rate of $5 for each additional $2 of annual payroll, but with all payrolls of $127,200 and above being exempt from tax on the first $27,000. As from 1 July this year the basic exemption in Queensland will increase again to $125,000, tapering off to $164,200, at which level of payroll and above tax will be payable on a payroll in excess of $27,000. Thus it can be seen that the present provisions applying in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are by far the least generous.

What this Bill proposes is to raise the exemptions in the Territories to the lowest level applied by the States. It is therefore in no sense a trendsetting piece of legislation. It is rather a catch-up piece of legislation which provides for small businesses in the Territories the rninimum conditions applying to small businesses in the States. One sympathises with the States in respect to the situation that they now find themselves in with regard to payroll tax. Although they welcomed the Federal Government’s decision to hand collection of the tax over to them, the States find that it has since become a very unpopular tax and that they themselves are under continuous pressure to reduce its incidence. However, because it is such an important piece of revenue for the States they are unable to give way to such pressures to too great a degree.

The reasons for the increased unpopularity of the tax are twofold. The rapid increase in the rate of the tax to 5 per cent by September 1974 guaranteed a sharp reaction from businessmen, and, of course, the onset of economic recession in 1974 and its increased severity since have increased complaints about the tax. The business sector complains that the tax is levied without regard to capacity to pay. It is indeed true that it is payable whether a company makes a loss or a profit and, where it makes a profit, without regard to the level of profitability. Thus, some companies have a greater liability for payroll tax than they have for company tax.

In the last two or three years there has also been increasing concern about the employment effects of this tax. A tax on employment, which is what this tax is, clearly is not calculated to assist employment prospects. Indeed, it is likely to lead to fewer people being employed than would otherwise be the case. The employer organisations in this country have complained about the phantom twenty-first employee: That is, for every 20 persons they employ they must pay for another through the incidence of payroll tax. This means that labour intensive industries are much more severely affected than capitalintensive industries, and since it is our labourintensive industries that are most under challenge from imports from low income countries to our north, the payroll tax is for them a heavy burden indeed.

The Victorian Employers Federation calculated last year that if payroll tax were to be abolished altogether, another 100,000 persons would be employed in Australia. Even if one is skeptical of that figure, it is difficult to deny that the operation of payroll tax in this country is a major stumbling block in the path to the return to full employment. Indeed, the Australian tax system is doubly biased against employment in that not only do we have a high tax on labour but also we have through the investment allowance a large tax concession applying to additional investment which, insofar as it is labour-saving investment, represents a tax incentive to replace men with machines. The reality, as the Government has admitted in the most recent national wage case, is that most of the investment taking place at present is labour-saving investment, which is what one would expect when demand is slack and attractive tax concessions for investment, which are of limited duration, are made available at the same time. Naturally, in these circumstances there is a powerful incentive for employers to take advantage of the investment allowance and to invest in machines which enable them to maintain their present output at lower cost, rather than to increase capacity to produce more by investing in machinery to enable them to produce more with the current methods of production. Thus, the operation of the tax on labour through the payroll tax and a tax concession on labour-saving capital through the investment allowance mean that the tax system is massively biased in this country against the employment of people.

In this respect I think it is most important for the House to take note of something to which I have referred previously. I do not think the Government has taken any notice of it, so I refer to it once again. This is a most important statement made in Paris by the Secretary of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development at a meeting of experts on structural determinants of employment and unemployment. In making the opening speech at that meeting in March of last year the Secretary of the OECD said:

Of the various structural explanations of unemployment, a theme that has been getting increased attention by policy makers in some of our member countries, and one which I am glad to see has received prominent attention in the papers prepared for this conference, deals with the possibility of overly capital intensive production methods in the private sector at the expense of employment.

He went on to mention ways in which this happens and the incentives for it. They include payroll taxes, which increase the cost of labour, depreciation allowances, artificially low interest rates and so on. He then stated:

What we may perhaps agree is that where governments wish to encourage private investment to sustain economic growth, it is important that the incentives chosen should support a wholesome balance between capital-deepening and capital-widening (i.e., between labour saving and job creation) and that the tax system should avoid any bias against the use of labour.

I draw attention particularly to the last statement: . . the tax system should avoid any bias against the use of labour

Quite clearly, the problem being drawn to the attention of the experts in Paris in 1977 by the Secretary of the OECD is a problem that has extreme relevance in this country. As I have already shown, we have a tax system that is massively biased against the use of labour; on the one hand there is a tax on labour and on the other hand there is an incentive for investment to be labour saving rather than job creating. Even if one takes account of the fact that an increasing array of subsidies is available for employment through the Special Youth Employment Training Program and the National Employment and Training Scheme, one can still say that, taken overall, the tax system in this country is massively biased against the use of labour Clearly, if governments are at all concerned about unemployment, and there is not much evidence to show that this Government is so concerned, something should be done, and quickly, to remove or at least substantially to reduce this tax bias against labour.

The removal of the investment allowance is one means of reducing the tax bias, but it is also clear that as much as possible should be done to reduce the incidence of payroll tax. In this connection, I draw the attention of the House to the recent decision of the Swedish Government to reduce payroll tax from four per cent to two per cent and to abolish it altogether as from July this year. The fact that Sweden, with an unemployment level less than half of ours, is abolishing its payroll tax shows just how much more concern there is by its government, which is a conservative government, to reduce employment than there is by the Australian Government. If anything substantial is to be done about payroll tax in this country, it is up to the Federal Government to take the initiative. The States are so dependent now on payroll tax that it is quite unrealistic to expect them to do anything other than make adjustments to the exemption level in an attempt to relieve the burden on small business, which is basically labour intensive.

The Bill now before us shows just how disinclined this Government is to take any such action. In a simple matter of raising exemption levels for payroll taxes in the Territories it is prepared to go only to the lowest State level. In our opinion it should be prepared to raise the exemption level at least to the highest level set by any State, which is that applying in Queensland. The complete exemption applying in that State from the middle of this year will be at a level more than double that which this Bill will implement in the Australian Capital Territory. I ask the House to consider the difference. A payroll of $60,000 will not quite cover a business with a staff of seven, taking the median rate of earnings of $ 170 a week

The Queensland exemption, however, will completely cover a business with a staff of 14 employees being paid at the median level of earnings. That is a very substantial difference, and clearly exemptions at that level would greatly enhance the prospect of small businesses being able to employ an additional person. According to calculations made by a Liberal member of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, the widening of the exemption from its present level to the Queensland level would exempt some 1,600 Australian Capital Territory employers from liability for payroll tax and undoubtedly would give a fillip to employment in Canberra. It would also encourage the other States to do their best to raise their exemptions to the Australian Capital Territory level and thus free many thousands of small businesses from the tax.

A further reason for giving serious consideration to this proposal is that the Legislative Assembly in Canberra has resolved to support raising the exemption to the Queensland level. Since the Assembly can be taken as speaking more directly than any other body for the people of Canberra, it is clear that this is what the people of Canberra want. As the Australian Capital Territory moves towards selfgovernment, the wishes of its people in respect of financial matters should receive increased attention and consideration from the Government, but little attention has been paid to their wishes in this matter. Of course, costs art involved in increasing the exemptions, but from the point of view of the Federal Government there are offsets that do not apply to the States. Immediately payroll tax exemptions are increased in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, if that has the effect of increasing employment, unemployment benefit payments are reduced and people who are at work pay more in the way of income tax. If a company simply keeps the tax in its profits, something one would try to reduce to a minimum, it will at least pay more company tax. So there are substantial immediate offsets to the Federal Government if it increases the level of exemption applying to payroll tax in the Territories.

We on this side of the House regard the eradication of the appallingly high level of unemployment now prevailing in this country as the prime task of the Government at this time. We do not consider the attainment of such an objective to be at all easy but we do assert that many policy measures could be undertaken which would assist in the attainment of that objective. One such measure would be to reduce substantially and if possible eradicate the tax bias against the use of labour. This Bill shows, however, that the Government, which preaches long and loud about the evil effects of current wage levels, is prepared to take only the minimum possible steps to reduce the tax bias against employment. In so doing it proves once again that it is not really very concerned about unemployment, or at least that that concern runs secondary to various other objectives it is more anxious to pursue. I therefore 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 to provide for levels of exemption from pay-roll tax no less than those that will apply in the State of Queensland from 1 July 1978.’

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Fry:

– Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I reserve my right to speak to it.

Mr HASLEM:
Canberra

-Much as I would like to support the Opposition’s amendment on behalf of my constituency and on behalf of the small businessmen in this area, who would undoubtedly profit from it and who may be able to employ more people -

Mr Sainsbury:

– They would not like it in Queanbeyan.

Mr HASLEM:

– As the honourable member for Eden-Monaro points out, it would assist the general area by encouraging the employment of more people in Canberra and more money would be spent in Queanbeyan. However, I would be reluctant to support it because it would bring into question the whole thrust of the Government’s economic policy, which is to reduce inflation and therefore to create additional employment. The Bill seeks to bring payroll tax in the Australian Capital Territory into line with that in New South Wales, particularly in regard to the areas surrounding the Territory, where our employers and businessmen compete. In his second reading speech the Treasurer (Mr Howard) stated that it is the desire of the Government to secure consistency between the exemption entitlements of employers in the Australian Capital Territory and employers in New South

Wales. He went on to say that he was sure that the operators of small businesses in the Australian Capital Territory will welcome the change. They certainly do welcome the change and are very pleased that twice in the last few months the Government has seen fit to increase the exemption for payroll tax. But they see the Treasurer’s statement that the Australian Capital Territory is being brought into line with New South Wales as rather cynical and hollow. In New South Wales the Government gives very real incentives to industries located outside the major metropolitan areas. Part of that incentive is administered through payroll tax rebates. I believe that employers in Queanbeyan and in the surrounding areas of Canberra can get those rebates.

So I call upon the Treasurer, if he is sincere in the statement he makes in his second reading speech, to consider in his deliberations on the Budget for this year bringing the Australian Capital Territory completely into line with New South Wales, which he claims is the desire of the Government. If we are to improve employment prospects in the Capital Territory we have to do so by widening the employment base. There is no doubt at all that that is done by State governments in the rural areas by means of incentives designed to encourage industry to establish and/or to relocate within the State- in other words, outside the major areas of population. Victoria uses amongst its armoury of incentives a rebate in payroll tax. New South Wales does likewise. I believe that other States have payroll tax concessions.

Other activities are promoted by the State governments throughout Australia in establishing industry and employment opportunities in non-urban or non-manufacturing areas. Canberra is certainly a non-manufacturing area. The Department of the Capital Territory has embarked on some programs designed to assist industry in coming to Canberra, but I am afraid that so far these efforts have predominantly appeared to most business people already operating in the Territory to be tokenistic. There is a scheme operating under which a lease of land in the Capital Territory is made by direct ministerial grant on favourable conditions. But that is being done at a time when anybody in the Capital Territory can pick up industrial land for next to nothing, because nobody really wants it anyhow. A cheap land policy is not nearly good enough. There is a need for cheap loans, loan guarantees, freight incentives and, as I have already mentioned, payroll tax rebates, and, more importantly, a method which is used in many other States, namely, giving preference to decentralised industry in government purchasing. At this time, new industries coming into the Canberra region are attracted predominantly to the Queanbeyan area where the New South Wales Government offers much better incentives than does the Federal Government.

The other point about decentralisation and offering incentives is that it is more often than not the case that natural economic advantage and the energies of the local promotion attract industry. I think the Government has to spend more time in examining those particular aspects of industrial development in the Capital Territory. The Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) has gone on record on a number of occasions as saying that tourism is the great strength of the Capital Territory and that it will be the great growth industry. There is absolutely no doubt at all about that. Many projects which the Government has under review at the moment will enhance Canberra’s tourist potential. I mention, for example, the new archives building, the new national museum, the Australian Defence Force Academy, or Casey University as it is now known, and also we hope in the future there will be other national buildings such as a national convention and meeting centre which will be used by people from all over Australia. But we have to do more than just talk about these matters. We have to get off our proverbial backside and we have to promote Canberra as the area which is truly the city of Australia. We have to ensure that the 2.S million tourists who come to the capital city each year stay an extra day or two, because for every day they stay, they spend $20 or $30 which goes into the local economy. That money is spent in the local shops and in the local tourist industry. That, of course, creates employment opportunities outside government.

We as a government are quite certain that the economic policies that we are promoting and pursuing will increase employment opportunities across Australia. There has been a lot of criticism in Canberra of the Government’s economic policies. People in the Capital Territory seem to feel that we have been singled out for special attention. I am pleased to say that that is just not the case. During the six years from August 1 97 1 to August 1977, government employment across the whole of Australia has increased by 3.33 per cent. It is interesting to note that, although the Government has been professing the need to cut back on government employment through the imposition of staff ceilings and the like, government employment in Australia and in the Capital

Territory is still growing while private employment is falling. Private sector employment has declined not just in the last three years but during the last six years. So those people in Canberra who are claiming that the fall off in employment in the private sector is a Canberra phenomenon should look a little further in making their analysis.

If we in the Capital Territory are faced with an employment situation which is Australia wide, how are we to deal with it? How are we to bolster our private sector? It seems that in spite of all the efforts of the previous Administration in its last few months in office and the efforts of this Administration during the last two and a half years, we cannot quite quell the growth of the bureaucracy- the growing monster, if I can put it that way- and the growth of the complexity of society which calls for more intervention. Of course, society is demanding that the Government does more for it all the time. What do we have to look at in the Capital Territory? What do we in Canberra have to look at in terms of the Capital Territory as we approach the time when the Budget will be presented? What do our Ministers and our senior Cabinet advisers need to look at carefully to ensure that the young people of Canberra, the capital of Australia, have opportunities to get jobs and to enter the workforce? We have Government as an employer, and Government employment is growing, in spite of staff ceilings. Job opportunities are being created by wastage, by people leaving the service, and by growth in some areas.

The construction and building industry in Canberra has suffered badly because of the quite necessary drop in the growth rate of the capital city from a level approaching 10 per cent to 2.5 per cent or 3 per cent. That drop appears to be stabilising. There is evidence to suggest that the sale of houses in Canberra has picked up again and that the pipeline of unsold nouses is emptying at a satisfactory rate. There are signs also that job opportunities are being created in the retail and service industries. Several large new shopping centres have opened, both in my electorate of Canberra and in the electorate of Fraser. That activity has created a lot of jobs during the last few months. But we know that in the longer term real job opportunities in Canberra in the private sector have to be created in the entertainment and tourism areas. I look forward very much to the presentation of the report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism which is inquiring into methods by which to promote the Australian tourist industry. In various areas of Australia the tourist industry will be the great employer of our young people and of members of our ethnic groups who are coming to this country albeit in diminishing numbers.

There is no doubt at all that the Government’s economic policies will create further employment. There is also no doubt at all that the option of increasing government expenditure- the easy way out; the way which was tried in 1974- is not going to be the way to solve the longer term problems of Australia. The mere stabilisation of inflation to within the range of 6 per cent is not going to be enough by itself. It will not guarantee the regeneration of the economy of Canberra or of Australia which is required. There is a need for a gently selective stimulus to growth both in the Capital Territory and in Australia.

I agree with the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) that the removal as far as possible of payroll tax could be such a gentle stimulation. It certainly would be a major stimulation if the increase could be made at the lower end. Small business looks very carefully at employing extra people because predominantly the dollar comes out of the boss’s pocket. As we know, large businesses in Australia are monolithic, oligopolistic and monopolistic in many respects and simply pass on their costs to the consumer. So it is very important that in the forthcoming Budget considerations the Treasurer and his advisers do not just take the easy way out and say: ‘We do not want to be pacesetters for the rest of Australia’, but that they look carefully at the possibilities of innovative programs in the payroll tax area.

Mr FRY:
Fraser

– I support the amendment moved by the Opposition to the motion for the second reading of the Pay-roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Amendment Bill 1978. Although the Bill is quite commendable in handing out something to business people who are in a very bad position in Canberra, these people would be much better off if the Government were to support our amendment. I sympathise with the honourable member for Canberra (Mr Haslem). Naturally, he would have sympathy for our amendment, but he is not able to support it. However, I could not quite accept his argument that the Bill is in keeping with the Government’s economic policy and our amendment is not. I can say only that the Government’s economic policy must be on a very fragile base if it is dependent upon the difference between the revenue which would be received through the enactment of the Government’s Bill and the revenue which would be received as a result of our amendment to that Bill. That difference in revenue would be very minute in terms of the Government’s Budget.

I accept that the honourable member for Canberra is very anxious to promote the city of Canberra. Naturally he is, and so am I. Unfortunately he supports a government whose leader is committed to demoting Canberra and not promoting it. That has been the story ever since this Government was elected. There has been tremendous discrimination against Canberra, particularly against business, through the general cutting back in government expenditure, the way it reflects on turnover in the city, on the building trade and on employment opportunities generally. This legislation represents just one very small plus against a very large list of minuses which this Government has against it in relation to its consideration of the people of Canberra, particularly the small business people.

