House of Representatives
11 May 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden, Q.C.) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2215

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Medical Benefits

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

That Item 6469 of the standard Medical Benefits Table is the means by which payment is made for the slaughter of thousands of unborn babies every year.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government should ensure that Item 6469 is removed from the standard Medical Benefits Table.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baillieu, Mr Bourchier, Mr Howe, Mr Macphee, Mr Nixon and Mr Yates.

Petitions received.

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 at least 3 years the States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974-77, renewed for one year expiring on the 30 June 1 978.

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 for $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 aloan 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 Lynch, Mr James, Mr Les Johnson, Mr Lucock, Mr Morris and Mr West.

Petitions received.

German Pensioners Residing in Australia

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 11975, the German Insurance Companies, have stopped paying their monthly contributions of DM 1 15.- 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 Healthfunds HBA ANA Manchester Unity etc. have to meet their liabilities. It is for this reason, that we protest, that a foreign Healthfund 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 Co. that received the premiums.

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

Petition received.

Broadcasting and Television Programs

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

That because television and radio

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

Giralang, Australian Capital Territory: Newsagency and Post Office

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

That the Giralang Shopping Centre lacks certain facilities.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that steps be taken to encourage the opening of a newsagency and a Post Office or Post Office agency at the Giralang shops.

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

Petition received.

Citizen Forces: Long Service and Good Conduct Medals

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 sheweth:

  1. On 14 February 1975, 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 foresaid 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 and historic Reserve Forces Decorations and Medals to members of the Royal Australian Naval Reserve, Citizens Military Force (Army Reserve) and Citizens Air Force. by Mr Lynch.

Petition received.

Taxation

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

National Family Policy

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 family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state’.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the government initiate a national family policy and use the concept of family impact statements as a means highlighting family needs.

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

Petition received.

Immigration: Dobbs Family

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

The Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has refused entry to Australia of the Dobbs family of Nottingham England, because of the blindness of their 12 year old daughter, Catherine. Yet the same Government accepted Vietnamese hijackers, some with leprosy, a disease which could result in far greater cost to the Australian people than the support of one blind girl.

We therefore call upon the Commonwealth Government to grant permission for the Dobbs family to migrate to Australia.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in our Petition; so that the Dobbs family may be re-united in Australia.

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

Petition received.

page 2217

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2217

QUESTION

URANIUM SHARE TRADING

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

-When did the Prime Minister first learn of the allegations against the former Minister for Finance relating to advice on uranium share trading?

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

– Certain affidavits were put to me a matter of three or four days ago and I sought advice from the Attorney-General about the appropriate course to take.

page 2217

QUESTION

INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. I preface it by reminding the Treasurer that on Monday of this week he said that the Government had under consideration the possibility of some re-examination of the phasing arrangements with respect to the investment allowance which were to commence on 30 June this year. I ask: Has he had the opportunity to make a further examination of this matter? Has the Government reached any conclusions with respect to the further operation of the investment allowance? If so, what conclusions has it reached about that matter?

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

-I can tell the House that in recent days the Government has given very careful consideration to the conditions attaching to payment of the investment allowance and has reached certain decisions on those conditions. I point out to the House that the purpose of the investment allowance when it was introduced by the Government was to provide in the shorter term a boost and a stimulus to investment activity. In view of the level of investment activity in Australia, particularly in the last six or nine months, there is no doubt that the investment allowance has made a major contribution. I indicate to the House that the cost to revenue of the investment allowance in the current financial year is calculated to be $325m and for 1978-79- that is, the coming financial year- it is estimated to be of the order of $400m. So by any measure this allowance has been a liberal one, a properly liberal one and a properly generous one. Nonetheless it must be said that it has represented a significant revenue concession and, in the Government’s view, one that is totally justified in order to encourage investment.

The Government has considered whether any alterations should be made to the arrangements oulined last year by my predecessor which, as honourable members will know, involve what might be called a phasing arrangement to commence on 1 July of this year. As a result of that consideration the Government has decided that there will be no alterations at all to the arrangements that were outlined last year by my predecessor. So the arrangements detailed in that statement will stand. The 40 per cent rate will remain applicable to plant ordered between 1 January 1976 and 30 June 1978 and first used no later than 30 June 1 979. The 20 per cent rate will remain applicable to plant ordered between 1 January 1976 and 30 June 1985 and first used between 1 July 1979 and 30 June 1986.I point out in that context that those dates reflect a decision taken by the Government subsequent to the introduction of the investment allowance to extend the 20 per cent phasing period by a further period of two years. The Government believes that this allowance has been a generous one and that it has made a major contribution, but in all the circumstances it has reached a firm and final decision that the existing arrangements will remain and there will be no extensions of them.

page 2217

QUESTION

DISCLOSURE OF CABINET DECISIONS

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I also direct a question to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Royal Commission inquiry relating to the Minister for Finance. Are we to take it from a recent announcement by the Prime Minister that he always proposes to take appropriate action where prima facie evidence suggests that a member of the Government has conveyed information on a Cabinet decision, or has anticipated a Cabinet decision, prior to official public announcement? Is it now his judgment that the appropriate action in such cases is an inquiry under the terms of the Royal Commissions Act?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– In the view of the Attorney-General and the Government the action taken in this instance was the appropriate action.

page 2217

QUESTION

AUTOMATIC TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr SAINSBURY:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I ask the Minister whether, under the Telecommunications Act 1975, he can give directions to Telecom Australia to vary its priorities for capital funding. I emphasise the word ‘priorities’. Will the Minister use his influence to help to redress the imbalance seen by country people whereby telephone subscribers in large cities enjoy much greater opportunity to make local calls within zones of community interest and whereby those city subscribers enjoy continuous automatic service, which is a situation that certainly is not shared by many of their country cousins?