In moving our amendment we are suggesting that the Australian Capital Territory payroll tax provision should be in Une with the Queensland payroll tax provision, with an exemption of $125,000 payroll per annum. All States have different exemption provisions. I draw attention to the fact that many of the growth centres in New South Wales have special exemptions for payroll tax. As Canberra was the original growth centre, it should be treated in the same way. Instead of being pacesetters in terms of payroll tax we have been lagging behind the field and we have been placed at a grave disadvantage. Every time we amend the payroll exemption for the Australian Capital Territory and bring it into line with somewhere else we find that the exemption in that place has moved on again, and we always lag behind. If we accepted the Opposition’s amendment the Australian Capital Territory would move into the more progressive brackets of payroll exemption. When we think about it, the 5 per cent tax in effect means paying for one extra employee for every 20 employees, which is a very big burden on business in the present trading conditions. In actual money terms I think that Canberra pays somewhere around $ 1 5m per annum in payroll tax. It should be pointed out that by increasing the exemption the Federal Government would not in fact lose very much at all. It would be a temporary loss because the Government would receive an immediate rebate in the form of increased profits or increased employment in the community. I think our unemployment bill in Canberra is something like $19m. If we can create jobs we will save there as well as add to revenue from indirect taxes which emanate from improved business trading in Canberra.

As I said, we have lagged behind the States. Small business in Canberra has been placed at a tremendous disadvantage. As the honourable member for Canberra said, the big businesses are able to look after themselves, but many small businesses were lured into Canberra with the prospect of a steady rate of growth. That just has not happened. Recently I was visited by a number of business people from our new industrial centre of Mitchell. They paid pretty big prices by way of annual rentals for leases. They are paying pretty high rates- something like $2,000 a year. Some of them borrowed money at very high rates of interest- 16 per cent and 17 per cent- to build their structures in which to conduct their businesses. Nothing happened. These people are out there like shags on rocks. No other business has developed, there is no street lighting and no public transport. They are sitting there with this tremendous debt around their necks and no growth at all, which is not what they anticipated when they made their investment. I am making representations to the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) now. I hope he will give them some sympathy because some concessions should be made to them. If we do not help them they will go into liquidation. Instead of the Department of the Capital Territory getting a lower rent it will get no rent at all. Some adjustment should be made to those rents in the light of present day trading conditions. The situation at Mitchell is typical of the way that business is struggling in Canberra. We are oversupplied with retail business premises because of this drastic slowdown in growth. It is having devastating effects on many small businesses indeed.

Unfortunately, we have had no relief from previous Budgets. We seem to have had Ministers who have had no real sympathy for the Australian Capital Territory and who have not been able to influence the Cabinet to take some of the pressure off business and unemployment in the Australian Capital Territory. I am looking forward to the new Minister being more effective in that regard. I hope he has a bit more influence and a bit more pull in the Cabinet than former Ministers have had in getting some relief for the people of Canberra. I live in great hopes. I am confident that he will be more successful and that he will give us some relief because our businesses cannot go on under the present situation. If there is no relief we will have a great list of liquidations in Canberra. We have had a lot in the past 12 months. They will escalate. We will have many more in the next few months if we do not get some relief. I commend the amendment to the House as a means of providing to some small extent relief for the business people of Canberra and for the unemployment situation and of giving some small benefit to offset the many disadvantages that the business people have suffered under this Government.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1646

ADJOURNMENT

Aboriginal Housing- Federalism- Export of Livestock- Parliamentary Privilege

Motion ( by Mr Howard) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Riverina) ( 10.30)- I rise tonight to discuss a report entitled ‘$l.5m Black Home Project Riddle’ by Robin Bromby which appeared in the Melbourne Herald of Saturday, 29 April.

It states:

A million and a half dollars of Federal Government money has been spent on an Aboriginal housing project at Wilcannia without one house being finished.

Mystery surrounds the spending of the money but it is clear that some of it has been misused.

The Department of Aboriginal Affairs has admitted that all is not well with the project.

The money was allocated to make a start on providing 30 houses for the Aboriginal people of Wilcannia on the Darling River in central New South Wales.

Of course, that is a part of my electorate. The report goes on to say that following articles in the Melbourne Herald dealing with the Aborigines’ plight, improvement was decided upon by the Federal Government. It stated that eight houses have been erected, which would give the impression that each house cost something like $186,000. This is the second time that I have raised in this House the matter of the Bakandji housing project, as the scheme is called. On15 February 1977 I referred to a visit of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) to Wilcannia for the very purpose of opening the first house referred to in this article. On that occasion there were television cameras and all the publicity that could go with a great group of pressmen. I was very sore because I was not invited to the party. It was in my electorate and I did not know that it was taking place.

I wish to point out that the purpose of my raising the matter is not to be critical of the Prime Minister but more to ask him not to forsake the project because of this bad publicity. On reading the full article it does appear that something has gone wrong out there, that an admission has been made by the Aboriginal committee that there is something drastically wrong in the amount of money that has been spent and the progress that has been made. The report further states that Aborigines in Wilcannia were living in mud on the river bank. When Gordon Bryant was the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs I went to Wilcannia and took some pictures of the state of the Aborigines there. They were provided with tents in which to live until something more substantial could be supplied to them. The outcome was that they started the Bakandji building society. It not only built houses; it also had a big joinery works and a brick plant.

The standard of the housing was vastly improved on what we saw some time previously of Aboriginal houses which they had built themselves. This project was a form of training for the Aborigines. I would not try to justify their spending of this amount of money if the report is correct but I do hope that the Minister and the Prime Minister do not lose their interest in the Aborigines in the area. Although I was somewhat shut out of the affairs of Wilcannia it seems to me that it was harder for me to find out what was going on further along the river at Menindee. I have been invited there several times. I have had numerous discussions with the Aboriginal groups there and we have ironed out several matters. When I originally spoke on this matter my point was that the Minister should take a little more notice and involve the representative of the area in the matters concerning his area and see that he is better informed. I believe that not only the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Prime Minister but also the local member should share responsibility. The local member should answer statements like this and should be involved in and have some knowledge of these matters. He should be provided with information about what is going on. I must admit that since I raised this matter several members of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs have visited my office and have kept me a little better informed.

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

Mr JARMAN:
Deakin

-The Australian Government believes firmly in the policy of federalism. We believe that the daily lives of 14 million Australians should not be directed by one vast bureaucratic centralised body in Canberra. There are three levels of government in Australia- federal, State and local- and each has a role to play. Obviously there are many areas, such as the economy and social services, which need administration at federal level. However, local government is the most appropriate level for many other needs. In order that these needs may be fulfilled the Fraser Government has legislated to provide local government with a guaranteed percentage of personal income tax. This share will be increased from 1.52 per cent to 2 per cent during the life of this Parliament. In 1976-77 local government’s share was $ 140m, a 75 per cent increase on the $79.9m provided by the Whitlam Labor Government for the year 1975-76. I commend the increase in the local government share of personal income tax to 2 per cent during the life of this Parliament but urge the Government to introduce this reform as soon as possible.

In other areas positive steps have been taken towards full implementation of the federalism policy. Local government grants commissions have been set up in all States. There is local government representation on the Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations. Federalism is based on the idea that consultation and co-operation will overcome many of the problems which confront all levels of government. Tonight I urge the Government to take a further step towards enabling local government to play a more active role in the management of this country. Local government is that branch of government which is closest to the needs and aspirations of the majority of Australians. It will be able to satisfy these needs and aspirations only if its representatives come from a wide crosssection of the community. Under section 74 of the Income Tax Assessment Act candidates for State and Federal elections can claim election campaign expenses as allowable deductions for income tax purposes. I believe that the Government should amend this section of the Act to extend this deduction to candidates for local government.

Mr Bourchier:

– Hear, hear!

Mr JARMAN:

– Such a concession would be a further step towards fulfilling the Government’s federalism policy. I am glad to hear the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier) agreeing with me. All individuals who have a contribution to make must be free to participate fully in government and the forms of government must be decentralised to permit maximum response and involvement. Government must be brought as close as possible to the people. It is not sufficient to provide an increase in funds; we must also increase the status of local government. In my State of Victoria at present hardworking councillors are not even recompensed for out of pocket expenses, such as the cost of running their cars or the cost of telephone calls made because of council business. The cost of running a campaign must also deter many people, who would otherwise be able to make a positive contribution to local government, from standing for election.

I am not saying that those in local government at present are not doing a good job. Financially unrewarding though it may be, it is undoubtedly rewarding in work satisfaction. However, there are many people who, if given the opportunity, have experience which would benefit their communities and the country at large but who cannot afford the out-of-pocket expenses and the cost of running an election campaign. We must all continue to re-evaluate our ideas and to ensure that governments at every level are aware of the needs and views of Australians and that the community has the best possible representatives. It is only if all people have an equal opportunity to take part in government at whatever level they choose that we will be putting into practice the full ideals of federalism. I urge the Government as part of the next Budget, if not sooner, to legislate to make tax deductible campaign expenses incurred by candidates for local government, just as they are for candidates who stand for election to federal and State parliaments. To say the least, this would be only fair and just.

Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I express my concern that, in the recent industrial dispute over the export of live sheep and goats to the Middle East, the issue of the humane treatment of animals was so completely ignored. Our national preoccupation with narrow economic interests, cash in hand, is illustrated very clearly by our lack of interest in the cruelty implicit in the live animal export trade. I draw attention to a letter which appeared in the Melbourne Age on 18 April. I identify myself with it completely. It reads:

It’s time we questioned the morality of the export of live sheep ( and goats) to the Middle East

Farmers and unionists are understandably silent on one of the reasons why so many millions of live animals are exported. Any trade worth $300 million could overcome refrigeration and transportation problems.

Australians either don’t know, or choose to ignore, the fact that Moslem rituals specify that animals should be fully conscious at the time of slaughter.

Your editorial (‘The Age’, 12/4) gives us a clue to the farmers’ demands for unrestricted trade. These sheep ‘are mostly cast-offs from the wool clip worth only a few dollars and sometimes not worth sending to slaughter. But the Middle East is paying $ 1 5 to $30 per head, ‘

Farmers know the substantial economic losses caused by the stress of transportation especially over long distances. Injuries, deaths and shrinkage are inevitable. No farmer would choose to export prime-quality lamb or mutton in this way. Obviously it is a very lucrative method of disposing of animals which can no longer be exploited.

In January 1 977, the ABC Country Hour reported that private veterinary surgeons had perfected a conveyor-belt, oneminute spaying operation for aged merino ewes which would then be exported live. No need to worry about bans on the export of these sheep once they have been spayed.

In the late 1 9th and early 20th centuries, English livestock owners shipped their worn-out and aged horses to Belgium for slaughter. This trade was justified then by the same arguments which Australian farmers are using in 1978.

It is the duty of the Federal Government, the livestock producers and the trade union movement to stop this deplorable trade. Australia’s long-term economic advantage lies in developing carcase export. Our moral advantage lies in realising that increasing contempt for lower forms of life may be leading us, especially in an agnostic age, to a contempt for man himself.

I believe that the treatment of animals may well be the most accurate single indicator of our national capacity for compassion. The vast public indifference to the sufferings of animals in the live export trade to the Middle East suggests that we would deserve to rank very low on a compassion index.

Mr SIMON:
McMillan

-There are standards of behaviour to be maintained in this House and, indeed, in all parliaments. It therefore comes as a disappointment to me that a new member of this House with extensive experience in the Victorian Parliament should abuse these standards. It is apparent that the business of the Opposition is at present tightly orchestrated under the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). The Leader and also the majority of his colleagues stand condemned in that they agreed to include in the Opposition’s program General Business motion No. 10 which was moved by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) on 11 April 1978. During the course of that debate, it was stated that parliamentary privilege does not carry with it a licence to slander. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports denegrated himself and attempted to influence similarly this House with his ill-argued censure motion. One could make the uncharitable observation that his actions run parallel with those of the honourable member for Caulfield in the Victorian Legislative Assembly.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-The honourable member may not refer to a debate which has taken place earlier in this session.

Mr SIMON:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I proceed to examine the sorts of tactics which unfortunately are being adopted and pursued by members of the Opposition. I shall pose some questions to illustrate the type of approach which is being pursued by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports. I go back to some activities in Victoria. In paragraph 23.13 of the report of the inquiry by Sir Gregory Gowans into housing commission land purchases in Victoria, criminal proceedings are recommended against one Graeme John Hill. Is this Graeme John Hill the same Graeme John Hill whom the honourable member for Melbourne Ports described in the Age newspaper of 6 September 1974 as ‘a personal friend’? Was the honourable member for Melbourne Ports a director of the Graeme Hill speculation company, Paradian Securities Pty Ltd? Was the former wife of the honourable member, Mrs Margaret Holding, a director and shareholder of another Hill land investment company known as Consolidated Projects and Gramhill Pty Ltd? Were the said Graeme Hill and the honourable member for Melbourne Ports in partnership or some other joint venture?

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. It seems to me that the honourable member for McMillan is trying to traverse your ruling. These are matters that were raised and dealt with in some detail during the recent debate in which the House reached a verdict. The House, in reaching its verdict, also agreed that debate should be foreclosed and that speakers should be not further heard. I might point out that in that vote the honourable member for McMillan voted for the foreclosure of the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no substance to the point of order.

Mr SIMON:

-Were the said Graeme Hill and the honourable member for Melbourne Ports in partnership or some other joint venture relationship in respect of property near Metung in the State of Victoria? Was the Metung property sold to Lensworth Finance (Victoria) Pty Ltd or some company in the Lensworth group at a substantial profit? Were not the said Graeme John Hill and Lensworth Finance (Victoria) Pty Ltd both involved in transactions in relation to the sale of land at Sunbury in the State of Victoria and in respect of which Sir Gregory Gowans stated that both parties were guilty of an offence pursuant to the provisions of section 33 (2) of the Estate Agents Act 1958? What was the involvement, if any, of the honourable member in activities of the Council of the City of Richmond in Victoria and Protean (Holdings) Ltd?

There will always be people who unfortunately seek to denigrate those in the community, particularly those in public life, for some personal advantage. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports has not raised his standards since he resigned as Leader of the Labor Opposition in the Victorian Parliament. I register my concern that Opposition members in this Parliament are prepared -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for McMillan may not reflect upon or impugn the character of another honourable member unless it is done by way of debate on a substantive motion.

Mr SIMON:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I register my concern that Opposition members in this Parliament are prepared to use the honourable member in a manner which does nothing to advance the stature of his own party. More particularly, in the eyes of the Australian people, we are all tainted by his contempt.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon)- I put the word ‘honourable’ in inverted commas- has caused me to rise to my feet tonight. I had no intention of doing so. It seems to me that the honourable member has made a cowardly attack upon the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding). Anybody in this chamber at the moment would know by looking along the benches that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports is not present in the chamber. I am not to know whether the honourable member for McMillan gave notice to the honourable member for Melbourne Ports that he was going to raise this matter tonight, but it seems to me that it is cowardly, unmanly and not in the best traditions of this or any other parliament for any honourable member to rise to his feet and launch an attack on another honourable member who is not present to defend himself. I rose to my feet when the honourable member for McMillan was making his remarks and I was going to raise exactly that point. For almost five minutes the honourable member engaged -

Mr Bourchier:

– What about the Craigieburn land deals?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! I ask the honourable member for Bendigo to refrain from interjecting.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. For almost five minutes- with the exception of the interruption by the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones), who was provoked into rising to his feet- the honourable member for McMillan launched into an attack on the honourable member for Melbourne Ports. The honourable member for McMillan should know the Standing Orders of this House. As I said, I rose to my feet in an attempt to bring him to order on that point. It is not within the compass of the Standing Orders of this chamber for any honourable member to make an attack on any other member of this chamber unless it be in the form of a debate on a substantive motion. The honourable member did not do that. In fact at this hour of the night he cannot do it unless he can suspend Standing Orders, because the Standing Orders do not enable him to move a substantive motion at this time of the night. At any other time of the day, with the concurrence of the Acting Leader of the House, he could well have done that but in his true cowardly fashion he waited until this hour of the evening.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER ((Mr Millar)Order! The honourable member for Burke knows full well that that is a personal reflection on the honourable member for McMillan. I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I withdraw it. In his usual fashion -

Mr Bourchier:

– I raise a point of order. Night after night here during adjournment debates we have listened to the Labor Party Opposition members attacking honourable members on this side using all of those cowardly points that they talk about. They have raised them and have said many times that we are out of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Bendigo will resume his seat. There is no substance to the point of order.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-That is a tactic that the honourable member for Bendigo has been using for a long time. He spent some considerable time defying you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Bourchier:

– I raise a point of order. I ask the honourable member for Burke to tell us about the Craigieburn land deals in which he was involved and which were totally corrupt.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable member for Bendigo persists in taking specious points of order I will be forced to deal with him.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I demand a withdrawal of that statement by the honourable member for Bendigo. I know nothing of the matter about which he is speaking. I am not corrupt, nor have I been involved in any corrupt land deals. I demand an unequivocal retraction of that statement by that cur from Bendigo.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair did not recognise the statement by the honourable member for Bendigo as a reflection on the character of the honourable member for Burke. I must ask the honourable member for Burke to withdraw the specific reflection that he made.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I will withdraw that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I trust that when you read the record tomorrow, when you find out what that cur said, you will then demand a retraction.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Burke has again used the term and I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-It is probably spelt Kerr’. I am not used to corruption being used in connection with my name in this place or in any other place. I will not sit idly by while you allow any honourable member of this place to make such an allegation without demanding a retraction.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Burke that he must not defy the Chair.

Mr KEITH JOHNSON Sir, you can warn me as much as you like but I will not sit idly in this place or anywhere else and have the word corruption’ associated with my name.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Burke will be seated. I ask him to apologise to the Chair for his defiance.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I refuse to apologise because the honourable member for Bendigo used the word corruption’ in association with my name and you did not demand a retraction.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-‘Totally corrupt’ were the words he used.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Burke will resume his seat. I warn him that if he persists in that action I will have to deal with him. The honourable member’s time has expired.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1651

TREATIES

The following treaties were deemed to have been presented on 2 May 1978, by command of His Excellency the Governor-General:

Texts of Treaties to which Australia has become party by signature.