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

-It is interesting to reflect upon the powers of the Minister under the Telecommunications Act, and the honourable member has caused me to do that. The Minister has power to give directions to the Australian Telecommunications Commission with respect to the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers as appears necessary to the Minister in the public interest. Ministers, of course, always fancy that they are very good defenders of the public interest. One would expect, therefore, that if the matter came to the crunch a court might find it rather difficult to question the judgment of a government or a Minister as to what the Minister believes is necessary in the public interest. Nevertheless, I would have to say that if it came to a question of taking action under the Act along the lines hinted at by the honourable member, I would need to seek advice from the Government’s legal advisers as to the proposed course of action. But putting that to one side for the moment, let me say to the honourable member that it is the view of the Government that there must be a continuing improvement in services available for country people in Australia.

The present plans of Telecom Australia provide that virtually all manual services will become automatic within 10 years. In recent years, the position has been that in 1970 there were 260,000 manual services in Australia, there are about 110,000 now, and by 1979 it is expected that there will be about 85,000 manual services. I should point out also that the Government at the last election made a commitment that the cost of off-peak calls would be reduced substantially. Telecom has been working on this and I expect the Government to be able shortly to look at the plans that have been drawn up by Telecom for the reduction in the price of subscriber trunk dialling and long distance calls. But I think it has to be said that it takes a good many months actually to effect any changes which are decided upon. The Government also attaches importance to its request to Telecom to study the local call zoning policy. I would hope that any policy change would ensure that, so far as possible, local call access to the nearest local service centre is provided for the great majority of rural subscribers.

page 2218

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY CONFERENCE

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister for Productivity aware that the South Australian

Government’s Industrial Democracy Conference, scheduled for Adelaide in three weeks time, is a complete sell-out with 560 acceptances and more than 200 people already turned away? Does this not show an enormous desire in this country to find a solution to the conflict that exists in some quarters between management and workers which itself, of course, works against a growing standard of living? Is it not regrettable that the Australian national Government has not taken a lead in this area but has left the void to be filled by a State Labor Government? With such a large unsatisfied demand for consultation and dialogue, will the Fraser Government now do something about following that lead?

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

– I was not aware that the Conference was a sell-out but I am delighted that it is. I am not surprised because I believe that people throughout Australia want to see a diminution of confrontation and a great improvement in labour-management relations as they do, 1 think, in every area of human relations. With regard to the Federal Government’s attitude, I believe that our policy, which we have stated here and which was stated in the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General, is a sensible one for a national government. If we are going to make progress in this area it will be at the grass roots. It will be at every plant and at every office. It can be guided by State governments much more easily than by the Federal Government. Our role is to try to co-ordinate the activities and to try to make sure that in this very difficult area people do not go off with half-baked ideas but in fact understand the same terms in the same manner and try to achieve the moderating progress to which the honourable member has referred. I believe we are well placed to do that but we certainly are not well placed, as a Federal Government, to impose things on people at the grass roots. Our role is to act as a catalyst and to co-ordinate activities. We are doing that.

page 2218

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH-STATE ROADS AGREEMENT

Mr BAUME:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. Is it possible for the spirit of the Commonwealth-State Roads Agreement to be broken by a State government’s deliberately deferring the spending of allocated funds until late in the financial year in order to transfer these funds to projects in other areas that do not have approval? Has this spirit been broken by the New South Wales Government by making little or no apparent progress in the Shoalhaven shire in my electorate on important road construction projects, totalling $1.7m, which the Minister approved in the 1977-78 rural arterial roads program. If approved Commonwealth funds are not spent within the next eight weeks on projects in the Shoalhaven shire, will the money be carried forward to the next financial year? If so, will this be at the expense of next year’s projects in the shire?

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

– The procedure followed by the States in respect of roads expenditure programs is as follows: Before the commencement of a financial year the States send to the Commonwealth their programs of works for the ensuing financial year. During the course of the financial year the Department of Main Roads in New South Wales or the Country Roads Board in Victoria may, for some reason or other, be delayed in carrying out the program submitted. The honourable member drew attention specifically to the Shoalhaven shire. It is true that there have been delays with the expenditure program as submitted to me for this financial year by the Department of Main Roads in New South Wales. I do not think that the Department of Main Roads has any intention of breaking the spirit of the arrangement between the Commonwealth and the State. There may have been fundamental reasons for the delay such as weather, industrial trouble or a host of other reasons. The honourable member will be pleased to know that, as I understand it, the contracts in the Shoalhaven shire either have just been signed or are about to be signed for some of the works programs in which he is interested.

As to whether the delay in this 12 months will cause a further delay in the next 12 months, that really depends on the programs submitted to me for the next financial year by the New South Wales Minister. If, by chance, when I receive the program I notice that there is no continuation of the program of road expenditure in the Shoalhaven shire the conclusion could be drawn that the Department of Main Roads was delaying any further development until the present program was completed. I shall keep my eye on the program when it comes to hand and keep the honourable member informed.

page 2219

QUESTION

CITIZENSHIP APPLICATIONS

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Is the Government considering the reintroduction of a formal written test to determine citizenship applications? Would reintroduction of this test strengthen claims that the Government is operating a de facto White Australia policy?

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

– The Government is not considering the introduction of any written English test for citizenship applications. The rest of the question is too nonsensical to spend any time on it.

page 2219

QUESTION

BEEF INDUSTRY

Mr MacKENZIE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Primary Industry advise the House of the total amount paid to beef producers under the Beef Industry (Incentive Payments) Scheme introduced to provide some cash flow to very hard pressed cattlemen? Will the Minister consider an extension of this type of scheme, particularly in view of the desperate situation that has now developed in northern Australia where widespread drought and bluetongue disease have further aggravated the situation?

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

– Unfortunately, the position of the cattle industry has not improved as we had hoped. It is true that in much of southern Australia the industry has been enjoying somewhat better prices than in the Queensland area. However, it is equally true that the dependence on export markets in Queensland is greater than it is elsewhere in Australia. The cash flow position, the level of indebtedness and the general prospects for the industry in Queensland are therefore of very real concern to the Government. Honourable members would be interested to know- I am grateful to the honourable gentleman for giving me the opportunity to explain this to the House- that under the Beef Industry (Incentive Payments) Scheme a total of $67.97m has already been paid to the industry to 5 May 1978. There have been 53,011 claims received, of which 51,761 have been assessed; 45,039 have been paid; and 1,150 claims await assessment. This scheme is specifically of direct assistance to cattle producers throughout Australia. I believe it has been of tremendous assistance in trying to overcome the serious cash flow deficits that many of them face.

The honourable gentleman also referred to the particular problems of those affected by bluetongue in northern Australia. The Government has taken decisions with respect to the applications made by a number of groups in the north. The position is particularly bad in what is known as the endemic area, that is, the area where the midge from which the virus affects cattle is present. The difficulty of course is that even if animals identified as reactors were to be killed the presence of the midge would not stop other animals from contracting the virus. I again state that there has still been no identification of disease from the virus, but the virus is present and in order to export live cattle to other countries and of course to send them to sourthern parts of Australia a number of restraints are imposed which are seriously affecting the incomes of cattle producers in that area.

The Government has taken a number of decisions with respect to direct assistance to be made available to producers in the area. I am now in the process of contacting State governments and hope to have their responses shortly. I shall then be in a position to make an announcement of the character of that assistance. The intention is to provide some offset against the loss of markets and revenue that the identification of the bluetongue virus means. Of course, the reason for the prevention of the movement of the virus is that it is significantly to the advantage of sheep producers throughout Australia. In that respect the cattlemen of the north are being called on to bear a burden that is not specifically in their interest, but is in the interest of all wool growers in other parts of Australia. For that reason the Government feels it is justified in providing this additional assistance to northern cattle producers.

page 2220

QUESTION

UNITED STATES DEFENCE SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

-The Minister for Defence will be aware that on Monday of this week a question was asked of the Leader of the Government in the Senate relating to a United States of America communications satellite installation, and that on that occasion the Minister gave an incorrect answer which he corrected the following day. In the corrected statement, which was a considered statement from the Minister for Defence, the Minister indicated that the station concerned was a replacement for a station closed in 1973 and had in fact been constructed in 1977. 1 ask the Minister. Is that information correct or in fact is the station concerned a station which is propsed to be constructed in approximately 18 months time as part of a 2 5 -station project for the Pentagon’s world command system? Have the contracts for this construction been let for 18 months? If that information is correct, why has the Government indicated that the station was already constructed when in fact it is a proposed station, not yet constructed, for an entirely different purpose?

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

– My understanding of the position is as follows: In 1973 a satellite terminal at the station was removed. Pursuant to approval given by the Government in October 1977 it was replaced. I have been informed informally- I emphasise ‘informally’- that the United States Government stands in contemplation of placing before the Australian Government a proposal to update that satellite terminal. That proposal relates to the period 1980 to 1981. I assure the honourable gentleman and the House that when a formal proposal has been received by the Australian Government it will be considered on its merits.

page 2220

QUESTION

INVESTMENT IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

Dr EDWARDS:
BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce: How does the Government view the present outlook for investment in manufacturing industry? Is the current rate of capital investment in manufacturing appropriate as the basis of an increasingly efficient and competitive industrial structure in Australia?

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– I thank the honourable member for Berowra for bis question relating to investment in the manufacturing sector of the Australian economy. One of the principal successes of the Government’s economic policy has been the very strong revival that has taken place in investment in the manufacturing sector of the economy. For example, manufacturing sector investment for the last half of 1977 exceeded a record $1 billion in seasonally adjusted terms and was 13 per cent greater than it had been in the first half of last year. I should also mention that, according to the most recent survey of business intentions by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, manufacturing investment for the first half of the current year is expected to be some 20 per cent greater than in the second half of last year which, as I have just mentioned, was at a record level. These figures reflect a new sense of confidence by the manufacturing sector- a confidence generated by the Government’s economic policies and the specific measures that we have taken to place the manufacturing sector of the economy on a sound basis for future growth.

page 2220

ECONOMIC POLICY: UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr HAYDEN:

– I refer the Prime Minister to his recent discussions with Vice-President Mondale, in which the American Vice-President reportedly said to him:

Our commitment- and President Carter’s as well- is that we do not intend to solve the problems of inflation by massive unemployment That is poor economics and social policy and I speak from the heart.

In view of this rebuke and the International Monetary Fund’s criticism of Australia’s excessive deflationary economic policies, will the Prime

Minister reconsider the need for carefully controlled expansionary economic measures as a replacement for policies that Vice-President Mondale has fairly described as ‘poor economics and social policy’.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The Treasurer will answer the question.

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– I do not propose to speculate on what may or not have been said in exchanges between Vice-President Mondale and the Prime Minister or any other Ministers during the VicePresident’s visit to Australia, but I will respond to the implication in the question of the Leader of the Opposition, that is, the oft-repeated implication that there is in Australia some trade-off which can be obtained between inflation and unemployment. It is a myth that the honourable gentleman has persisted with for a long period of time. It is a myth that the present Government rejects completely. The basis of our economic policy is to bring about a lasting reduction in inflation and thus provide the only sound basis for a sustained and lasting economic recovery. The honourable gentleman thrashes around trying to find justification in statements that are made by international economic bodies for the criticisms that he makes of Australia’s economic policies, yet when a body with the credit of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development produces a report which endorses in very substantial terms the wisdom of the economic policies being followed by the Government he and his colleagues try to denigrate its integrity. This Government does not accept that one can trade-off unemployment and inflation. It is a cruel deception of those who are unemployed to pretend that one can.

page 2221

QUESTION

DRUG OFFENCES: SENTENCES

Mr BIRNEY:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs whether the Crown has decided to lodge an appeal against the inadequacy of the sentence passed recently in the Northern Territory Supreme Court on a prisoner named Tait for offences against the Customs Act? Is it a fact that there was a substantial disparity between that sentence and the sentences passed recently on two American women for their part in the illegal importation of drugs into Australia? Were all of the defendants indicted under the Customs Act? If so, can he account for that disparity?