Exchange of Notes signed at Tokyo on 30 September 1977 constituting an Agreement with the Government of Japan concerning the return to the Government of Japan of certain portions of the land granted to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for use as the British Commonwealth War Cemetery at Yokohama, under an Agreement signed on 21 September 1955.

Agreement between United Nations and Government of Australia concerning provision of RAAF Caribou aircraft for use by the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) signed at New York and Canberra on 9 September and 2 1 December 1977.

Exchange of Letters signed at Wellington on 25 November 1977 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand on Tariffs and Tariff Preferences.

Text of a Treaty which Australia has signed but which requires further treaty action before entering into force for Australia.

Cultural Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania signed at Bucharest on 1 7 November 1 977.

Treaty Amendment Accepted for Australia.

Instrument of acceptance dated 10 November 1977 accepting for Australia an amendment to the Agreement establishing the Association of Iron Ore Exporting Countries.

House adjourned at 10.53 p.m.

page 1652

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Advertising (Question No. 26)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) What sum was spent by his Department on advertising and services during the period (a) 1 1 November 1975 to 13 December 1975, (b) 14 December 1975 to 30 June 1976, (c) 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977 and (d) 1 July 1977 to date.
  2. What was the cost of each campaign undertaken.
  3. Under which item of expenditure were funds allocated.
  4. Which advertising agencies or consultants were used for each campaign.
  5. What was the total sum paid to each agency or consultant for each campaign.
  6. 6) How was each agency or consultant selected.
  7. What is the estimated cost of advertising and promotion of Government programs and services for 1977-78.
Mr Lynch:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1) (a) $690; (b) $4732; (c) $2949; (d) $476 1 (to date).
  2. The nature and cost of advertising was:
  1. The selection of each agency was arranged through the Australian Government Advertising Service in accordance with Finance Direction 31/41.
  2. The estimated cost of advertising and promotion of Government programs and services for 1977-78 by the Department is $15,000 for the promotion of theDepartmental Booklets on Small Business.

Advertising (Question No. 34)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 February 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What sum was spent by his Department on advertising and services during the period- (a) 11 November 1975 to 13 December 1975, (b) 14 December 1975 to 30 June 1976, (c) 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977 and (d) 1 July 1977 to date.
  2. ) What was the cost of each campaign undertaken.
  3. Under which item of expenditure were funds allocated.
  4. Which advertising agencies or consultants were used for each campaign.
  5. What was the total sum paid to each agency or consultant for each campaign.
  6. How was each agency or consultant selected.
  7. What is the estimated cost of advertising and promotion of Government programs and services for 1977-78.
Mr Killen:
Minister for Defence · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) The amounts spent by the Department of Defence during the periods nominated, on advertising and services, are:

    1. 11.1 1.75 to 13.12.75- $133,383
    2. 14.12.75 to 30.6.76-$830,980
    3. 1.7.76 to 30.6.77-$2,395,072
    4. 1.7.77 to31.1.78fi$l,433,310
  2. The cost of each campaign undertaken was:

  1. Funds were allocated under Appropriation Item 233/1/1 1 -Advertising.
  2. The Minister for Administrative Services has appointed Placing/Charging Agencies to undertake the placement of all Government Advertising in the media. These are the only agencies to whom Departmental payments have been made.

The creative agencies used for specific campaigns are shown below.

  1. No Defence Force Recruiting Branch records are maintained of expenditure by Agencies by campaigns before 30 June 1976.

The details of payment to Agencies by broad campaigns since that date follow.

  1. As mentioned above, the Placing/Charging Agencies are appointed by the Minister for Administrative Services on the advice of Australian Government Advertising Service after a competitive selection procedure.

Each creative agency is selected from a panel of four or five Agencies chosen by AGAS as suitable to undertake the particular campaign. The selection is made by a board comprising AGAS and Defence Force Recruiting Branch representatives.

  1. The 1977-78 Defence Budget allocation under Appropriation Item 233/ 1 / 1 1 is $2,5 1 3,000.

Advertising (Question No. 45)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. What sum was spent by the Attorney-General’s Department on advertising and services during the period (a) 1 1 November 1975 to 13 December 1975, (b) 14 December 1975 to 30 June 1976, (c) 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977 and (d) 1 July 1977 to date.
  2. 2 ) What was the cost of each campaign undertaken.
  3. Under which item of expenditure were funds allocated.
  4. Which advertising agencies or consultants were used for each campaign.
  5. What was the total sum paid to each agency or consultant for each campaign.
  6. How was each agency or consultant selected.
  7. What is the estimated cost of advertising and promotion of Government programs and services for 1977-78.
Mr Viner:
LP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. (a) $5,194; (b) $29,038; (c) $64,799; (d) $37,923 (to 28 February, 1978).
  2. ) The nature and cost of advertising was:
  1. Appropriation Items 165/2/10 - Attorney-General’s Department, Incidental and other expenditure 166/2/03 - Office of Parliamentary Counsel, Incidental and other expenditure 170/2/07 - High Court, Incidental and other expenditure 171/2/08 - Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Office, Incidental and other expenditure 172/2/08 - Courts Administration, Incidental and other expenditure 173/2/08 - Family Law, Incidental and other expenditure 175/2/08 - Australian Legal Aid Office, Incidental and other expenditure 178/2/00 - Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Incidental and other expenditure 184/1 - Australian Institute of Criminology, for expenditure under the Criminology Research Act- Running Expenses 185/1 - Criminology Research Council, Criminology Research (for payment to the Criminology Research Fund) 186/1 - Law Reform Commission, for expenditure under the Law Reform Commission Act- running expenses
  2. to (6) The bulk of advertising ($1 17,307) was arranged through the Australian Government Advertising Service. Exceptions were local advertisements ($939), advertising in specialised publications, especially legal publications ($14,114) and advertising that did not come within the ambit of the Australian Government Advertising Service ($4,594).
  3. $49,800.

Advertising (Question No. 51)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 21 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) What sum was spent by his Department on advertising and services during the period (a) 1 1 November 1975 to 13 December 1975, (b) 14 December 1975 to 30 June 1976, (c) 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977 and (d) 1 July 1977 to date.
  2. What was the cost of each campaign undertaken.
  3. Under which item of expenditure were funds allocated.
  4. Which advertising agencies or consultants were used for each campaign.
  5. What was the total sum paid to each agency or consultant for each campaign.
  6. How was each agency or consultant selected.
  7. What is the estimated cost of advertising and promotion of Government programs and services for 1977-78.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I am informed by my Department as follows:

As to ( 1 ) Sum spent on advertising:

1 1 November 1975 to 13 December 1975, $6,393.92; (b) 14 December 1975 to 30 June 1976, $14,211.52; (c) 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977, $81,628.51; (d) 1 July 1977 to 31 March 1978, $54,195.55.

As to (2) Cost of each campaign:

Anti-litter campaign 1976-77, $15,708.96; (ii) Antilitter/recycling campaign 1977-78, $7,341.68 (to date).

Other expenditure was on an ad hoc basis for items such as road closures, transport services, recruitment notices, recreational programs, land sales, etc.

As to (3) Item of expenditure:

General Advertising- Division: Administrative; SubDivision: Administrative Expenses; Advertising: Item.

Bus Operations (Trust Account)- Losses subsidised byDivision: Administrative; Sub-Division: Other Services; Item: City Omnibus Service.

As to (4), (5) and (6) Agencies/Consultants:

The Australian Government Advertising Service was used for all advertising. Agreements, fees, etc., with other agencies/consultants is the responsibility of the Service.

As to (7) Estimated expenditure 1 977-78, $85,000.

Natural Gas, North West Shelf Field (Question No. 61)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

Did he say on 24 August 1977, with reference to the development of the North West Shelf gas field, that exports of condensate will be permitted subject to satisfactory evidence that every reasonable effort has been made to market the product in Australia; if so, what action does the Government expect the consortium to take to encourage the marketing of LPG in Australia.

Mr Newman:
Minister for National Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

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

The statement of 24 August 1977 on the North West Shelf project by the then Minister for National Resources referred to exports of condensate from the North West Shelf project, in the terms contained in the honourable member’s question.

Although LPG was not specifically mentioned in that statement, the approval given to the North West Shelf Joint Venture is subject to the same condition in respect of LPG as that applying to condensate.

Ranger Uranium Project: Consultation with Aborigines (Question No. 62)

Mr Uren:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. Did he receive a telegram from the Northern Land Council on or about 4 October 1977; if so what was the full text of the telegram.
  2. Does the intention of the joint venturers to carry on with preliminary road and site construction violate recommendation 1 of Chapter 12 on page 328 of the Second Ranger Report which provides that Aboriginal title should be granted, the national park established and the necessary control mechanisms set up before any substantial amount of construction work is done on the Ranger project or substantial numbers of people are brought into the area.
  3. Will the Government carry out all the preliminary actions, as recommended on page 305 of the Second Ranger Report before allowing the continuance of any developmental work at Jabiru, N.T.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) On 6 October I received a telegram- the text of which the honourable member had incorporated in Hansard of 1 1 October- from the traditional Aboriginal owners of the Alligator Rivers region.
  2. To undertake any substantial amount of construction work on the Ranger project or to bring a substantial number of workers into the Ranger area without agreement would appear to be contrary to the recommendation of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Report referred to by the honourable member.
  3. The recommendations of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, to which the honourable member referred, do not mean that any developmental work could not proceed at Jabiru prior to the implementation of the recommendations in question. As already stated, substantial work would be contrary to the recommendations of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry.

I would draw the honourable member’s attention to subsection 44 (2) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act which provides for an agreement to be entered into between the Commonwealth and the Northern Land Council concerning terms and conditions for mining in the Ranger project area. Consultations have commenced with the Land Council on the content of the agreement. The Land Council’s function is to ascertain and express the wishes and opinions of the Aboriginals living within its area of operations on the use and management of Aboriginal land. It also conducts negotiations on their behalf and in consultation with them.

As I said on 9 February 1978 the Government feels that an early conclusion of negotiations is important. The Government will do everything in its power to ensure that the Ranger project is developed as quickly as possible subject to meeting the necessary constraints, social and environmental, and protecting Aboriginal interests in accordance with the Government’s statements in Parliament on 25 August last year.

Public Servants and Service Personnel: Employment after Retirement (Question No. 71)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did the officer who represented the Department of Social Security on the interdepartmental committee concerned with selecting a computer for the Australian Bureau of Statistics seek the approval of the Department or the Public Service Board before taking employment with the successful tenderer.
  2. Which departments, other than the Department of Social Security, were represented on the committee.
  3. Has his attention been drawn to the situation revealed by the Minister for Defence on 2 November 1977 (Hansard, page 2746) that, once his service is terminated, an RAAF officer is no longer bound to comply with Air Force Orders requiring him to obtain the approval of the Air Board before accepting a business appointment within 2 years of retirement or resignation and that there is no requirement in Naval Regulations for a naval officer to seek approval to accept a business appointment.
  4. What steps are being taken to adopt effective procedures to cover such situations.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. The other bodies then represented on the Committee were the Public Service Board, the Departments of Finance and Defence and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. For the purpose of the particular tender the regular members of the Committee were joined by representatives of the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the then Department of Overseas Trade. This was in accord with the normal practice of co-opting client Departments or authorities to the IDC.
  3. Yes.
  4. The Government has decided that this question should be one of the matters expressly referred to the Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest, which is to be chaired by Sir Nigel Bowen.

Tasmania: Callaghan Report (Question No. 79)

MrE. G. Whitlam asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 23 February 1978:

Which recommendations has the Government accepted in the report on the structure of industry and the employment situation in Tasmania which was presented to his predecessor by Sir Bede Callaghan on 30 June 1 977.

Which recommendations has the Government rejected.

Which recommendations is the Government still considering.

Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. ) The report of Sir Bede Callaghan, Inquiry into the Structure of Industry and the Employment Situation in Tasmania, presents an overview of the current situation in Tasmania. The report makes broad observations and recommendations and suggests further lines of inquiry but does not make detailed or specific recommendations. It contains a series of observations relevant to long term planning in Tasmania and highlights the considerable complexity and interaction of many of the issues.

The Government recognises there should be considerate policy-making in regard to Tasmania and the development of programs that offer a long term package towards solving Tasmania’s problems means a careful consideration and examination of the recommendations of the Callaghan Report.

The Government has decided on a range of issues raised by Sir Bede that could be examined immediately by the Commonwealth. The development of the 10-point plan strategy which was announced on 9 November 1977 indicates the determination of the Government to consider in detail the feasibility of propositions put forward by Sir Bede.

  1. The Government has rejected one conclusion of Sir Bede Callaghan. He suggests that any future scheme of joint contribution towards industry decentralisation or development, structural adjustment, reconstruction or modernisation as well as schemes to improve industrial design or efficiency should be on the basis of Tasmania ‘s current personal income tax sharing arrangements (2: 1 Commonwealth/State ratio).

However, if the Government were to be committed to provide assistance on the basis of tax-sharing relativities such a commitment could have the effect of pre-empting decisions on appropriate cost-sharing arrangements for any Commonwealth specific purpose measure.

The share of any industry assistance programs that might be met by the Commonwealth could rather be determined for each program, its relationship to constitutional and other responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the relative priority of the Commonwealth’s and the States capacity to pay at the time. Our recent decision to meet 100 per cent of the cost of assisting the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Company illustrates the flexibility which is desirable.

  1. The report of Sir Bede is being jointly examined by a Commonwealth/State Committee which has been established by the Commonwealth and State Governments. The Committee met for the first time on 24 February 1978. The Commonwealth/State Committee will be the main forum for further long term considerations of appropriate policies and programs for Tasmania.

Commonwealth Employment Service: Interpreter Services (Question No. 96)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

In which offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service outside South Australia have dual handset telephones now been installed to assist staff in conducting three-way interviews with interpreters and non English speaking clients. (Hansard, 26 October 1977, page 2469).

Mr Street:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · LP

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

New South Wales: Bankstown, Blacktown, Brookvale, Campbelltown, Caringbah, Fairfield, Granville, Hurstville, Liverpool, Manly, Mascot, Mt Druitt, Surry Hills, Warilla.

Victoria: Altona, Ararat, Ballarat, Bendigo, Boronia, Box Hill, Brunswick, Camberwell, Coburg, Colac, Collingwood, Corio, Dandenong, Echuca, Footscray, Frankston, Hamilton, Heidelberg, Horsham, Kerang, Melbourne, Mentone, Moonee Ponds, Moorabbin, Morwell, Newport, Niddrie, Northcote, Oakleigh, Prahran, Preston, Richmond, Ringwood, St Albans, St Kilda, South Melbourne, Springvale, Sunshine, Swan Hill, Wangaratta, Warragul, Warrnambool, Waverley.

Queensland: West End, Inala, Woolloongabba.

Western Australia: Cannington, Fremantle, Perth, West Penh, Osborne Park.

Northern Territory: Alice Springs, Casuarina.

In addition arrangements have been made for the installation of dual handsets in OCES at the following locations:

New South Wales: Bondi, Campsie, Kingsford, Leichhardt, Marrickville, North Sydney, Parramatta,

Penrith, Sydney, Windsor, Rozelle, Woden, Albury, Armidale, Bathurst, Bega, Broken Hill, Cessnock, Charlestown, Cowra, Dubbo, Goulburn, Grafton, Griffith, Inverell, Kempsey, Leeton, Lismore, Lithgow, Maitland, Murwillumbah, Nowra, Parkes, Taree, Wagga Wagga.

Tasmania: Hobart, Launceston, Burnie, Devonport, Mowbray, Glenorchy, Bellerive.

Convention on Collisions at Sea: Off-shore Industry Vessels (Question No. 105)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 22 February 1 978:

On what occasions and with what results have the Marine and Ports Council and its advisers discussed (a) the 1972 Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, which entered into force on 1 5 July 1 977 and (b) off-shore industry vessels, for which the Navigation Bill 1975 made provision but the Navigation Amendment Bill 1976 did not make provision (Hansard, 19 April 1977, page 970).

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The matters of: (a) the 1972 Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea; and (b) off-shore industry vessels, were discussed by Marine and Ports Council of Australia (MPCA) on 28 May 1976 and 26 November 1976. Advisers to MPCA on 3 October 1975, 24 May 1976, 16 June 1976, 23 August 1976, 16 November 1976, and 21 March 1978. Commonwealth/State discussions on both these matters are continuing.

Royal Commission on Human Relationships: Access and Assistance to Migrants (Question No. 152)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) When did he receive the report of the Royal Commission on Human Relationships.
  2. Was he consulted on the decision to withhold the funds which the Commission sought in order to employ 12 specially trained people fluent in the major migrant languages to make detailed reports on matters coming within its terms of reference, thus, the Commission found, denying the migrant community fair and equal access to it
  3. What measures are being taken to carry out the Commission ‘s recommendations 79 to 92 which concern migrants.
Mr MacKellar:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. 1 received the report of the Commission on or about 30 November 1977.
  2. I was not consulted in relation to any decisions taken concerning the provision of multi-lingual or other staff who might facilitate the access of migrants to the Commission.
  3. In relation to this part of the question I wish to draw the honourable member’s attention to the Prime Minister’s reply of 1 March 1978 to a question of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition concerning the report of the Commission.

The Prime Minister indicated that the views of the States on the report were being sought and that the Government would wish to be in a position to take full account of these and of the views of the community as a whole before coming to firm decisions on specific aspects of the report.