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– In answering the honourable member’s question I remind the House that, following the apprehension of two people as a result of the illegal importation of a large quantity of drugs into Australia on 21 January of this year, the two people concerned, Donald Roy Tait and Michael Leonard Bartley, were sentenced in the Darwin Supreme Court. Tait was sentenced to six years and eight months imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and nine months; Bartley was sentenced to three years and eight months with a non-parole period of one year and six months. When answering a question a week or so ago I indicated that I was concerned at the inadequacy of the sentences. I am able to inform the House that I have instructed my Department to seek leave to appeal against the inadequacy of both sentences.

The honourable member also drew attention to the disparity between the sentences passed on these two men and the sentences passed in relation to offences committed by two American women. It will be recalled that the two women were sentenced to a term of 14 years imprisonment. I point out to the House that the two American women were sentenced under that part of the customs law that concerns the illegal importation of hard drugs- for importing hashish in resin form, which is described as a hard drug under the legislation. The maximum sentence for the illegal importation of hard drugs is 25 years. Tait and Bartley were sentenced in relation to the importation of cannabis in Buddha stick form and this offence carries a maximum sentence of only 10 years. That partly accounts for the disparity between the two sentences. I am able to inform the honourable member and the House that the maximum penalties are under consideration and I expect to discuss the matter on Monday next with State Ministers who have a responsibility in this field. It will be my intention at these discussions to obtain agreement with the States to increase the maximum penalties.

page 2221

QUESTION

DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTE

Mr FRY:

– I direct my question to the Minister for Trade and Resources and I refer him to submissions by the Philippines Atomic Energy Commission to the International Atomic Energy Agency that since the Philippines is in a volcanic belt and has no stable salt rock formations, the long-term storage and disposal of its nuclear waste will depend on the establishment of an international burial site. Will the Minister assure this House that his Government will not allow Australia to become an international burial ground for nuclear waste and will not allow nuclear waste derived from any Australian uranium used in the Philippines to be dumped in Australia? Can the Minister inform the House where the nuclear waste from the Philippines will be stored and by what means?

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

– That is a completely speculative question and I do not intend adding anything to it. There has been no request by the Philippines to store its waste material in Australia.

page 2222

QUESTION

DEVELOPMENT OF RANGER URANIUM PROJECT

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP

-I direct my question to the Minister for Trade and Resources. Can he inform the House of the outcome of the discussions which he and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs had in Darwin yesterday with the Northern Land Council and the Northern Territory Executive concerning uranium mining? Was the objective that he mentioned in the House on Tuesday achieved, that is, an understanding between the various parties?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Australian Director of Parks and Wildlife and I, along with two Territory representatives in the Parliament, the honourable member for the Northern Territory and Senator Kilgariff, went to Darwin and had lengthy and frank discussions with the Northern Territory Executive and the Northern Land Council to resolve the problems that had arisen as a result of amendments that Senator Kilgariff had suggested for another place. I am happy to say that an acceptable understanding has been reached between the parties and that the bulk of the amendments that have been proposed will be submitted to the Senate for approval.

I think it is a credit to all the parties concerned that they could sit down and resolve this matter in a way which was acceptable to them. The Northern Territory administration was concerned about the role it would play in a national park and the Northern Land Council was very concerned that any role the Northern Territory administration played might impinge upon the rights of Aboriginal people. The Commonwealth made it very clear that the rights of the Aboriginal people would be preserved and that Commonwealth control would be maintained over this great national park.

I believe that the comments of Mr Yunupingu, the Chairman of the Northern Land Council, made after our meeting yesterday, to the effect that a closer understanding and a greater degree of co-operation than ever before has now been achieved amongst the parties involved are an excellent omen for future negotiations and relations towards the development of uranium in the area. I believe it is important that all parties look at this project which involves the development of uranium, and of the national park, as being a co-operative one. It is important that we work together to achieve what will be one of the greatest national parks in the world and to enable a source of essential energy which the world needs to be mined.

page 2222

QUESTION

RESOURCES TAX

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Does the Treasurer recall that, when delivering the Budget last year, the then Treasurer said: ‘. . . examining whether the levy should be replaced by a resources tax’? The then Treasurer was referring to a levy on crude oil production. Does he also recall the statement of the then Minister for National Resources in August 1977 that the Government was considering the application of a resources tax on profits to oil producers as a result of world parity pricing? In view of the statement by the Secretary of the Department of National Development in an address last week to an American Conference in Sydney that ‘No in-principle decision to apply such a tax has yet been taken’, can the Treasurer give an assurance that a resources tax will be introduced so that part of the windfall profits of $109m to Esso-BHP and $41m to other oil producers in Australia is returned to the Australian community?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– I can inform the honourable gentleman that this whole matter is under consideration by the Government and when decisions on it are announced he will know the situation.

page 2222

QUESTION

ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT

Mr BURNS:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister is no doubt aware of the assertions by the Opposition that the Government is lacking a policy on arms control and disarmament matters. Will the Minister inform the House of the initiatives the Australian Government has taken in order to achieve wider international agreement on these matters?

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

-Since this Government took office, and particularly since its decision on the export of uranium, Australia’s activity on arms control and disarmament has increased markedly. I have read with some interest the views of honourable members opposite that the Government has done nothing on the question of disarmament. There is a touch of irony, apart from mystery, in reading the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who in one sentence said the Government was doing nothing in New York and, remarkably, in the next sentence said that apart from posturing greatly in New York nothing was being done here.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– On human rights.