In the meantime, the recommendations relating to migrants to which the honourable member has referred are being examined within my Department, and careful consideration is being given to those aspects of them which relate to the responsibilities of my portfolio.

British Migrant Skills, Arrivals and Departures (Question No. 153)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. Did he tell me on 22 September 1977 (Hansard, page 1544) that Britain was the only country in which Australia advertised for migrants in 1976-77 because Britain was considered to offer the best prospects of attracting migrants with readily recognised trade and professional skills.
  2. What steps have since been taken to develop means of recognising the trade and professional skills of migrants from other countries.
  3. What will be the total expenditure on advertising for migrants in 1 977-78 in (a) Britain, and (b) other countries.
  4. What number and percentage of settlers arriving in 1976-77 from (a) Britain and Ireland, and (b) other countries received assisted passages.
  5. What number and percentage of Australian residents departing permanently in 1976-77 were former settlers from (a) Britain and Ireland, and (b) other countries.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. Yes. However, I referred to ‘skills which are in strong and continuing demand in Australia ‘.
  2. Trade recognition criteria in the metal and electrical trades for Britain and a number of European countries were established in 1 969 following the visit to Europe by an Australian Tripartite Mission comprising Government, employer and union members to study the training of skilled workers in the metal and electrical trades. Similar missions visited the Philippines and South America in 1 974 and criteria for the countries visited have also been established by Central Trades Committees which have representatives of the unions and employer organisations in the trades concerned as well as a representative of the Government.

The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs employs technical advisers overseas. These officers are fully versed in trade requirements in Australia in the metal and electrical fields and are able to assess whether a prospective migrant’s trade qualifications meet the criteria determined for recognition as a tradesman in Australia and advise the prospective migrant accordingly.

Any migrant applicants in countries for which criteria for recognition have not been set are required to provide full details of their qualifications and these are examined in Australia by the appropriate Central Trades Committee which advises on the prospects of recognition in Australia.

Against this background, it has been decided to introduce an ongoing program of missions to establish trade recognition criteria in significant migrant source countries not previously visited and to revise existing criteria. As the first stage in the program, arrangements are being completed for a Tripartite Mission to study the training of skilled workers in the metal and electrical trades in a number of Asian countries this year.

The Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications, which was set up in 1969 continues to work in the area of the recognition of professional qualifications from all overseas countries. The Committee’s terms of reference are:

  1. 1 ) To seek out, assemble and collate information relevant to the recognition of overseas professional qualifications.
  2. ) To make evaluations, on its own authority, of the comparability of professional qualifications obtained in overseas countries to the standards required in Australia.
  3. To supply information on these matters to government statutory bodies, professional associations and other responsible inquirers.
  4. For the purpose of 1 and 2, to establish as necessary, expert panels whose task would be to undertake detailed investigations and assessment in specific professional areas; to co-ordinate the work of these panels.
  5. To undertake, or to authorise, such first-hand investigations as may be necessary for the proper discharge of its task.

The terms of reference restrict the Committee to work on professional’ qualifications and exclude consideration of trade qualifications, though the question of extending its terms of reference to sub-professional and technical areas is now being considered.

The Committee has set up expert panels in 14 fields to assist it with its work. It has developed screening examinations in several professions to enable potential migrants to demonstrate whether their professional competence is sufficient to enable them to obtain registration in Australia. This is a particularly important initiative since prospective migrants are able to ascertain the likelihood of registration in their profession while still overseas.

  1. The total expenditure on advertising for migrants in 1977-78 in (a) Britain is estimated at $145,000 and (b) other countries nil.
  2. The following table gives assisted and unassisted arrivals for 1976-77:
  1. The following table gives departures for 1976-77 of former settlers to Australia showing country of future residence as well as country of birth. While it may be assumed that the majority of those persons departing who give the United Kingdom or Ireland as their country of future residence were originally settlers from these countries, this is not necessarily so. Similarly, persons who were born in the United Kingdom and Ireland were not necessarily former settlers of the United Kingdom and Ireland. Thus the statistics cannot be combined into one table. Both tables indicate that departures of British born migrants in 1976-77 represented less than 1 per cent of all British migrants to Australia.

Reunion of East Timorese Families (Question No. 156)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

What have been the dates and outcome of visits by the Australian team of officials to East Timor and the Indonesian team to Australia to arrange the reunion of East Timorese families about which he made a ministerial statement on 30 March 1977.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

The Indonesian Government has advised that final arrangements for the visit to East Timor by an Australian Immigration team will be discussed after the Presidential elections this month. We are, therefore, planning on the visit taking place in the near future.

Detailed arrangements for the visit of an Indonesian team to Australia have not been formulated.

Royal Commission on Petroleum: Consideration of Recommendations (Question No. 160)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. Which recommendations of the Petroleum Royal Commission have been accepted by the Government.
  2. Which recommendations have been rejected.
  3. Which recommendations are still being considered.
Mr Newman:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (3). I assume the honourable member is referring to the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Reports of the Royal Commission on Petroleum, as these are the only ones received since the change of Government in 1 975.

The Government’s action in relation to the Fourth Report is recorded in a statement by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs on 31 May 1977.

As to the Fifth and Sixth Reports, the Government has yet to consider the reports of inter-departmental committees, but expects to do so in the near future.

Publication of Acts, Rules and Ordinances (Question No. 170)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 28 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) When is it expected that the next annual volume of ( a) Acts of the Parliament; and (b) Statutory Rules, will be published (Hansard, 3 1 March 1977, page 886).
  2. What steps have been taken to prepare a consolidated edition of Statutory Rules, which were last consolidated in 1956 (Hansard, 25 February 1971, page 644).
  3. Is the Attorney-General’s Department responsible for preparing consolidated editions of legislation in the Territories; if so, when is it expected that such editions will next be published for each Territory.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Attorney-General has provided the following answers to the honourable member’s question:

  1. (a) Final printing of the next annual volume of Acts (the 1974 volume) is now in progress and deliveries of the volume for distribution are expected to commence this month. Work is progressing simultaneously on the 1975, 1 976 and 1 977 annual volumes of Acts, and no effort is being spared to ensure that they are published at the earliest practicable dates after the 1974 volume. Extra staff from the Attorney-General’s Department has been diverted for the purpose, and special arrangements have been made with the assistance of the Government Printer and the Australian Government Publishing service to speed up the processes. As an ad hoc measure, some of my Department’s staff have been located on the spot in the Government Printing Office.

I might inform the House that, because the Acts in the volumes are being re-set by computer type-setting methods, a higher than usual number of errors has occurred in successive proof stages. This has resulted in some slowing down of the processes, but steps are being taken to reduce delays caused by this factor to a minimum. The adaptation of computer type-setting, which was designed primarily for producing the daily Hansard, to the more precise lay-out of legislation has necessarily caused some problems at the technical end. However, the computer type-setting process results in an extremely valuable by-product in that the text of the Acts will be available in machine-readable form for the legal information retrieval system which my Department is developing and which will be of benefit to the Parliament, the Government and the community generally when fully developed. The computer type-setting process will also help to reduce the time for producing reprints in the future.

  1. 1) (b) Priority attention will be given to overcoming the arrears in publication of the annual volumes of Statutory Rules as soon as the publication of the Acts volumes has reached a satisfactory state.
  2. and (3) The Attorney-General’s Department is responsible for preparing consolidations of the legislation of the Commonwealth and the Territories.

A special Section has been established in my Department for the purpose of concentrating solely on the production, on a regular cyclic basis, of bound collections (similar to the Acts of the Parliament 1901-1973’) of Acts, Commonwealth Statutory Rules, Australian Capital Territory laws and Northern Territory laws and, if required, of laws of external Territories like Norfolk Island.

A consolidation (estimated to comprise 5 volumes) of the Ordinances and Regulations of the Australian Capital Territory as in force at the end of 1 977 is presently being prepared in the Attorney-General’s Department. The first volume is expected to be published towards the end of 1 978, with subsequent volumes following at a bout 6- weekly intervals.

It is planned to follow the Australian Capital Territory general reprint with general reprints of the Northern Territory laws and of the Commonwealth Statutory Rules, followed by further general reprints of the Acts and the other bodies of law at regular intervals.

Nurses: Access to Higher Education (Question No. 181)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that Federal funding has not been approved for the 2-year post service nurses’ course leading to a degree in nursing at the Western Australian Institute of Technology (WAIT).
  2. Is the nursing degree program being conducted by WAIT the first post registration course of its kind in Australia.
  3. Have similar programs been planned for commencement in 1978 by the Lincoln Institute of Health Sciences, Victoria, which proposed degree courses in nursing administration and nursing education.
  4. Did the Commission on Advanced Education recommend approval of the nursing degree program at WAIT and was this recommendation rejected by the Tertiary Education Commission.
  5. Does the decision discriminate against the nursing profession by denying nurses access to higher education and the opportunity to upgrade, increase and improve their professional knowledge and skills.
  6. Is the decision of the Tertiary Education Commission at variance or in keeping with the attitude of the Government and is any Government initiative likely to occur which will have the effect of facilitating continuation of the courses both at WAIT and the Lincoln Institute.
Mr Staley:
LP

-The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. to (6) Under the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1977, the Tertiary Education Commission has the statutory responsibility for approving advanced education courses for funding purposes. Towards the end of last year the Commission considered several courses in nurse education which had been proposed for approval for funding purposes, including post-basic degree courses in nursing at the Western Australian Institute of Technology, and in nursing education and nursing administration at the Lincoln Institute. The Commission decided not to approve these courses for funding purposes in 1 978 as it considered that approval of these proposals would pre-empt the deliberations of the Committee on Nurse Education and Training, which the Government has established to provide objective advice on the whole range of questions relating to the education and training of nurses at both the basic and post-basic level. In particular, the Commission was aware that the proposed course at the Western Australian Institute of Technology, which the Advanced Education Council had recommended for approval prior to the establishment of the Committee on Nurse Education and Training, would be the first degree course in nursing to be introduced at a tertiary institution in Australia and the Commission was concerned at the possible implications of such a move when the whole question of nurse education was under review.

I understand that the Committee on Nurse Education and Training will be reporting to the Tertiary Education Commission later this year. If proposals are re-submitted to the Advanced Education Council the question of approval of degree courses in nursing at the Western Australian Institute of Technology and the Lincoln Institute can then be reexamined, in the light of a co-ordinated, national plan for the development of nurse education and training.

Development Research (Question No. 197)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 February, 1978:

  1. Have any decisions been taken on the recommendations made in the report by Dr Helen Hughes on ‘Development Research in Australia ‘ since his reply to question No. 87 1 on 7 September 1976 (Hansard, page 778).
  2. Does the Government intend to establish an institute of development studies.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. Dr Helen Hughes’s report has been helpful to the Government in a number of ways. For example, it has confirmed the value of external expert advice. You may wish to know that I recently established a Consultative Committee on Research for Development to assist the Australian Development Assistance Bureau identify and make specific recommendations concerning research and research-related projects, institutions and programs which benefit developing countries and which might be assisted under the aid program.

The work of this Committee will ensure that much greater emphasis is given to support for development research, by mobilising Australian capabilities more effectively than has been possible until now.

  1. The Government does not at present have before it any proposal for establishing an Institute of Development Studies. In due course, the Consultative Committee on Research for Development will be examining possible institutional arrangements for supporting development research activities under the aid program.

South Australian Non-metropolitan Railways: Effect of Takeover (Question No. 221)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) In view of the concern being felt in the 3 main railway towns of Port Augusta, Port Pirie and Peterborough in South Australia as to the effect on these towns as a result of the takeover of South Australian country rail services, can he give a clear indication as to what changes are likely in each of these towns.
  2. ) What staff changes are likely in the 3 towns as a result of any rationalisation of rail services.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The honourable member will be aware that the Australian National Railways Commission assumed full operational control of the non-metropolitan South Australian railways on 1 March 1978. The Commission is presently examining the current spread of railway activities in various railway towns, along with many related matters, consequent upon assuming control of the South Australian railways and of their amalgamation within the complete

ANR system. Until this examination proceeds further, I am not in a position to indicate what changes might be expected to take place in these three towns. Any proposed changes would of course take full account of the rights and welfare of the employees involved.

Department of Industry and Commerce: Expenditure on Travel and Subsistence (Question No. 246)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 7 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What amounts of travel and subsistence expenditure of his Department were spent on (a) overseas and (b) domestic travel during 1976-77.
  2. What percentage of total expenditure on travel and subsistence did each of these amounts represent.
  3. Did this question first appear on the Notice Paper of5 October 1977 as question No. 1640 and remain unanswered at the dissolution of the last Parliament.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The amounts expended on travel and subsistence by this Department during 1 976-77 were:

    1. overseas travel, $33,849; (b) domestic travel, $143,818.
  2. These amounts as a percentage of the total expenditure on travel and subsistence are:

    1. overseas travel- 14 per cent and (b) domestic travel- 61 percent.
  3. Yes.

Department of Administrative Services: Expenditure on Travel and Subsistence (Question No. 249)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What amounts of travel and subsistence expenditure of the Department of Administrative Services were spent on (a) overseas and (b) domestic travel during 1976-77.
  2. What percentage of total expenditure on travel and subsistence did each of these amounts represent.
  3. ) Did thus question first appear on the Notice Paper of5 October 1977 as question No. 1639 and remain unanswered at the dissolution of the last Parliament.
Mr Street:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided me with the following answer to the honourable member’s question.

  1. The percentage of each of the amounts in ( 1 ) to total expenditure is:
  1. Yes.

Minister for National Development: Overseas Travel (Question No. 266)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) On what occasions and for what purposes has he travelled overseas since 1 1 November 1975.
  2. What was the name, classification and salary of each person who accompanied him on each occasion.
  3. What was the cost of- (a) travel, (b) accommodation and (c) other expenditure, and what was the total cost incurred in respect of himself and each person who travelled with him on each journey overseas.
  4. Which airlines and/or other means of transport were utilised during each journey overseas.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) I refer the honourable member to the reply provided by the Minister representing the Prime Minister to Senate Question No. 1116 (Senate Hansard, 9 November 1977, pages 2397-8).

Antarctic Resources (Question No. 302)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

What decisions have the 1 3 members of the Antarctica Treaty Organisation made on the exploitation and /or conservation of the natural resources in the Antarctic, particularly in respect of oil exploration and the harvesting of krill.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer which I gave to the question on notice No. 1876 (Hansard, 8

November 1977, page 3134) in the last Parliament. There have been no further decisions taken by the Antarctic Consultative Parties since that time.

Following a decision taken at the Ninth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in London last year, a Special Consultative Meeting met in Canberra from 27 February- 16 March to elaborate a draft definitive regime for the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources. This meeting will continue this task in Buenos Aires in July. We expect a decisive meeting to establish the regime will be held later this year. This meeting will involve the Consultative Parties in major decisions on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources.

Officers of Department of Foreign Affairs associated with UNESCO (Question No. 319)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many officers of his Department were engaged (a) full-time and (b) part-time on duties associated with UNESCO as at (i) November 1975 and (ii) November 1 976 and what were the classifications of these officers.
  2. What are the corresponding details as at the present timer
  3. 3 ) Are all positions currently occupied.
  4. Where are the positions located.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. (i) At November, 1975 the following officers of the Department were engaged on duties associated with UNESCO:
  1. As at 1 March 1978, the corresponding details were:
  1. All Canberra-based positions within the International Organisations and Consular Division engaged on work associated with UNESCO are currently filled (i.e. 1 full-time and three part-time). Two of the three Paris based positions (all full-time) are also currently filled. The appointment of a full-time Ambassador was announced on 29 March 1978. The new Ambassador will take up his appointment later in the year.
  2. Please see 1, 2 and 3 above.

Meat Trade between Australia and New Zealand (Question No. 320)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. What quantity of (a) New Zealand meat was imported into Australia and (b) Australian meat was exported to New Zealand and in what categories, qualities or varieties in each of the last 3 years for which statistics are available.
  2. If the balance favours New Zealand exports, will he (a) investigate and (b) report upon the causes and the extent to which the various sectors and levels of the Australian meat industry appear to be affected.
Mr Anthony:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

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

  1. Statistics on meat trade between Australia and New Zealand are provided in the accompanying table.
  2. Although the balance of this trade favours New Zealand, the level of imported meat is insignificant when compared to Australia’s very large domestic production. (Australia produced 2.7 million tonnes of meats in 1 976-77.)

I am therefore not convinced that any useful purpose would be achieved by an investigation such as that suggested by the honourable member.

Copper Oxide (Question No. 332)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 2 March, 1978:

  1. Is the Samin Copper Mine at Burra, South Australia, the only mine in Australia producing copper oxide as its main product.
  2. Are most of the products from this mine exported overseas.
  3. What prospects are there for a greater use of copper oxide from the mine for chemical fertilisers and other uses within Australia to ensure continuity of production at this mine.
  4. What other potential uses are there for this product.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. The company has informed my Department it expects to substantially increase sales to the Australian fertiliser industry during 1978, while negotiations are being conducted to increase tonnage sold to the United States market at more favourable prices.
  4. While the main markets for copper oxide are in the chemical and fertiliser industries it is also used in the ceramic, animal, food, glass, electronic, automotive and metallurgical industries.

Status of Forces Agreements (Question No. 341)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1 978:

With which countries does Australia have Status of Forces agreements (a) in force and (b) under negotiation (Hansard, 16 November 1964, page 3058, 21 September 1966, page 1 160 and 28 May 1969, page 2443).

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

Australia is a party to the Agreement of 19 February 1 954 concerning the status of United Nations Forces in Japan.

Australia concluded an Agreement on 9 May 1963 with the United States concerning the Status of United States Forces in Australia. On 1 0 October 1 965 the President of the United States issued a proclamation under the provisions of the Service Courts of Friendly Foreign Forces Act, which permits Australia to exercise within the United States jurisdiction over offences committed by members of the Australian Armed Forces in the United States. Negotiations have not been concluded with the United States on the terms of a reciprocal Status of Forces Agreement, in accordance with the protocol to the Agreement of 9 May 1963 concerning the status of United States forces in Australia.

On 1 December 1971 Exchanges of Notes between Australia and Malaysia and Australia and Singapore (constituting the Five Power Defence Arrangements) were signed which inter alia concerns the status of Australian forces in those countries.

A reciprocal Status of Forces Agreement with Papua New Guinea entered into force on 26 January 1977.

The Australian visiting forces legislation under the Visiting Forces Act of 1 963 can be invoked to make provision for the status in Australia of visiting forces from a declared member of the Commonwealth of Nations (and the United States). Similar reciprocal legislation is known to exist in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada and Malaysia and by adoption of imperial law in several other member states of the Commonwealth of Nations.

Negotiations for a Reciprocal Claims Agreement with Canada are in the initial stages while such negotiations with the United Kingdom and New Zealand are well advanced.

Protection of States against Domestic Violence (Question No. 343)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 2 March 1978:

Has the Executive Government of a State ever made application under section 1 19 of the Constitution for the Commonwealth to protect the State against domestic violence.

Mr Viner:
LP

-The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

I refer the honourable member to Question upon Notice No. 2364 asked by him and answered in the House of Representatives Hansard for 1 5 September 1971. The question was similar to the present question. The answer provided by the then Prime Minister remains applicable. Since that answer was given, the Commonwealth has not received an application by a State under section 1 1 9 of the Constitution for protection by the Commonwealth against domestic violence.

Prosecutions: Attorney-General’s Consent (Question No. 344)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 2 March 1978:

Has the Attorney-General’s Department prepared the list of the Federal Acts and Statutory Rules and the Territory Ordinances and Regulations which make the consent of the Attorney-General a prerequisite to a prosecution for an offence (Hansard, 5 May 1970, page 1640, 3 May 1971, page 2414, and 23 May 1972, page 2950).

Mr Viner:
LP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The Commonwealth Acts listed below contain provisions that have the effect of requiring the consent of the Attorney-General to a prosecution for an offence against the Act or, where so indicated, against a provision of the Act. Some of the Acts also provide for consent to be given by persons authorised by the Attorney-General but there are no such authorisations.

Approved Defence Projects Protection Act 1947, section 4

Atomic Energy Act 1 953

Boy Scouts’ Association Act 1 924

Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, Part IV, Divisions 2 and 3

Crimes Act 1914, sections 24, 24AA, 24AB, Part VII; summary prosecutions under section 24c and 24d

Crimes (Aircraft) Act 1963

Crimes (Biological Weapons) Act 1975

Crimes ( Hijacking of Aircraft) Act 1 972

Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Act 1976

Crimes (Protection of Aircraft) Act 1972

Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952

Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act 1 946

Family Law Act 1975, section 121

Geneva Conventions Act 1 957, section 1 5

Insurance Acts, 1973, (for offences more than 3 years old)

International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963, section 12

Navigation Act 1 9 1 2, section 208

Patents Act 1 952, section 1 74

Prices Justification Acts 1973

Public Accounts Committee Act 1951

Public Works Committee Act 1969

Trading with the Enemy Act 1939, section 5.

  1. A list of Northern Territory Ordinances was prepared for the purposes of the Transfer of Powers (Further Provisions) Ordinance 1977 which gave effect to the Government’s policy of transferring the Attorney-General’s responsibilities under the criminal law of the Territory to the Northern Territory Executive. The relevant provisions are sections 204 and 279 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act and Ordinance.
  2. Although a list covering Statutory Rules and the legislation of the other Territories has not been prepared, that legislation is being computerised and retrieval of the relevant information from the computer will be a relatively simple task.

Merchant Seamen: Repatriation Benefits (Question No. 357)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Does the Repatriation Acts Amendment Act 1974 exclude Merchant Navy personnel who were prisoners of war from eligibility for those medical, surgical and paramedical benefits specifically granted to a ‘Member of the Forces’ as defined in the Repatriation Act 1973.
  2. Were representations made in 1976 to the then Minister by Captain J. Fowles and Captain C. L. Evans to amend the Act to grant these benefits to merchant seamen who were prisoners of war.
  3. 3 ) What action has the Government taken, or does it propose to take, to grant the desired concession.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. The Repatriation Acts (Amendment) Act 1974 provided for increases in pensions and other matters in relation to ‘members of the Forces’. This amending Act did not make any specific provision for the treatment of ‘members of the Forces’ who were prisoners of war. The amendments to the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940 effected by the Repatriation Acts Amendment Act 1974 do not relate to medical treatment services.

To be eligible for medical treatment as a prisoner of war, a person must qualify as a ‘member of the Forces’ as defined in the Repatriation Act Merchant seamen are covered under the Seamen’s War Pension and Allowances Act. The fundamental difference between the Repatriation Act and the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act is that the former provides for the payment of pensions and other benefits to members of the Forces ‘ in respect of death or disability arising from their service, whereas the latter provides benefits to seamen only in respect to injuries directly associated with enemy action.

Under the conditions of eligibility as they now stand a mariner is not entitled to free medical treatment solely on the grounds that he was interned as a prisoner of war.

  1. Yes.
  2. The Government has not taken any action to change the conditions of eligibility, nor is it considering any action.

Manufacturing Industry: Work Force (Question No. 365)

MrLionel Bowen asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 7 March 1978:

1 ) What was the total work force in the manufacturing industry area as at (a) October 1975 (b) October 1976 and (c) October 1977.

What were the numbers of employees for each of the following areas of manufacturing at the same dates: (a) clothing and footwear, (b) appliances, (c) metal products, (d) motor vehicles and parts, (e) textiles, (f) paper and printing, (g) industrial equipment, (h) building, (i) wholesaling and (j) road transport.

Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian Statistician has advised that estimates of the total work force employed (i.e. employees, employers, self-employed persons and unpaid family helpers) in manufacturing are derived from labour force surveys, which have been conducted only in February, May, August and November of each year. The estimates for November 1975, 1976 and 1977 are as follows:

Labour force survey estimates are subject to sampling variability, as explained in the Technical Note in the ABS publication “The Labour Force’, (6203.0).

  1. The Australian Statistician has advised that estimates of employees in the detail requested are not available from the labour force survey, but estimates of the number of civilian employees classified by industry, derived largely from information obtained from payroll tax returns and returns from government bodies, are published monthly. The latter are not strictly comparable with the estimates derived from the labour force survey.

Estimates of the numbers of employees in relevant industries for October 1973, 1976 and 1977 are shown in the following table. Estimates of employees of manufacturing establishments who are engaged in building, wholesaling and road transport activities are not available.

Commissioner for Housing Loans (Question No. 384)

Dr Jenkins:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 7 March 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What sum has been allocated under the Commissioner for Housing loans scheme in each of the last 5 years.
  2. What provisions have prevailed for persons taking advantage of the scheme in those years.
  3. 3 ) On how many occasions have funds not been available during each of those years.
  4. What is the current situation with respect to the availability of funds.
  5. Will more funds be allocated on 1 July 1978.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

On the questions ( 1) to (4) I am informed by my Department as follows:

As to ( 1 ) Funds appropriated for Commissioner for Housing loans and the amounts drawn against those appropriations during each of the past 5 years are tabled hereunder

By utilising recirculating funds together with drawings from the appropriations, loans totalling the amounts set out in the following table have been made in each of the past 4 years:

As to (2) Prior to 3 June 1976 virtually any persons not employed outside the Australian Capital Territory and having dependents could obtain a Commissioner for Housing loan.

From 3 June 1976 loans were restricted to applicants for whom the income of the main breadwinner did not exceed 95 per cent of Australian Capital Territory male average weekly earnings. The income level was increased by $2 for each dependent child in excess of 2 children in the family.

A convertible assets barrier and an upper limit on the value of the property being purchased was introduced in 1973. The latter has since been removed. The assets barrier is $25,000.

Since October 1974 concessional interest rates of 5% per cent have been available where the income of both the main breadwinner and spouse has not exceeded 95 per cent of Australian Capital Territory male average weekly earnings. Others pay the current Commonwealth Savings Bank rate of first mortgage loans. Concessional rates are subject to review at intervals not greater than 2 years.

Until October 1976 the interest rate on existing loans did not vary. From 1 October 1976 the rate on existing loans other than those at the concessional interest rate increased to 9!4 per cent. The rate varies with movements in the Commonwealth Savings Bank rate on first mortgages and has recently been reduced to 8% per cent.

To ensure that the limited funds left-available this year go to those most in need, loans are being made at the moment only to those who qualify for the 5% per cent concessional interest rate.

As to ( 3 ) Prior to this year, none.

As to (4) The funds available for lending during the 1977-78 financial year amount to $20.95 m made up as follows:

Approval exists for further borrowing of $2.2m and if it is possible to borrow to this level funds will increase to $23. 15m.

  1. The allocation of funds for Commissioner for Housing loans in 1978-79 is a matter which the Government will consider at budget time.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting (Question No. 391)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 March 1978:

  1. In order to provide services in connection with the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting held in Sydney, how many officers (a) from his Department and (b) from instrumentalities associated with his portfolio, travelled from their home base to another location.
  2. What was the cost of travel involved in these movements.
  3. What was the total cost of travelling and other allowances paid to these officers.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. (a) Three officers from the Treasury, including one who was seconded to the Meeting Secretariat for the duration of the Conference, travelled from Canberra to Sydney to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting.

    1. No officers from instrumentalities associated with my portfolio undertook travel away from their headquarters in relation to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meering.
  2. and (3) Information in respect of the officer seconded to the Secretariat is included in the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 385. The total cost of travelling and other allowances paid to the other two officers from the Treasury was $620.65, including $ 1 24.40 for travel.

International Court of Justice (Question No. 434)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Was an Australian national group established in 1 960 for the purpose of nominating candidates for election by the General Assembly and by the Security Council of the United Nations to fill vacancies in the International Court of Justice.
  2. If so, who have been members of the group on each occasion that it has nominated a candidate or candidates.
  3. Whom did the group nominate as a candidate or candidates on each occasion.
  4. Has a nomination been put forward to the group on behalf of the Government on any of those occasions; if so, did the Chief Justice refrain from participating in the group’s deliberations, as Chief Justice Dixon refrained from participating in the then national group’s deliberations on nominations for the triennial elections in 1957 (Hansard, 19 March 1957, page 13 and 22 May 1957, page 1894).
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) The Australian National Group nominated candidates for the elections held in 1960, 1966, 1969 and 1975.

    1. In 1960, the Group nominated Philip G. Jessup (USA), Helge Klaestad (Norway), Vladimir M. Koretsky (USSR) and Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan (Pakistan). For the casual vacancy created by the death of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht the Group nominated Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice (UK). At the time of making its nominations, the Group comprised Chief Justice of the High Court Sir Owen Dixon, former Chief Justice Sir John Latham, Sir Kenneth Bailey, then Commonwealth Solicitor-General, and Professor K. O. Shatwell, then Dean of the Faculty of Law in the University of Sydney
    2. In 1966 the Group nominated Sir Kenneth Bailey. At the time of making its nomination, the Group comprised Sir Owen Dixon, Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick, Sir Kenneth Bailey, then Australian High Commissioner in Ottawa, and Professor Shatwell.
    3. In 1969, the Group nominated Dr Thanat Khoman (Thailand), Mr Constantin Stavropoulos (Greece) and Dr Jimenez de Arechaga ( Uruguay ). The Group comprised Mr R. J. Ellicott, then Commonwealth Solicitor-General, Sir Garfield Barwick, Sir Kenneth Bailey, then Special Consultant in International Law to the Department of External Affairs, and Professor Shatwell.
    4. In 1975, the Group nominated Dr Edvard Hambro (Norway), President Manfred Lachs (Poland), Professor Shigeru Oda (Japan) and Judge C. D. Onyeama (Nigeria). The Group then comprised Sir Garfield Barwick, Mr M. H. Byers, Q.C., Commonwealth Solicitor-General, Mr C. W. Harders, Secretary of the Attorney-General ‘s Department, and Professor Shatwell.
  3. I am advised that before each election the Government has consulted with the Group to ensure that the Group is aware of the foreign policy implications of any decision it may make in regard to the nomination of candidates. The Government has also at times suggested candidates which the Group might consider nominating, but always on the understanding that the Group is an independent body which makes its own decision as to the weight which should be given to any suggestions put to it.
  4. I am advised that since his appointment to the Australian National Group in 1964, the Chief Justice has participated fully in the Group’s deliberations before each triennial election.

Department of Industry and Commerce: Expenditure on Domestic Air Travel (Question No. 441)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 1 4 March 1 978:

What sum was paid by his Department, or by Departments formerly encompassing the functions now performed by his Department, to each airline for air travel within Australia during 1976-77.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

Payments in 1976-77 as shown in the accounting records of my Department were:

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Expenditure on Domestic Air Travel (Question No. 454)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

What sum was paid by his Department, or by departments formerly encompassing the functions now performed by his Department, to each airline for air travel within Australia during 1976-77.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

Payments in 1976-77 as shown in the accounting records of my Department were:

Department of the Northern Territory: Expenditure on Domestic Air Travel (Question No. 455)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

What sum was paid by his Department, or by departments formerly encompassing the functions now performed by his Department, to each airline for air travel within Australia during 1976-77.

Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

Payments in 1976-77 as shown in the accounting records of my Department were:

Department of the Capital Territory: Expenditure on Domestic Air Travel (Question No. 466)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

What sum was paid by hisDepartment, or by departments formerly encompassing the functions now performed by his Department, to each airline for air travel within Australia during 1976-77.

Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I am informed that payments in 1976-77 as shown in the accounting records of theDepartment of the Capital Territory were:

Purchases of Newspapers and Periodicals (Question No. 469)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many copies of ( a ) each daily newspaper and ( b ) each weekly publication are purchased by (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of hisDepartment.
  2. What was the cost of these purchases during 1976-77.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to question No. 468 (Hansard, 4 April 1978, page 978).

Purchase of Newspapers and Periodicals (Question No. 471)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many copies of (a) each daily newspaper and ( b ) each weekly publication are purchased by (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of hisDepartment.
  2. ) What was the cost of these purchases during 1 976-77.
Mr Sinclair:
Minister for Primary Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to question No. 468 (Hansard, House of Representatives, 4 April 1978, page 978).

Purchase of Newspapers and Periodicals (Question No. 477)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many copies of ( a ) each daily newspaper and ( b ) each weekly publication are purchased by (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of hisDepartment.
  2. What was the cost of these purchases during 1 976-77.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. and (2) TheDepartment of Foreign Affairs has produced a submission to the reviewundertaken by the Department of Administrative Services and the Department of Finance referred to by the Prime Minister in his answer to question No. 468 on Tuesday 4 April, 1978. Details of the number of copies of particular newspapers and periodicals purchased by this Department in November 1977, and of assessed costs over a year will be available in the results of this review.

Purchases of Newspapers and Periodicals (Question No. 478)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many copies of (a) each daily newspaper and ( b) each weekly publication are purchased by (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of his Department.
  2. What was the cost of these purchases during 1976-77.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

I refer’ the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s reply to question No. 468, which appeared in Hansard, 4 April 1978 (p. 978).

Purchase of Newspapers and Periodicals (Question No. 482)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many copies of (a) each daily newspaper and ( b) each weekly publication are purchased by (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of his Department.
  2. What was the cost of these purchases during 1976-77.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) I refer the honourable member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to question No. 468 (Hansard, 4 April 1978, p. 978).

Purchase of Newspapers and Periodicals (Question No. 484)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many copies of (a) each daily newspaper and (b) each weekly publication are purchased by (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of his Depanment.
  2. ) What was the cost of these purchases during 1 976-77.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) I refer you to the answer given by the Prime Minister to question No. 468 (House of Representatives Hansard, 4 April 1978, page 978).

Purchase of Newspapers and Periodicals (Question No. 486)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1) How many copies of, (a) each daily newspaper and (b) each weekly publication are purchased by, (i) the Head Office and, (ii) other offices of his Depanment.
  2. What was the cost of these purchases during 1976-77.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I refer the honourable member to the reply provided by the Prime Minister to question No. 468 (House of Representatives Hansard, 4 April 1978, page 978).

Purchase of Newspapers and Periodicals (Question No. 492)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Special Trade representations, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. How many copies of (a) each daily newspaper, and (b) each weekly publication are purchased by (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of his Depanment.
  2. ) What was the cost of these purchases during 1 976-77.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to question No. 468 (Hansard, 4 April 1978, page 978).

Purchase of Newspapers and Periodicals (Question No. 495)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. How many copies of (a) each daily newspaper and (b) each weekly publication are purchased by (i) the Head Office and (ii ) other offices of his Depanment.
  2. What was the cost of these purchases during 1976-77.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to question No. 468 ( House of Representatives Hansard, 4 April 1 978, page 978 ).