Mr PEACOCK:

– The Opposition is devoid of any initiatives on human rights. It knows that since the early 1950s Australia had not served on the Human Rights Commission. She now is a member and as a consequence our policies are being pursued there. At the last General Assembly meeting we co-sponsored resolutions on the comprehensive nuclear test ban, on the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks negotiations and on nuclear non-proliferation. All three resolutions were adopted with wide support. In fact the resolution on the comprehensive nuclear test ban was supported for the first time ever by both the United States and the Soviet Union. Of course even to the most bereft minds opposite it ought to be obvious that one cannot achieve a successful nuclear test ban unless one has the support of both super powers. In this instance for the first time, as a consequence directly of Australia’s initiative, they supported the resolution.

We have also been active in the preparations for the United Nations Special General Assembly Session on Disarmament. I have heard that we have done nothing on that. In fact, we are a vice-president of the organising committee. The special session can potentially give new stimulus and focus to the whole range of arms control efforts. We have emphasised the need for a set of basic principles and for a realistic program of action as a contribution to a new international consensus on priorities for future negotiations. At the last two General Assembly meetings I have spoken extensively on disarmament. Finally, our decision to allow the export of uranium under stringent safeguards was taken in the context of our support for nuclear arms control objectives. As regards all these issues put to the House, Australia is not only continuing to exert as much influence as possible but is doing so effectively, as can be seen by the results obtained in the United Nations.

page 2223

QUESTION

SHIPPING FREIGHTS

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the Minister for Transport aware that the Australian Wool Corporation proposes to ship substantial quantities of wool to Tacoma in the United States at rates considerably below the prevailing conference freight rates? I ask the Minister: Did the Australian Wool Corporation consult the Minister on its proposals? Has the Minister sought an assessment of the effects of the Corporation’s actions on the Northbound Conference shipping services in view of the expectation that the wool shipped to Tacoma will later be on-forwarded to Asian and Japanese destinations? Is the Minister able to say whether such on-forwarding will in any way affect the operations of the Australian Northbound Conference services on which the Australian beef and dairy industries are so dependent for their exports? Can the Minister give an assurance that the transport arrangements for Australian beef and dairy exports to the United States will not be disadvantaged in any way as a result of these Australian Wool Corporation shipping proposals?

Mr NIXON:
LP

– I was advised that the Australian Wool Corporation had negotiated freight rates, as stated by the honourable member. I was also given an assessment of the effect of those freight rates on other commodity trades. I was assured by the advice given to me that the freight rates negotiated were proper and in accordance with the principles applied to freight negotiations. I am also advised that the effects on other freight rate negotiations will be nil. Therefore the whole negotiation is completely proper and in accordance with Government policy.

page 2223

QUESTION

MT LYELL MINING AND RAILWAY CO. LTD

Mr BURR:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– Has the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs received the final report from the Industries Assistance Commission relating to the Mt Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd? If the report has not been received, when is it expected to be received? If the report has been received, when will the Minister table it?

Mr FIFE:
LP

– I have received the Industries Assistance Commission report in relation to the copper industry. It is not a report that deals specifically and only with the Mt Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd, but obviously the operations of that company are covered by the report. The procedure that is adopted is that when the report is received by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs it is immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Industry Assistance. That is a body of senior government officials from the departments dealing with industry matters. A recommendation on that report is prepared for the consideration of the Minister who has responsibility for industry matters, in this case the Minister for Trade and Resources.

The subject will be exhaustively considered as a matter of urgency over the course of the next three or four weeks. As soon as the Minister for National Resources and I have prepared a submission for Cabinet it will become then a matter for the consideration of the Cabinet. I give the honourable member an assurance that the matter will be dealt with expeditiously and that all the relevant representations that have been received by the IAC and that have been made by honourable members to the Deputy Prime Minister and me will be very carefully considered by the Government before any final decision is taken.

page 2224

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT AT CHRYSLER AUSTRALIA LTD

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask a question of the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the announcement by Chrysler Australia Ltd that it intends to reduce its work force by 1,100 persons during this year, and to the unannounced indirect employment reductions which would increase the total level of unemployment by the order of two to three times this number. I ask: Is the Prime Minister aware that the South Australian Government operates a State unemployment relief scheme, its current annual cost being $23m? In view of the large sudden additional cost that would be imposed on the South Australian Government in assisting under the scheme the Chrysler workers displaced as a result of the Federal Government’s economic and motor vehicle industry policies, will the Prime Minister indicate whether he will provide urgently a supplementary grant to the South Australian Government to enable it effectively to employ displaced Chrysler workers?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– Unless it arrived a very short time ago, there has certainly been no request from the Premier of South Australia on this matter.

Mr Ruddock:

– He is overseas.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Well, I think he might have an Acting Premier when he is overseas. At the same time it is perfectly plain from all those measures that have been supported from the South Australian Budget over the past couple of years that the South Australian Government has sufficient funds to do all those things that it wishes to do. If it wishes to re-order its own priorities it is perfectly entitled to do so.

I think the honourable gentleman’s question pays too little regard to the training and retraining programs run by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations which at any one time are assisting and supporting tens of thousands of Australians, many of them young Australians, and under which 200,000 people or more have been assisted over the last couple of years. As the honourable gentleman knows, at the time of the last Budget we announced that there would be no financial limit on those retraining, training and job assistance programs because we did not want anyone to be denied an opportunity as a result of an arbitrary limit on funds. Those programs are remarkably successful. They have been expanded.