Government Offices: Tea Making and Distribution (Question No. 499)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 14 March 1978:

  1. How many (a) full-time and (b) pan-time staff are employed on tea-making and distribution in (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of his Depanment.
  2. What was the cost in 1976-77 of (i) salaries and (ii) other charges in the provision of tea services in his Depanment.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. (a) Five (5) full-time staff are employed on teamaking in this Depanment.

    1. b ) No pan-time staff are employed on tea-making.

Distribution of the full-time staff is, (i) Head Office four (4) and (ii) other offices one ( 1 ).

  1. The cost in 1976-77 of (i) salaries has been calculated at $19,041 and (ii) there were no other charges incurred in the provision of tea services in this Depanment.

The functions and organisation of the Depanment of Industry and Commerce prior to December 1976 included the functions and organisation presently the responsibility of the Depanment of Productivity. For this reason the details of costs and staffing shown above are applicable to the period from 17 March 1 977 to 30 June 1 977 as the present structure and staffing of the Depanment of Industry and Commerce was effective for that period only.

Government Offices: Tea Making and Distribution (Question No. 501)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. How many (a) full-time and (b) part-time staff are employed on tea-making and distribution in (i) Head Office and (ii) other offices of the Department of Administrative Services.
  2. What was the cost in 1976-77 of (i) salaries and (ii) other charges in the provision of tea services in that Department.
Mr Street:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question.

  1. 1 ) There are four full-time staff and nine part-time staff employed in the Head Office of the Department on teamaking and distribution and three full-time staff and nine part-time staff in other offices of theDepartment.
  2. In 1976-77, salaries totalled$1 12,154 and other charges amounted to $ 1 , 3 1 4.

Government Offices: Tea Making and Distribution (Question No. 503)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many (a) full-time and (b) part-time staff are employed on tea-making and distribution in (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of hisDepartment.
  2. What was the cost in 1976-77 of (i) salaries and (ii) other charges in the provision of tea services in his Department.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (i) Head Office is located in both Canberra and Melbourne and is housed in three separate buildings in Canberra and ten in Melbourne, (a) 15 full-time, (b) 6 part-time.
  2. Regional Offices in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth, (a) 6 full-time, (b) 6 part-time.

    1. (i) $236,534, (ii) nil.

Government Offices: Tea Making and Distribution (Question No. 511)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. How many (a) full-time and (b) part-time staff are employed on tea-making and distribution in (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of his Department.
  2. What was the cost in 1976-77 of (i) salaries and (ii) other charges in the provision of tea services in his Department.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) (i) nil, (a) (ii) one. (b) (i) one, (b) (ii) two.
  2. (i) $74,642. (ii) Other costs in the provision of tea services are fully met by patrons of the service as required by the financial regulations.

The salaries of $74,642 paid in 1976-77 were for the four staff indicated in (1) above plus eleven canteen staff allocated part-time (up to six hours per day) for the provision of tea services in Central Office. The eleven canteen staff transferred on 1 July 1977 fromDepartment of Health to Commonwealth Hostels which is now responsible for the operation of canteens that provide tea services to most Department of Health Offices.

The above does not include provision of tea services to patients and staff in Northern Territory hospitals.

Government Officers: Tea Making and Distribution (Question No. 513)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. How many (a) full-time and (b) part-time staff are employed on tea-making and distribution in (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of hisDepartment.
  2. What was the cost in 1976-77 of (i) salaries and (ii) other charges in the provision of tea services in his Department.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) MyDepartment does not employ any full-time staff on tea-making and distribution. There are sixteen part-time people employed in Darwin only and these consist of seven part-time staff who work 25 hours’ per week and nine parttime staff who work 20 hours per week.
  2. In 1976-77 salaries totalled $63,025. Other related charges in provision of tea services was $755.

Government Offices: Tea Making and Distribution (Question No. 518)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. How many (a) full-time and (b) part-time staff are employed on tea-making and distribution in (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of the Attorney-General’s Department.
  2. What was the cost in 1976-77 of (i) salaries and (ii) other charges in the provision of tea services in that Department.
Mr Viner:
LP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answers to the honourable member’s question:

  1. (a) There are five full-time staff employed on teamaking, one in Head Office and four in State offices.
  2. (b) There are sevenpart-time staff employed on teamaking, five in Head Office and two in the State offices.
  3. (i) The cost of salaries in the 1976-77 financial year was $77,938.08.
  4. (ii) There were no other charges in that year. Staff contributions met the cost of consumables.

Animal Quarantine (Question No. 541)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

Does current planning for a high security offshore quarantine station still envisage that all animals passing through the station at any one time should all be drawn from the same region of the world; if so, why.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Yes. The principal reasons for this approach are:

Animals from different regions of the world constitute different animal disease risks. Mixing of animal consignments from these different regions would result in exposure of some animals to diseases which do not exist in their country of origin. All animals in such a mixed group would have to be subjected to the conditions laid down for the originating country of greatest risk. Should any animal fail a disease test, it might be necessary, depending on the nature of the disease involved, to destroy all animals at the station or return them to their countries of origin.

For the most part, it is intended that the station will operate on the ‘all in all out’ quarantine principle. On the other hand, mixed consignments of animals from different regions of the world would be required to undergo different periods of quarantine at the station.

The logistics and cost of ‘on-farm’ testing and preexport quarantine make such an approach most secure and practical.

Notwithstanding this general approach, there may be circumstances involving various species from various regions for which joint quarantine may be possible.

Animal Quarantine (Question No. 543)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

What are the current estimates of the annual operating costs and receipts of a high security offshore quarantine station originally set out in Appendix G of his Depanment ‘s submission to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works in 1973.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Set out hereunder is a statement comparing current estimates of operating costs and receipts with those set out in Appendix G of my Department’s submission to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works in 1 973.

Animal Quarantine (Question No. 544)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. Did his Department indicate to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works in 1973 that costs of bringing cattle from Europe through a high security offshore quarantine station would be $2,300 per head, excluding the value of the animal or transport; if so, what would be the current estimated cost.
  2. Would the proposed charges include an element to recover capital investment in the quarantine station.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) My Department indicated to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works in 1973 that the costs to the importer of bringing adult cattle from Europe through the high security quarantine station could be $2,300 per headexcluding the value of the animal or transport. This figure is now estimated at $2,575.
  2. No. The estimated fees have been based on the recovery of the operational costs of the station and the costs of preembarkation, assembly, testing and quarantine overseas.

Animal Quarantine (Question No. 545)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

In what ways would the submission of his Department to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works concerning the establishment of a high security offshore quarantine station in 1973, have to be changed in the light of subsequent developments in artificial insemination, ova transplants, and disease control and recognition.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

In no way. The major advances in artificial insemination since 1 973 have been in semen freezing techniques applied to species other than cattle, while the major advances in ova transplants have related to non-surgical methods of transplanting and of storage. None of this work has facilitated disease detection, recognition or control, nor has it increased the very limited range of countries from which semen and ova can be safely imported into Australia. The developments referred to have not reduced the need for the station.

Staff Canteens (Question No. 567)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 8 March 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What staff canteens are operated by his Department.
  2. What is the pricing policy of each canteen.
  3. Are charges for (a) cleaning, (b) electricity and power, (c) fuel, (d) rent or lease, (e) repairs and maintenance, (0 replacements of plant, furniture and fittings and (g) depreciation of plant, furniture and fittings included for determination of canteen prices; if not, what was the estimated cost of each of these items in each canteen during 1976-77.
  4. What staff is employed in each canteen, and what were the total wages and salaries paid to staff in each canteen in 1976-77.
  5. Are all wages and salaries paid to canteen staff included for determination of canteen prices; if not, what percentage of total wages and salaries paid to canteen staff were included for determination of canteen prices for 1976-77.
  6. What decision has been made by his Department concerning subsidisation of each canteen and what was the estimated cost of such subsidisation to each canteen for 1976-77.
  7. Are the public and relatives and friends of departmental staff permitted to use each canteen.
  8. If there are restrictions on its use how are they implemented in each canteen.
  9. What staff from other Commonwealth Departments and instrumentalities regularly use each canteen.
  10. Are there any arrangements made by his Department for any staff canteen to be operated by private enterprise; if so, which canteens and under what terms and conditions.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

There are no staff canteens operated by the Department nor are there any arrangements made by the Department for any staff canteen to be operated by private enterprise.

Defence Force Call Out (Question No. 605)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 9 March 1978:

On what provision or provisions of the Australian Constitution did the Government rely to call out the troops following the Sydney Hilton Hotel bombing.

Mr Viner:
LP

-The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Terrorist activities on 13 February 1978 threatened the safety of the visiting Heads of Government attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting in Australia. In calling out the Defence Force the Commonwealth acted in pursuance of its responsibilities under the Constitution, in particular, the defence and external affairs powers (section 5 1 ( vi) and (xxix) ) and the executive power (section 61).

Meat: Pesticide Residues (Question No. 623)

Mr Hodges:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 14 March 1978.

  1. 1 ) Have Australian meat exports ever been rejected by overseas markets because of excessive pesticide residue in the meat.
  2. Does the Commonwealth Government set any limits on the types and amounts of pesticides being used in each State when associated with meat production.
  3. Have there been any discussions to establish Australiawide standards.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. United States authorities have rejected some Australian meat due to the presence of pesticide residues in excess of prescribed levels. Such occurrences are, however, infrequent and Australia’s performance is known to compare favourably with United States domestic production.
  2. State governments administer legislation controlling the availability and sale of pesticides. Directions for the use of these substances are designed to ensure that possible residue levels in agricultural commodities comply with accepted standards. To ensure a cohesive national approach to this matter the States use as a basis for regulatory action, recommendations prepared by expert bodies of the Australian Agricultural Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council.
  3. See (2) above.

Railway Employees: Workers Compensation Claims: Legal Costs (Question No. 717)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 4 April 1978:

Can he give an assurance that an employee transferring from the South Australian Railways will be entitled to recover from the Australian National Railways Commission, all reasonable legal costs relating to any workers’ compensation claim made under the provisions of the modified Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act (l)and(2)-

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The provisions applying in respect of the reimbursement of legal costs relating to workers compensation claims by transferred South Australian railway employees are prescribed in the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act. I am advised that the Commonwealth legislation provides benefits which are at least equivalent to those provided under the South Australian Workmen’s Compensation Act.

I have however advised the South Australian Transport Minister, Mr Virgo, that I would be prepared to examine further the question of re-imbursement of legal costs, having regard to the administrative practices followed in South Australia. Following a recent reply from Mr Virgo, 1 have arranged for this examination to be carried out.

Tullamarine Airport: Retail Trade Concessions (Question No. 729)

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

wn asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 4 April 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What are the names of each of the companies, persons or businesses holding licences or franchises to engage in retail trade in the terminal building of Tullamarine Airport.
  2. On what date (a) was each licence or franchise granted and (b) will each licence or franchise expire.
  3. What are the terms and conditions of each licence or franchise.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. It is longstanding policy to treat as strictly confidential details of authorities granted for the conduct of retail and other business activities on airports. This is in the interest of tenderers who are generally vying for leases in highly competitive business situations.

Standard conditions imposed, including the duration and any fixed charges, are contained in documents available to prospective tenderers when public offers are invited.

Sydney Airport: Retail Trade Concessions (Question No. 730)

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

n asked the Minister for

Transport, upon notice, on 4 April 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What are the names of each of the companies, persons or businesses holding licences or franchises to engage in retail trade in the international terminal building of Sydney Airport.
  2. On what date (a) was each licence or franchise granted and (b) will each licence or franchise expire.
  3. What are the terms and conditions of each licence or franchise.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. It is longstanding policy to treat as strictly confidential details of authorities granted for the conduct of retail and other business activities on airports. This is in the interests of tenderers who are generally vying for leases in highly competitive business situations.

Standard conditions imposed, including the duration and any fixed charges, are contained in documents available to prospective tenderers when public offers are invited.

Sydney Airport: Retail Trade Concessions (Question No. 731)

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

wn asked the Minister for

Transport, upon notice, on 4 April 1978: (l)and(2)-

  1. 1 ) What are the names of each of the companies, persons or businesses holding licences for franchises to engage in retail trade in the domestic terminal building of Sydney Airport.
  2. On what date (a) was each licence or franchise granted and (b) will each licence or franchise expire.
  3. What are the terms and conditions of each licence or franchise.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

There are two (2) passenger terminals in the Sydney Domestic area. Each airline (TAA and AAA) has constructed its own building.

  1. It is longstanding policy to treat as strictly confidential details of authorities granted for the conduct of retail and other business activities on airports. This is in the interests of tenderers who are generally vying for leases in highly competitive business situations.

Standard conditions imposed, including the duration and any fixed charges, are contained in documents available to prospective tenderers when public offers are invited.

Adelaide Airport: Retail Trade Concessions (Question No. 732)

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

wn asked the Minister for Tansport, upon notice, on 4 April 1978: (l)and(2)-_

  1. 1 ) What are the names of each of the companies, persons or businesses holding licences or franchises to engage in retail trade in the terminal building of Adelaide Airport.
  2. On what date (a) was each licence or franchise granted and ( b ) will each licence or franchise expire.
  3. What are the terms and conditions of each licence or franchise.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 3 ) It is longstanding policy to treat as strictly confidential details of authorities granted for the conduct of retail and other business activities on airports. This is in the interests of tenderers who are generally vying for leases in highly competitive business situations.

Standard conditions imposed, including the duration and any fixed charges, are contained in documents available to prospective tenderers when public offers are invited.

Brisbane Airport: Retail Trade Concessions (Question No. 733)

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

wn asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 4 April 1 978: (l)and(2)-

  1. 1 ) What are the names of each of the companies, persons or businesses holding licences or franchises to engage in retail trade in the terminal building of Brisbane Airport.
  2. On what date (a) was each licence or franchise granted and (b) will each licence or franchise expire.
  3. What are the terms and conditions of each licence or franchise.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

There are three passenger terminals at Brisbane Airport.

  1. It is longstanding policy to treat as strictly confidential details of authorities granted for the conduct of retail and other business activities on airports. This is in the interests of tenderers who are generally vying for leases in highly competitive business situations.

Standard conditions imposed, including the duration and any fixed charges, are contained in documents available to prospective tenderers when public offers are invited.

Perth Airport: Retail Trade Concessions (Question No. 734)

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

wn asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 4 April 1978: (l)and(2)-_

  1. 1 ) What are the names of each of the companies, persons or businesses holding licences or franchises to engage in retail trade in the terminal building of Perth Airport.
  2. ) On what date (a) was each licence or franchise granted and (b) will each licence or franchise expire.
  3. What are the terms and conditions of each licence or franchise.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. It is longstanding policy to treat as strictly confidential details of authorities granted for the conduct of retail and other business activities on airports. This is in the interests of tenderers who are generally vying for leases in highly competitive business situations.

Standard conditions imposed, including the duration and any fixed charges, are contained in documents available to prospective tenderers when public offers are invited.

Relations with China (Question No. 736)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 4 April 1978:

  1. Does the communique signed in December 1972 by Australia and the People’s Republic of China remain the basis on which that relationship should be conducted.
  2. Does that communique state that Australia recognises the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China and acknowledges the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of the People ‘s Republic of China.
  3. Was the reference by the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Australia-Taiwan relationship during Question Time on 7 March 1978 in terms of existing opportunities for an exchange of points of view between citizens of our respective countries consistent with the status which Taiwan was accorded in that communique; if not, does the remark indicate that the Acting Minister appeared to be taking advantage of his absence to nudge Australia back in the direction of a ‘two China’ policy.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. As my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry noted during question time on 7 March 1978, the principles upon which our relationship with China have been based serve the mutual interests of our two countries and the Government has no intention of attempting to change the basis of the relationship.

Reciprocal Agreements on Social Security (Question No. 768)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 4 April 1 978:

What progress has been made in negotiating the comprehensive reciprocal agreements on social security. (Hansard, 22 February 1 977, page 33 1 and 8 March 1 978 page 571).

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The question of Australian participation in reciprocal arrangements on social security with other countries is presently being given very serious and urgent consideration.

The Government is not in a position to make any firm announcement at this time, but is pressing on with consideration of the case for new reciprocal agreements and the terms on which they might be negotiated with other countries.

Croatian Embassy (Question No. 769)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 7 March 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Does Australia give, as President Carter stated on 9 March 1978 that the United States gives, continuing support for the independence, territorial integrity and unity of Yugoslavia.
  2. Does Australia still not recognise the independence of Croatia (Hansard, 28 April 1971, page 2212 and 29 August 1972, page 858).
  3. What steps has he taken to follow up the concern he expressed on 23 December 1977 at the establishment of a self-styled ‘Croatian Embassy’ in Canberra (Hansard, 7 March 1978, page 435).
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. The Government has been giving careful consideration to this matter, and in view of the serious questions raised by the establishment of a self-styled ‘Croatian Embassy’, I made a statement to the House on 5 April outlining the Government’s intentions. (Hansard, 5 April 1978, page 993).

International Labor Organisation: Federal States- Chief Industrial Members (Question No. 770)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 4 April 1978:

  1. Now that the United States, whose record in ratifying International Labor Organisation conventions was worse than that of any of the 138 Members of the Organisation other than Bahrain, El Salvador, Kampuchea, Laos, Nepal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Swaziland and the United Arab Emirates, has withdrawn from the Organisation and only Australia and Canada can continue to plead that their federal systems make it difficult for them to ratify the convention, what steps have been or are being taken for Australia and Canada to consult on amendments to the federal clause in the ILO Constitution.
  2. Now that, through the withdrawal of the United States and the inactivity of China, only 8 out of a possible 10 Members of ILO are classified by its Governing Body as being those of chief industrial importance, what steps have been or are being taken to secure the recognition of Australia as one of the 10. f
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) None. It is unlikely that any substantive change to the federal state clause as it now stands would be acceptable to the majority of the ILO’s members.
  2. None. The determination of the status of State of Chief Industrial Importance in the ILO context is governed by the application of a weighted formula by which, on a ten-point scale, national income rates six points, assessed contributions to the ILO budget rate three points and the size of the economically active population rates one point. Whether or not Australia should be included among the ten states of chief industrial importance will be determined at the next General Review of this category of states or when the governing body decides to fill the seat left vacant by the United States. The outcome will depend upon Australia ‘s relative ranking as determined by the application of the foregoing formula on the basis of the then current economic statistics but present indications suggest that Australia would not be included.

Under the provisions of Article 7 of the ILO Constitution the governing body determines the ten states ‘as occasion requires’.

Bauxite Mining in Western Australia (Question No. 773)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 4 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) On what date was the committee established to research the effects of bauxite mining in Western Australia.
  2. Which Federal and State departments and authorities are represented on it.
  3. ) What are its terms of reference.
  4. On what dates has it met.
  5. ) On what dates and aspects has it made reports.
  6. Has such a committee been established in any other State; if so, will he give corresponding information about it.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The Steering Committee on research into the effect of bauxite mining in the Darling Ranges was formed on 1 1 July 1973.
  2. The Western Australian Public Works Department, the Western Australian Metropolitan Water Supply Sewerage and Drainage Board, the Western Australian Forests Department, the Western Australian Department of Agriculture, the Western Australian Depanment of Industrial Development, the Western Australian Depanment of Mines and the Western Australian Depanment of Conservation and Environment are represented on the Committee as well as CSIRO and the University of Western Australia.
  3. The Committee’s terms of reference are:

    1. To determine what studies, investigations and trials should be undertaken to evaluate the soil salinity characteristics of the various catchment areas, and quantify the effect of mining and reafforestation on water resources of the respective catchments. Such studies would need to provide objective assessments at an early date and would possibly be financed from State funds only.
    2. The success of reafforestation in catchment areas with particular reference to stabilising soil moisture profiles and water run-off and quality.
  4. The Committee has met on the following dates: 22 October, 6 November and 4 December 1973; 15 March, 8 April, 3 September and 5 December 1974; 30 January, 1 3 March, 24 April, 12 June, 24 July, 12 September and 30 October 1975; 2 May 1976; 31 March, 12 May, 10 November 1977; 16 March 1978.
  5. A report on state of knowledge was issued in May 1975.

A review of the Committee’s activities (May 1976) was tabled in the Parliament of Western Australia by the Premier, Sir Charles Court, on 6 October 1976.

  1. I am not aware of the existence of such a Committee in any other State.

Fire at Qantas Drive, Mascot (Question No. 814)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 April 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Have investigations been carried out into the circumstances of the fire which occurred in Qantas Drive, Mascot on 15 October 1977; if so, what was the nature of the investigations and their findings.
  2. What was the nature and extent of damage caused to specific installations of individual lessees within the airport and what has been the cost of repairs in each case.
  3. Who has borne the cost of the repairs.
  4. What circumstances enabled the fire to spread from outside the airport to installations within the airport.
  5. What action has been taken to prevent a repetition of the events that occurred.
  6. Who is responsible for (a) design and (b) provision of the drainage systems (i) inside and (ii) outside the airport.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) An investigation was conducted immediately following the occurrence by my Department’s Rescue and Fire Fighting Service who reported on the fire hazard aspects. A more detailed Departmental study which will cover broader aspects is in its final stages.

A Coroner’s Inquiry has been conducted and the finding was that the driver of the fuel tanker died as a result of burns received in the accident. It was further found that he was driving the fuel tanker at the time of the accident whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

  1. Costs of repairing and/or replacing items damaged by the fire were as follows:
  1. Amoco Oil Company is referring the claims to their insurance underwriters.
  2. As the accident occurred on airport property, the fuel flowed through the airport stormwater drainage system.
  3. Accidents of this type can occur on any public road and prevention is impracticable. However, arrangements are being made to reduce the fire hazards by the installation of flame traps and the replacement of grated covers with solid covers, where appropriate.
  4. As mentioned in Answer 4 the accident occurred on airport property. The responsibility for the design and provision of the drainage system rests with my Department with the detailed design and the construction being carried out by the Depanment of Construction.

Repatriation Pensions: Payments Overseas (Question No. 824)

Mr Stewart:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 5 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many (a) special rate and (b) other war pensions are being paid to former Australian residents living overseas.
  2. In what countries are these people living and how many are in each country.
  3. What is the total cost to the Australian taxpayer of these pensions.
  4. What are the rules covering the portability of these pensions.
Mr Newman:
LP

– The Acting Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The information contained in this reply deals with the various categories of disability pension made available under the Repatriation Act and associated legislation to eligible veterans as compensation for service-related incapacity and eligible dependants, who are resident overseas. These categories comprise (i) Special Rate (ii) Intermediate Rate, (iii) General Rate, (iv) War Widows and (v) pensions paid to eligible dependants of deceased and incapacitated veterans.

Currently, there are, living overseas: (a) 74 veterans receiving the Special Rate pension category (i) above, (b) 2707 other veterans and dependants receiving other forms of disability pension (war pension) (categories (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v)).

  1. The countries of residence of these persons and the number resident in each country are:
  1. The liability for all forms of disability pensions (war pensions) mentioned above and allowances for the year ending 30 June 1977 was $3.3m.
  2. 4) A disability pension (war pension) is compensation for service-related incapacity and is paid irrespective of the place of residence of the person.

Smoke Detectors (Question No. 839)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 5 April 1978:

Are any smoke detectors using Americium-241 manufactured in or imported into Australia.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Smoke detectors using Americium-241 are imported into Australia from a number of countries, principally the U.S.A. and U.K. None is manufactured in Australia.

Alcohol Consumption (Question No. 840)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 5 April 1978:

What was the estimated daily alcohol consumption in (a) each State or Territory for which figures are available and (b) Australia, expressed in grams per person over the age of 18 years in (i) 1969, (ii) 1972, (iii) 1974 and (iv) 1976.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. No figures are available estimating daily consumption of alcohol per person in each State or Territory for the years specified in the honourable member’s question. However in February 1977 the Australian Bureau of Statistics conducted a survey throughout Australia to obtain information about the alcohol and tobacco consumption patterns of the Australian population aged 1 8 years and over.

Preliminary results of this survey indicate the following alcohol consumption patterns for each State or Territory:

As the above estimates were based on levels of consumption as reported by respondents in the survey and certain groups of people were excluded from the survey, these consumption levels are lower than would be expected from other sources of information i.e. statistics of production, exports and imports. Included in the groups of people excluded from the survey are members of the permanent armed services, certain diplomatic personnel and certain institutionalised personnel. This understatement, however, is consistent with results of overseas studies and previous smaller scale surveys in Australia.