One of the matters put to us by trade unionists just a couple of nights ago was that there should be assistance with training or retraining We put it to the unions that they in turn might be able to make that easier by supporting a move for adult qualifications for tradesmen, which is something that the trade union movement has not always grasped with a great degree of enthusiasm. At this very moment officers of the Commonwealth are in consultation with the company and with the trade unions at Chrysler. I would hope very much that special measures can be introduced to help in relation to this particular matter through the programs that are being operated by that Department. It wants emphasising time and time again that one of the results of the policies of this Government is that State governments, through their budgets, have had very adequate funds to judge their own priorities and spend those funds as they themselves determine. It has been perfectly plain when looking at the various measures that are supported by State governments that they have been able to spread their wings and support a greater number of measures financially in a very large area of activity.

page 2224

DISCLOSURE OF CABINET DECISIONS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-For complete precision and accuracy, I wish to add to an answer that I gave earlier. The affidavits on this matter were given to me on 4 May and on the same day I sought the Attorney-General’s advice.

page 2224

RURAL INCOME FLUCTUATIONS

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the Industries Assistance Commission’s report on rural income fluctuations.

page 2224

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

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

– Pursuant to section 35A of the Prices Justification Act 1973 I present the report of the Prices Justification Tribunal for the six months ended 3 1 December 1 977.

page 2224

GREAT BARRIER REEF MAKINE PARK AUTHORITY

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · Braddon · LP

– Pursuant to section 60 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Great Barrier

Reef Marine Park Authority for the year ended 30 June 1977.

page 2225

GRIEVANCE DEBATE

Media Coverage of the Uranium Debate- Australian Telecommunications Commission- Cost of Medical Care- Industrial Accidents- East Timor- West Gate Bridge- Vietnamese Refugees- Surveillance of Australia’s Coastline-Estate and Gift Duties- Wine Industry- Question Time- The Parliament -Norfolk Island: Taxation- Terrorism: New South Wales Prisons- Unemployment- Violence in Sport

Question proposed:

That grievances be noted.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I want to restrict my remarks this morning to the reporting in the national Press and the reporting by the Parliamentary Press Gallery of the uranium debate. It is a sorry and sad situation in this Parliament to witness the recent so-called parliamentary debate here when six Bills and a ministerial statement were pushed through this House in approximately 10 hours and although these Bills have critical consequences for not only the whole of this nation but also for our relationships with the rest of the world the newspaper reporting of the debate was abysmal. It was so poor that one had much difficulty in finding it in the newspapers. This was particularly so on 4 May when one had to look hard to find the reports of that debate. The Melbourne Age reported the debate on page 12. The Sydney Morning Herald reported in on page 18 and Melbourne Sun reported it on page 32. There was no report in the Australian nor in the Australian Financial Review.

This was a disgrace when it is considered that we were, in fact, taking a decision on the enormous implications involved in mining in Australia nearly 20 per cent of the known uranium deposits in the western world. One only has to look at the third report of the First Fox Royal Commission to realise the grave importance of this decision. That report said that the nuclear power industry is unintentionally contributing to an increased risk of nuclear war and that this is the most serious hazard associated with the industry.

At the time these important Bills were being pushed through this Parliament there was very little reporting in the Press of what the Parliament was debating and what honourable members said. A prime example of the shallowness of the reporting is a special article written by

Peter Bowers in the Sydney Morning Herald. He talked about the uranium debate and a shift from morals to dollars. How shallow is such reporting.

What is the situation involving the Aboriginal people? One has only to look at the second Fox Commission report to see clearly set out at page 9 that the Aboriginal people gave clear evidence to the inquiry that they are opposed to any mining of their land by Pancontinental Mining Ltd or Ranger. There was no mention of that in the Bower’s article. The Aboriginals are opposed to mining at Jabiluka or Jabiru but because they feel they cannot stop the Government from going ahead with the mining project obviously these people have a right to try to negotiate and try to get some money as compensation for spoiling their environment and their traditional way of life. In fact, the Aboriginal people are very fearful of mining. Again, we have to ask why Mr Bowers did not refer to the Aboriginal position which was expressed in the Ranger report. This is just one example of reporting by members of the Press Gallery.

I have referred to examples of poor Press reporting. The fact is that the reports have been slanted. One only has to look at the poor reports in the Press during the last Federal elections. This subject was hardly reported except in the last few days of the campaign. The debate did not get off the ground. Perhaps the Press Gallery reporters are frustrated in their attempts to report. Perhaps their attitude is that it is not worth them reporting these issues because it is newspaper policy to keep out those reports and not to initiate major discussion. We know that the newspapers have been playing down the debate on uranium particularly the anti-mining aspect. Recently in the Sydney Morning Herald, a former member of this House, W. C. Wentworth, was given wide coverage. That newspaper has failed to put the other point of view in this matter. The sad aspect of this matter is that the Press Gallery as a whole does not seem to make any real in-depth analysis of what is going on. One could say that the shallowness of the writings of the members of the Press Gallery is appalling. I suppose that there is only one exception. I want to make it quite clear that I believe that Mr Tony Thomas of the Melbourne Age has tried to make an in-depth analysis of a broad aspect of the uranium debate. I know that he has travelled widely in the uranium area where the uranium is proposed to be mined. I exclude him from my remarks. That does not exonerate the Melbourne Age. The reporting of the Melbourne Age on the uranium debate has fallen off. In the last six months, that newspaper has presented a very poor report indeed.

I ask: What journalist in the Press Gallery has made an anaylsis of the Australian Government’s claim that the problem of nuclear waste disposal has been solved? For instance, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made a statement indicating that the whole question of nuclear waste had been solved? He made that comment early in the uranium debate, prior to the elections. He over-simplified the situation. He said that the problems had been overcome and that laboratory tests had been carried out. But, at the same time, he put forward the proposition that Australia, in its nuclear safeguards proposal, would not allow the reprocessing of nuclear waste. If one wanted to proceed further on this subject and if one believed that the waste disposal problem was solved by a process called vitrification, one could not be in favour of not having a reprocessing program. If we want to use the vitrification process, reprocessing first has to take place. Even in the United States of America reprocessing is not permitted. I have asked questions in the House on the matter. In the United States there are 74,000 million gallons of liquid toxic waste. The Americans do not know what to do with it. America is the richest country in the world and it has not followed through this process. What journalist in the Gallery has written or examined the nuclear waste dilemma or examined in Press articles the government’s false claim.