  1. Estimated Consumption of Alcohol Per Person 18 Years of Age and Over Australia: 1 969- 1 976
The above data for average daily consumption of alcohol per person aged 18 years and over were calculated on the basis that the respective conversion factors for alcoholic drinks were as follows: {:#subdebate-41-57} #### Cigarette Consumption (Question No. 841) {: #subdebate-41-57-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 5 April 1978: >What was the estimated cigarette consumption per person over 16 years of age in Australia in (i) 1960, (ii) 1965, (iii) 1970, (iv) 1975 and (v) 1977. {: #subdebate-41-57-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {:#subdebate-41-58} #### Medical Benefits: Hearing Aids (Question No. 856) {: #subdebate-41-58-s0 .speaker-PD4} ##### Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP wn asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 5 April 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Are health insurance benefits provided for the purchase of hearing aids and other aids to hearing; if not, why not. 1. Has he given any consideration to the provision of health insurance benefits for those purposes; if so, what action does he intend to take. 2. If not, will he now give consideration to the provision of these benefits. {: #subdebate-41-58-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (2) and (3) At present under Standard Medibank medical benefits arrangements, benefits are provided for medical treatment rendered by legally qualified medical practitioners, certain prescribed medical services rendered by approved dentists in the operating theatres of approved hospitals, and optometrical consultations by participating optometrists. In view of the current need for restraint in Government expenditure, it is not proposed at this stage, to include such items as hearing aids in the medical benefits arrangements under Standard Medibank. Notwithstanding the above, private health insurance organisations may, if they so desire, provide benefits for items such as hearing aids under supplementary benefits tables. The Government has maintained the policy in relation to supplementary benefits of largely allowing private health insurance organisations to determine for themselves the nature and extent of supplementary benefits they may wish to offer, and the terms and conditions applicable to the payment of those benefits. The Government's role in respect of supplementary benefits is largely one of approving the benefits and relevant contribution rates in the context of financial viability of the table. Some health insurance organisations do in fact offer supplementary benefits for hearing aids. However, persons may be precluded from receiving such benefits, because of a preexisting ailment rule. Under this provision the payment of benefits in the supplementary tables may be refused if the organisation, in its opinion, considered the condition or its symptoms were in evidence to the contributor at or prior to the date of joining the table. Public Servants: Employment after Resignation {: #subdebate-41-58-s2 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP -- On 15 March *(Hansard,* pages 737-8) the honourable member for Werriwa **(Mr Whitlam)** asked me a question, without notice, concerning the employment of public servants after resignation in which he referred inter alia to recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into Government Procurement Policy under **Sir Walter** Scott. I undertook to examine that aspect of his question. The following is in answer to the honourable member's question: >The Committee of Inquiry under **Sir Walter** Scott into Government Procurement Policy, to which the honourable gentleman referred, recommended the setting up of a Purchasing Commission. As he will be aware, such a Commission has not been established. It follows that recommendations of the Committee relating to suggested roles for the Purchasing Commission have lapsed. This includes Recommendation 24 in which the Committee proposed that the Commission be directed to make an investigation into acceptance by government officers of employment with firms which have contractual relations with the Government. > >The Inquiry now to be undertaken under the chairmanship of **Sir Nigel** Bowen into possible conflict between public duty and private interest will, of course, be looking at the issues which formed the basis of the Scott Committee's recommendation. {:#subdebate-41-59} #### Interpretations of De Facto Marital Relationships (Question No. 8) {: #subdebate-41-59-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 February 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Are persons living together in a de facto relationship treated as a married couple for purposes of the social security means test, etc. 1. Does the Taxation Commissioner reject claims for wives ' allowances in respect of de facto wives. 2. ) If so, will he have this anomaly corrected. {: #subdebate-41-59-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The honourable member is referred to the Prime Minister's answer to question No. *3- Hansard,* 4 April 1978, page 966. {:#subdebate-41-60} #### Advertising (Question No. 38) {: #subdebate-41-60-s0 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 22 February 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What sum was spent by his Department on advertising and services during the period (a) 11 November 1975 to 13 December 1975, (b) 14 December 1975 to 30 June 1976,(c) 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977 and (d) 1 July 1977 to date. 1. ) What was the cost of each campaign undertaken. 2. Under which item of expenditure were funds allocated. 3. Which advertising agencies or consultants were used for each campaign. 4. What was the total sum paid to each agency or consultant for each campaign. 5. How was each agency or consultant selected. 6. What is the estimated cost of advertising and promotion of Government programs and services for 1977-78. {: #subdebate-41-60-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (l)- {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Medibank campaign, including consulting services by Hoquara Pty Ltd ($11,100); Morgan Telephone Survey ($1,500) and printing of pamphlets and distribution costs ($512,250 )- $1,035,591. The balance of expenditure ($247,326) was spent on normal Departmental advertising (e.g. advertising in the Australian and overseas press for vacant positions, tenders and advance notification in country press of visits to the district by personnel of the National Acoustic Laboratories). {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Division 325.2.1 1- Administrative- Advertising; 329.2.08- Northern Territory Hospitals- Advertising. (Div.334.208 in 1976-77 and 1977-78). 330.2.12- Northern Territory Health Services- Incidental and other expenditure- sub-item advertising. (Div.335.2.12in 1976-77 and 1977-78). National Welfare Fund: Pathology LaboratoriesAdvertising. 1. , (5) and (6) Department of Health advertisements are placed through the Australian Government Advertising Service which selects the placing agencies. The following placing agencies were used for the Medibank campaign: The following consultant services were used for the Medibank campaign: Hoquara Pty Ltd- consultancy services by **Mr J.** Gaul on Medibank Advertising for the Minister for Health- $ 1 1 , 1 00. Morgan Telephone Survey- to determine efficacy of Medibank Campaign- $ 1 , 500 {: type="1" start="7"} 0. $206,000. {:#subdebate-41-61} #### Advertising (Question No. 47) {: #subdebate-41-61-s0 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What sum was spent by his Department on advertising and services during the period (a) 1 1 November 1975 to 13 December 1975, (b) 14 December 1975 to 30 June 1976, (c) 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977and(d) 1 July 1977 to date. 1. 2 ) What was the cost of each campaign undertaken. 2. Under which item of expenditure were funds allocated. 3. Which advertising agencies or consultants were used for each campaign. 4. What was the total sum paid to each agency or consultant for each campaign. 5. How was each agency or consultant selected. 6. What is the estimated cost of advertising and promotion of Government programs and services for 1 977-78. {: #subdebate-41-61-s1 .speaker-CG4} ##### Mr Fife:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The following amounts were spent on advertising during the periods- {: type="a" start="a"} 0. 11.1 1.75 to 13.12.75- $3,338.65 1. 14.12.75to30.06.76-$17,431.83 2. 01.07.76 to 30.06.77-$62,371.20 3. 01.07.77 to 28.02.78-$43,399.07. 1. The Department has not undertaken any specific campaigns for Government programs and services. Advertising expenditure by theDepartment is an ongoing expense and is incurred for the following purposes: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. recruitment 1. legal notices 2. Gazette notices 3. Customs auction sales. 2. Funds are allocated under 'Incidental and Other Expenditure'. 3. Under direction of the Australian Government Advertising Service the following agencies are used: Insight Advertising Berrie Currie Pty Ltd. Gordon & Gotch ( Aust.) Ltd. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 5 ) Not applicable- no specific campaigns. 1. Directed by Australian Government Advertising Service. 2. Estimate for 1 977-78 is $74,500. {:#subdebate-41-62} #### Vietnamese Refugees (Question No. 155) {: #subdebate-41-62-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G Whitlam: am asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did I initiate on 23 April 1 975 and didhe terminate on 13 February 1976 a five-year study by **Dr Jean** Martin, a senior research fellow in sociology at the Australian National University, into the settlement experiences of the Vietnamese refugees admitted to Australia during 1975. 1. Did the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence write to the Prime Minister on 20 April 1976 to express concern at the termination of the survey in spite of the modest sum of $20,000 required to complete a two-year study program. 2. Did the committee in its report signed in September 1976 and tabled on 1 December 1976 recommend that funds be made available urgently to enable the survey to be continued into a second phase during 1977. 3. Did the Prime Minister tell me on 26 April 1977 *(Hansard,* page 1263) that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Department of Social Security were examining the question of the survey in the context of a much wider survey of refugees in Australia. 4. What decisions have been made. {: #subdebate-41-62-s1 .speaker-0I4} ##### Mr MacKellar:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) I am informed that your direction, as Prime Minister, that the Survey was to be undertaken was confirmed by you in writing on 16 July 1975. The survey was terminated, along with a number of others, by Government decision and advice was forwarded to the Australian National University on 13 February 1976. 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. Yes. 4. The Government recently decided that $ 10,000 would be provided in 1977-78 for a survey of the settlement experience of Indo-Chinese refugees in Australia. A further $20,000 would be provided to continue the survey in 1978-79 and 1979-80. {:#subdebate-41-63} #### Citizenship (Question No. 157) {: #subdebate-41-63-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G Whitlam: am asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many aliens 16 years of age and over are residentiary qualified, by virtue of 3 years' residence in Australia, to apply for the grant of Australian Citizenship but have not done so. 1. Is it yet possible to provide the same information about Commonwealth nationals from the 1976 Census *(Hansard,* 25 May 1977, page 1898). {: #subdebate-41-63-s1 .speaker-0I4} ##### Mr MacKellar:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The following table shows the estimated number of aliens 16 years of age and over who were residentially qualified by virtue of 3 years' residence in Australia, to apply for the grant of Australian Citizenship, but who had not done so as at 3 1 December 1 977: {: type="1" start="2"} 0. It is not yet possible to provide the same information about Commonwealth nationals from the 1976 Census. This information is likely to become available early in 1 979. {:#subdebate-41-64} #### Department of Defence: Land Holdings (Question No. 183) {: #subdebate-41-64-s0 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 February 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the (a) total area, (b) value and (c) value of improvements of the land used by the Department of Defence at the Holsworthy, Moorebank and Ingleburn areas. 1. What would be the (a) advantages, (b) disadvantages and (c) estimated cost of re-locating these facilities in some suitable location outside the Sydney metropolitan area. 2. What is the estimated cost of rendering the sites safe from the hazard of unexploded ammunition so that they could be used either for urban development of public recreation. 3. Has consideration been given to acquiring and developing an alternate site or sites; if so, which areas have received consideration. {: #subdebate-41-64-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) (a) 20,600 hectares. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. This pan of the question falls within the responsibility of the Minister for Administrative Services whom I have asked to advise the honourable member separately. 1. No figure is available for the current value of improvements but details of the replacement cost are given in the answer to 2 (c). 1. (a) Advantages of re-location {: type="a" start="i"} 0. Provision of modern, purpose-built accommodation for those units not currently occupying such accommodation. {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. Planned functional layout for a military complex. 1. Provision can be made for extension/expansion as required. 2. Less likelihood of restriction of use of range facilities. 1. b) Disadvantages of re-location 2. Total cost to the Commonwealth. {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. Increased operating costs, mainly due to distance from Sydney. 1. Short and medium term disruption during relocation. 3. Excluding land cost it is estimated total replacement costs would be approximately $330m. In addition there would be significant costs in removing personnel, equipment, etc to the new location(s) 2. There are two types of clearance operations which could be mounted, the cost of which would vary from between $5,000 per hectare and $18,000 per hectare. The first of these involves a visual surface search followed by a mine detector sweep which, under ideal circumstances, can detect metal buried to a depth of 250mm. Should the soil possess magnetic qualities to the extent that the Holsworthy area does, the results of such a search would be questionable. The second type of search involves the removal of overburden (usually in three layers each of 300mm thick) to a depth of up to a metre. It is stressed that in both of these cases no guarantee of total clearance and therefore complete safety can be given. Total costs, therefore, could range from between $90m and $324m. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. At present Task Force bases are located at Holsworthy, Enoggera and Townsville. The Government has not considered alternative locations for these bases. Investigations are in hand for the acquisition of a major training area in N.S.W. to supplement existing ranges. If this proposal proceeds it will alleviate some restrictions imposed on field firing at Holsworthy {:#subdebate-41-65} #### Defence Force Call Out (Question No. 198) {: #subdebate-41-65-s0 .speaker-KH4} ##### Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 February 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Why was the Order by the Governor-General dated 1 3 February 1978 and published in the *Commonwealth of Australia Gazette* of 14 February 1978, calling out the Defence Forces following the bomb attack at the Sydney Hilton, expressed to be in force without limitation as to time. 1. Why was the Order expressed to cover areas other than New South Wales. 2. Were the terms of the Order broad enough to permit intervention by Defence Forces into domestic political situations such as industrial disputes. {: #subdebate-41-65-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The Attorney-General has provided the following answers to the honourable member's questions: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) At the time when the Order was made it was impossible to predict how long the situation giving rise to the Order and requiring the use of the Defence Force would continue. Accordingly, the Order was expressed to continue in force until revoked. The Order was in fact revoked on 20 February 1978. 1. Not only were members of the Defence Force stationed outside New South Wales used under the Order but also some Heads of Government attending the Regional Meeting visited States other than New South Wales. 2. No. {:#subdebate-41-66} #### Consumer Credit Legislation (Question No. 210) {: #subdebate-41-66-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 28 February 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General decide on 30 June 1977 that draft Bills would be prepared on consumer credit, with a view to their introduction into the Parliaments of 2 States before the end of the year. 1. If so, were the 3 Bills proposed (a) Credit Bill, replacing the hire purchase and money lending legislation, and making wide-ranging reforms to credit law, (b) Chattel Securities Bill, making general provisions relating to goods mortgages and (c) Goods (Consumer Sales and Leases) Bill, amending the sale of goods legislation in relation to terms and conditions of sales, whether by cash or on credit, of goods or services and leases of goods. 2. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the recent decision of the Victorian Government to strengthen the money lending legislation and to amend hire purchase legislation. 3. If so, does the decision of the Victorian Government contradict the decision of the Standing Committee. 4. On what dates and by what States does he expect that these urgent Bills will be enacted. {: #subdebate-41-66-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) to (5) The draft Bills mentioned in the question have been in the course of preparation for some years as a project of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. At the meeting of the Standing Committee on 30 June 1977 the hope was expressed that the Bills might be introduced before the end of 1 977 but this proved to be not possible. At a special meeting of the Standing Committee on 7-8 April 1978 it was agreed that the draft Bills should be amended in certain respects and then made available for public comment. I expect that they will be available for that purpose during May of this year. The Victorian Government has throughout played an active part in the preparation of the proposed legislation. I am not aware of any decision by that Government which contradicts any decision by the Standing Committee. {:#subdebate-41-67} #### Migrant Skills (Question No. 217) {: #subdebate-41-67-s0 .speaker-JNG} ##### Dr Cass: asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 23 February 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Of those persons who migrated under the approved occupation category during 1977-78, how many were (a) skilled, (b) semi-skilled and (c) unskilled. 1. What were the 5 major skills and how many migrants were in each of the skilled areas. 2. How soon after arrival were they employed. 3. Are any of them unemployed; if so for how long have they been unemployed. 4. As many skilled migrants already in Australia for more than 6 months are unable to practise their skills because of language difficulties, how many of those migrants who have arrived during 1977-78 have had similar difficulties. {: #subdebate-41-67-s1 .speaker-0I4} ##### Mr MacKellar:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) For the first seven months of 1977-78 the preliminary figures are: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. 6,498 skilled persons 1. 739 semi-skilled persons 2. 258 unskilled persons. Notes: 1(a) includes some family members other than the principal applicant. 1 (b) and 1 (c) both consist of family members other than the principal applicant. In addition, there are 346 other workers whose occupational coding in the administrative records has to be clarified. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Nurses, Matrons- 801; Fitters, Turners, and Fitters and Turners- 577; Typists-Stenographers- 549; Medical Practitioners and Specialists- 436; Motor Mechanics- 344. 1. , (4) and (5) Information is not available in the detail sought by the honourable member. The system of preparing a list of approved occupations in strong and continuing demand and of selecting migrants with skills and experience in those occupations recognised in Australia is intended to ensure their placement in suitable employment on arrival in Australia. {:#subdebate-41-68} #### Wheat Shipments to Chile and Indonesia (Question No. 227) {: #subdebate-41-68-s0 .speaker-JUS} ##### Mr McVeigh:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 28 February 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Are the bans on shipments of wheat to Chile and Indonesia still in force. 1. ) If so, what initiatives is the Government pressing in order to improve the disposal of stocks on a continuing basis from Australian farmers as well as alleviating hunger in Chile and Indonesia. 2. What were the average weekly wages last year for those engaged in applying the bans against supplying wheat to the poor people of Chile and Indonesia. {: #subdebate-41-68-s1 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2) No. As to bans on Indonesian registered shipping, the ACTU announced on 2 February that these bans would be discontinued. In respect of trade between Australia and Chile, which has been the subject of industrial action by members of the maritime unions since mid 1 974, the ACTU advised me formally on 17 April that the ban on trade has been lifted. 1. The principal unions involved in the bans affecting trade with Indonesia and Chile were the Waterside Workers Federation and the Australian Seamen's Union. A waterside worker's average weekly earnings over the twelve month period ending 30 June 1977, in permanent ports, was $241.81. There are no statistics available on the average seamen's wage but the current weekly rate for an Able Seaman under the Maritime Industry Award is $276.75. {:#subdebate-41-69} #### Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs: Overseas Travel (Question No. 272) {: #subdebate-41-69-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) On what occasions and for what purposes has he travelled overseas since 1 1 November 1975. 1. What was the name, classification and salary of each person who accompanied him on each occasion. 2. What was the cost of (a) travel, (b) accommodation and (c) other expenditure, and what was the total cost incurred in respect of himself and each person who travelled with him on each journey overseas. 3. Which airlines and/or other means of transport were utilised during each journey. {: #subdebate-41-69-s1 .speaker-CG4} ##### Mr Fife:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister's answer to Senate question 1116, (Senate *Hansard,* 9 November 1977, pages 2397-8). {:#subdebate-41-70} #### Royal Australian Air Force Radar Installation (Question No. 285) {: #subdebate-41-70-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is the RAAF radar installation at Amberley Air Force Base inoperable. 1. If so, (a) what is the cause and (b) how long will it be inoperable. 2. Does the installation at Eagle Farm Airport have similar range and capacity. {: #subdebate-41-70-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) The air traffic control surveillance radar at Amberley Air Force Base is temporarily inoperable. 1. (a) A shortage of some spare parts dictated the closure of one of the Air Force's six radar installations in order to maintain the remainder. Amberley was chosen because its closure would have the least effect on military operations and because, in the Brisbane area, surveillance radar cover was available from Eagle Farm. The Eagle Farm radar was the only surveillance radar facility available for Amberley from June 1969 up to last year when the new Amberley radar was installed. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The required spares are on order and will be delivered in the second half of 1978. The Amberley air traffic control radar will be reactivated as soon as practicable after the spares are received. 2. The air traffic control radar at Eagle Farm has a greater range than the Amberley installation. Its capacity, while adequate for the Eagle Farm area on which it is centred, does not meet the low-level (below 2,000 feet) surveillance radar requirement at Amberley. As a temporary measure, the procedures previously used to meet the Amberley requirement have been re-activated to enable monitoring and control of the air space in that area. {:#subdebate-41-71} #### Army Transport (Question No. 288) {: #subdebate-41-71-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What was the total cost of the design study project for a 1 tonne 4x4 vehicle for the Australian Army. 1. Were the prototype vehicles submitted for testing by (a) International Harvester Australia, and (b) the Ford Motor Company of Australia found to be satisfactory under test. 2. 3 ) Did any of the vehicles survive the test program. 3. What was the estimated cost of production vehicles. 4. Were the design specifications tailored to fit the requirements of the Australian defence forces. 5. Have any vehicles been ordered; if not, why not. {: #subdebate-41-71-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The total cost to the Department of the development project for a 1 ton truck was about $902,000. 1. The pilot models from Ford and International Harvester were found to be generally satisfactory. However, some further development work would have been necessary before an acceptable vehicle could be introduced into service. 2. ) All eight vehicles survived the trials. 3. The estimated cost of production vehicles when the project was cancelled in August 1 973 was: {: type="a" start="1"} 0. a) Cargo version- in excess of $7,000 per vehicle; and 1. Fitted for radio (FFR) version-in excess of $9,000 per vehicle. 4. The specifications for the development of the vehicles were based on Army's then current requirements for a 1 ton truck and trailer. These requirements had been developed in the early 1960s. 5. No further vehicles of this type were ordered. This development program was undertaken because, at that time, no commercial vehicles were available that met Army's particular requirements. However, by late 1972 the desirability of proceeding with the project came under question and, subsequently, in August 1973 it was decided to terminate the development project and to look for a cheaper vehicle from among the several types then available commercially. {:#subdebate-41-72} #### Army Transport (Question No. 289) {: #subdebate-41-72-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Were the 1 tonne 4x4 vehicle prototypes developed by International Harvester Australia and the Ford Motor Company of Australia capable of providing the same functional requirements as the vehicles which were ordered from Leyland. 1. Were the Ford Motor Company of Australia and International Harvester Australia invited to submit proposals for the 1 tonne 4x4 vehicle. 2. Did the specifications exclude such proposals. {: #subdebate-41-72-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (3) Generally, the prototype 1 Ton Trucks developed by both companies could have met or exceeded all performance requirements subsequently specified for Army's Light General Service Truck. However, neither vehicle would have complied with the important requirements that the vehicle should be in volume production and marketed commercially in Australia. These would ensure the continued availability of vehicles and spare parts and a low unit cost. 1. Both Ford and International Harvester were specifically invited by the then Department of Manufacturing Industry to tender for the supply of Light Trucks for Army in the tendering call of November 1974. In the event, neither company made an offer. Security: Australian Embassy, Belgrade (Question No. 290) {: #subdebate-41-72-s2 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General on 1 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the attention of the Attorney-General been drawn to reports that officers of the Australian Security and Intelligence Organization acted illegally in placing personnel of the Australian Embassy in Belgrade, including the Ambassador, under surveillance? 1. If so, what procedures exist for the Attorney-General to examine reports or files of ASIO in order to establish whether illegal activities did take place? 2. Has an investigation taken place; if so, with what result? {: #subdebate-41-72-s3 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) to (3) It has been the policy and practice of all Governments since 1949 that details of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization or its operations are not disclosed. {:#subdebate-41-73} #### Overseas Borrowings (Question No. 314) {: #subdebate-41-73-s0 .speaker-ZJ4} ##### Mr Willis: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What arrangements have been made to borrow overseas during 1977-78 and what was the value of each of these loans in the currency (a) in which they are denominated and (b) in Australian dollars. 1. What is the total value of the loans in Australian dollars. 2. What are the repayment periods, interest rates and commission rates for each of the loans. 3. When was each loan received. 4. What impact have these overseas borrowings made on the Government's financing transactions. 5. Are there any direct or indirect consequences for the Australian money supply from these overseas borrowings. {: #subdebate-41-73-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (l),(2),(3)and(4) {: type="1" start="5"} 0. and (6). The following table indicates Government financing transactions to date this financial year. Government Financing Transactions ($ million) 9 months to 31 March 1978 {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Excludes net proceeds of$A302 million from a $US350 million note issue by the Commonwealth in Europe. The net proceeds in $US which were received by the Commonwealth in New York on Friday 3 1 March and were included in Australia's overseas reserves assets on that day but were not credited to the Reserve Bank's gold and foreign exchange account until 3 April. The $A proceeds were taken into the Commonwealth 's Public Account on 3 April. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Rounded total. The excess of domestic spending by Government over receipts (the Budget domestic deficit) represents a direct increase in the volume of money; only sales of government securities to the domestic non-bank sector, among the various financing transactions, provide a direct reduction in the volume of money. Thus, for a given Budget deficit, official overseas loan raisings do not have, in themselves, any impact on the volume of money. The proceeds of such loans form part of Australia's official reserves of foreign exchange which are held in the form of assets denominated in foreign currencies. Overseas borrowings by the Government can have indirect consequences for the volume of money in the domestic economy in so far as, through their effects on attitudes and expectations concerning the external account, they can influence private sector foreign exchange transactions, which are an element of monetary formation. There are of course many other factors that affect private sector foreign exchange transactions, but it may be noted that, accompanying the progressive implementation of the Government's 1977-78 overseas borrowing program, there has been the emergence of a stronger trend in such transactions. {:#subdebate-41-74} #### Payments to Non-government Schools, Werriwa Division (Question No. 345) {: #subdebate-41-74-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G Whitlam: am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 2 March 1978: >What sums were paid by the Schools Commission under each program for non-govemment schools and under the Special Projects (Innovations) Program for government schools in the Electoral Division of Werriwa in 1977. {: #subdebate-41-74-s1 .speaker-GY5} ##### Mr Staley:
LP -- The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="a" start="i"} 0. Payments to non-government schools in the Electoral Division of Werriwa in 1977 under each program administered by the Schools Commission were as follows: {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. Under the Special Projects (Innovations) Program, **Mr M.** Edwards of Hoxton Park High School was paid a grant of $1,762 for a project entitled 'Remedial Mathematics Program'. {:#subdebate-41-75} #### Department of Defence: Accidents Involving Vehicles (Question No. 358) {: #subdebate-41-75-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many vehicles owned by the Department of Defence were involved in accidents during (a) 1975, (b) 1976 and(c) 1977. 1. How many (a) civilians and (b) defence personnel were (i) injured and (ii) killed in these accidents. 2. How many vehicles driven by defence personnel but not owned by theDepartment were involved in accidents in (a) 1975, (b) 1976 and (c) 1977. 3. How many (a) civilians and (b) defence personnel were (i) injured and (ii) killed in these accidents. 4. How many defence personnel were charged with offences arising out of these accidents. {: #subdebate-41-75-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a) 1618; (b) 1589;(c) 1572. 1. (a) (i) 35; (ii) 2; Not all statistics are available as Navy and Army do not record civilian injuries or fatalities. (b) (i)93;(ii)10. 2. (a) 299 (Excludes Navy as statistics are not available for 1975); (b) 823; (c) 804. 3. (a) (i) 1; (ii) Nil; Not all statistics are available as Navy and Army do not record civilian injuries or fatalities. (b)(i) 1945; (ii) 109. 4. Statistics are not available from within the Department of Defence as such persons are dealt with by the Civilian Authorities. {:#subdebate-41-76} #### Multilateral Trade Negotiations (Question No. 379) {: #subdebate-41-76-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 7 March 1978: >As soon as the present round of multilateral trade negotiations in Geneva on wheat, beef and dairy products are concluded, will he detail the current situation and the progress made. {: #subdebate-41-76-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >While the Multilateral Trade Negotiations (MTN) being conducted under the auspices of the GATT have accelerated in recent months and major participants are seeking to have many of the major issues substantially resolved by mid 1 978, no specific date has been set for the conclusion of the MTN which could even extend into 1979. > >Within the MTN, wheat, beef and dairy products are being dealt with by specific negotiating sub-groups of the Agriculture Group. The meat and dairy sub-groups are now in almost continuous session examining the scope for new international arrangements which would improve trading conditions for these commodities. In the case of grains however, the main discussions and negotiations have been within the International Wheat Council in London and more recently of the UN Wheat Conference in Geneva. At an appropriate time discussions in the MTN Grains sub-group will complement and parallel these. > >In addition, there has also been established within the MTN an item by item, bilateral request and offer procedure for the negotiation of trade concessions on agricultural products. All the principal trading countries have made and received requests and initial responses have been exchanged. > >The next phase which is about to commence shortly, will involve bilateral consultations. > >Australia is taking an active part in discussions in the three negotiating sub-groups on grains, meat and dairy products, and has also made wide ranging requests for concessions in agricultural trade under the bilateral request and offer procedure. > >Confidentiality is of course an essential aspect of the negotiating process, and premature disclosure of the detail of discussions could inhibit progress. I wish to assure the honourable member, however, that at the earliest appropriate time I shall provide full details of the progress made and results flowing from the MTN.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 May 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1978/19780502_reps_31_hor109/>.