Has the Press made a deep analysis of the Atomic Energy Act which is one of the most oppressive Acts with relation to civil liberties ever known in this country? It was introduced at the time of the Cold War. What articles have been written by members of the Press Gallery? Where are the articles referring to reports on this subject and to debates that have taken place in the Parliament? Where have Australian journalists made a study of the safeguards of proliferation either on the so-called bilateral agreements between the Australian Government and other governments or on the so-called safeguards under the International Atomic Energy Agency? Have members of the Press Gallery made any real analyses of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and the parts that they play in the whole matter of nuclear power? Has there been any real analysis of the economic aspects of this question? I asked in this House whether the Treasury had made any short term or long term analyses of the consequences of the outcome of uranium mining exports. The answer was a negative one. What follow up has been made by the Press? What of our negotiations with Iran, governed by the Shah, or with the Philippines, governed by President Marcos? We know that both of these leaders are thugs. We know how their people are oppressed. We know the use to which they will put our uranium if they are able to get it. The third recommendation of the first Fox report stated that the nuclear power industry is connected with the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In what way did the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) answer a question this morning from the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry) about the nuclear waste from the volcanic island in the Philippines? He gave a negative reply. It will be interesting to see whether there is any follow up by the Press Gallery.

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

Mr SAINSBURY:
Monaro · Eden

– Before commencing my grievance this morning I shall make one comment on the speech by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). In sharp contradistinction to his scare tactics in relation to Australia’s very responsible policy on uranium he has never once in this House condemned those countries which are flat out in going ahead with uranium mining and development. I refer especially to countries such as Russia.

This morning I shall talk about the Australian Telecommunications Commission. I addressed a question to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) during question time this morning on one aspect of Telecom. It is a question that is often raised by honourable members from country electorates. Telecom plays a very big part in the lives of people in the bush. It is a giant enterprise. The most recent annual report notes that its total value is now over $6 billion. It is a giant enterprise involved in a very important public utility which provides a service from which, of course, it has to make a profit. It makes a good profit. In addition, it is a great tool of decentralisation in this country. It also provides a very important welfare function especially for people who live outside the capital cities. People need to communicate. Communication in cities and large towns can be brought about quite easily by word of mouth or by travelling from one place to another. That is often impossible in more isolated areas. That is the reason I raise this matter today.

Telecom is a commission. That is good. It was brought about by the previous Government following a wide-ranging report. I am not arguing against that. Nor am I arguing about the fact that Telecom makes a profit. It think that is good. Its present level of profit of about $160m is often denigrated by people in country areas. I fully support that profit and I do not mind going on record as saying that. I realise that the massive capital works program which at present is $900m a year has to be prosecuted especially if people in country areas are to get better services in shorter time. I am not arguing against the profit level. I am certainly not arguing against some of the policies of Telecom in recent times that have assisted people in the country. Connection fees have been lowered. There has been an extension of Subscriber Trunk Dialling concessional arrangements on Sundays. Telephone call charges have not been raised in the past 2v4 years. At the same time inflation has accounted for a reasonable rise in the cost of living so that by not raising fees Telecom has, in fact, discounted them. I am not criticising any of these things. They are all good.

What I have to criticise is the fact that the hierarchy in Telecom at State and national level is not giving enough help to people in the country in terms of capital works. The 1976-77 annual report indicates that in country areas in New South Wales there were still 43,435 manual services at the end of June last year. Some of those are continuous manual services but even they have drawbacks. However, there are a large number of services that are not continuous. They do not operate for large parts of the weekends or most of the night. These services are the ones to which I address myself. Many of them are in my area. They deserve a much higher priority in capital spending than they are receiving at present. I note almost cynically that there is not a single manual service in a metropolitan or an outer metropolitan area. All these areas have continuous automatic services. Almost all of them have access to STD.

The present rate of supply of services within New South Wales is 130,000 a year. If there were a complete concentration on converting manual services to automatic services it would take four months at the rate of 130,000 a year. I appreciate that that is not possible. I appreciate that a lot of the new services have to go into metropolitan areas. So let me be a little more reasonable and suggest that it would take fifteen times as long. It should then take five years to convert all those manual services to automatic services. The Minister said this morning that it should take 10 years. He said that within that period there would probably be about 1.3 million new services. Therefore I do not think that in 10 years it is unreasonable to expect that 43,000 services in the country will be transferred to automatic services.

I fear that at the present rate of installation of automatic exchanges in the country the target of 10 years will not be met by any stretch of the imagination. At present there are 1,630 manual exchanges in Australia. I have no figures on this because it is not mentioned in the annual report but I would estimate that about 500 of those exchanges still remain in New South Wales. That estimate would seem reasonable when considering the large number that still remain in my electorate of Eden-Monaro. At the present rate within New South Wales, only 15 manual exchanges per annum are being converted to automatic exchanges out of a total of 500. At that rate it will take 35 years for all the people in the country to have automatic services. The Minister said this morning that it would take 10 years. At the present rate of installation it will take 35 years. That is why I have raised this point in the grievance debate today. I believe that the hierarchy in Telecom at State and Commonwealth level does not realise that the conversion to automatic exchanges will not be achieved in 10 years. It will take 35 years.

I want that policy changed. Out of the $900m being spent on capital works I want a much higher priority for the upgrading of country services. I am bound to say that within my electorate there is tremendous co-operation at the district telephone office level. I imagine that that occurs throughout the country. The Telecom officials in my electorate try very hard to obtain funds and priorities for the people under their service. I have the strongest admiration for the work they are doing and the help they are giving me. Nevertheless, they are bound by State and Commonwealth policies within Telecom. For that reason they are not able to expand their services quickly enough.

I note that in the annual accounts of Telecom there is no breakdown of profits between different areas, especially between city and country areas. One of the official reasons normally given by Telecom for not being able to expand country services quickly enough is that there is very little profit in it. They have to put money into areas which are more profitable. How profitable is the country? How profitable is the city? The annual reports do not give any indication of that. I wonder whether Telecom has a proper breakdown and whether it can justify the oft-repeated statement that the provision of these services is not profitable in many country areas. If Telecom does know, why does it not put the information in its annual reports so that we can scrutinise those facts? If Telecom does not know, why does it keep saying that the country areas are not profitable? I wonder whether a better and more concerted effort by Telecom in country areas would increase its profits by wiping off many of the labour intensive manual exchanges and creating conditions in which people in the country will more often use their telephones. I should like Telecom- the Minister for Post and Telecommunications knows what I think about this matter- to give a much higher priority to country areas. I certainly hope it can do that because unless it does we will not have automatic exchanges throughout Australia in anywhere near the next 10 years.

Mr HOWE:
Batman

– I refer to a recent debate in the Parliament on the subject of health care costs. I have been thinking about the suggestion made by Dr Sax in the report on health costs that prevention of illness and disability, accompanied by effective health education, has the greatest long-term potential for containing a general inflation of health expenditure. That is, the approach which is likely to be the most productive is that of prevention in the longer term. Whilst the Government has expressed concern about rising health care costs, in terms of its strategy it seems to be moving towards deterring people from using services by raising the direct private sector costs so that people are made more aware of the real costs of medical care. It is by no means clear that the Government is right in following this strategy. It may be that all that will be achieved by the Government will be the movement of more costs from the public sector to the private sector. That is certainly what has been happening.

In my view the real basis of rising health care costs is related, as I have suggested before in this house, to the underlying philosophy and interests of those groups of people who have an interest in the expansion of health care empires and systems. In a previous speech I identified such groups as doctors, hospital boards, administrators, health insurance funds, private hospital systems and so on. It is clear, as someone was just saying to me in the lobby, that when one looks into the heart of the services in Australia which are supposed to be serving ordinary people and on which thousands of millions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money are being spent one finds that the money is being transferred from the ordinary taxpayers into the hands of people who are able to engage in a kind of rip-off. That is what has been happening in relation to health care. A giant rip-off has been occurring and ordinary people and pensioners who have paid tax all their lives are now seeing that tax being paid to enable the exploitation of people through these escalating costs.

But it is not that argument with which I want to deal today. I want to follow through what I was suggesting about prevention. As a new member of this House, I have been trying to do a bit of research. It is interesting in doing that research how quickly I found myself to be frustrated by the lack of information available. Firstly, it is very hard to get any kind of estimate of what proportion of the total health care expenditure is actually spent on preventive approaches. But if one examines the view of a conservative body- a body that certainly is not likely to be friendly to the Australian Labor Party- that is, that of the Institute of Public Affairs, one finds that its estimate, not the Labor Party’s estimate, is that of the $3,000m of public money spent on health care in the last year something like $9m was specifically ear-marked for preventive programs. That is incredible. Only $9m of that $3,000m was for preventive programs. If, in the view of Dr Sax and his committee, preventive programs represent the greatest opportunity for long-term savings, that is an extraordinary contrast.

Something of the scale of the problem, particularly in the area of industrial health, which is the area on which I want to focus attention, can be seen by comparing the costs associated with industrial disputes and those associated with people involved in industrial accidents. During 1976 something like 3.7 million man days were lost through industrial disputes, at a cost of $1 14m in wages. Estimates of the cost of industrial accidents, as compiled from the claims under employers’ liability, show that in 1974-75 the cost amounted to $499m and in 1975-76 to more than $577m. In terms of the man days lost in the various states it is apparently difficult to get comparable data. It is extremely difficult to get on a national basis data which actually tells one how many days people have lost from work in relation to industrial accidents. One can get figures for various States. In Victoria in 1974-75, 145,234 weeks were lost. For New South Wales there is no comparable data. For Queensland the figure was more than one million days lost. The figure for South Australia was 96,000 weeks and for Western Australia over 100,000 weeks. The figure for Tasmania was more than 23,000 weeks. Those figures are not comparable. It is difficult to get any kind of national figure. The Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) has estimated that five million man days were lost during one year due to industrial accidents. One should think in terms of average wages and what that would represent in costs to people apan from the whole question of the loss of productivity.

The National Committee of Inquiry into Compensation and Rehabilitation, although directed to examine compensation and rehabilitation, also looked at the question of accident prevention with the aim of reducing costs incurred through industrial accidents. One of the main grievances in its report was about the lack of adequate data on which to assess the number and nature of industrial accidents and diseases. Page 2 10 of the report states:

Adequate statistical information is an essential ingredient of any accident prevention program which is both comprehensive and scientific. Existing data in Australia fell short of meeting the most modest tests of adequacy.

It is extraordinary, some would say reprehensible, that we simply do not have the figures necessary even to assess the scale and dimensions of the problems associated with industrial health. The reason for that is clearly that every State that is collecting figures is something of a law unto itself. It is not possible to persuade the States to do so and apparently so far it has not been possible for the national Government to establish its own system for the collection of statistics so that we know, particularly on the basis of days lost, exactly what is the scale of the problem in Australia. If we do not know the scale and dimensions and, in particular, if we do not know where the problem arises it is nonsense to talk about the Government having preventive programs and it is nonsense for the Government to talk about having a priority in relation to the reduction of health care costs. It can be demonstratedI think I have demonstrated it- that the dimensions of this problem alone are considerable in one year let alone spread over a period of five or six years.

In other countries it has been possible for national governments to legislate to do something about this problem. In Britain, after a report by Lord Robins in 1972, health and safety work legislation was passed which provided for a comprehensive and integrated system of statistical collection and the creation of a health and safety commission responsible to the Minister for administering the legislation and providing a focus and initiative for health and safety matters. The legislation also placed duties upon everyone concerned at the work place to observe safety regulations. Similarly, in the United States of America the Occupation and Health Safety Act was passed in 1970. Under this Act there is an obligation on the Secretary of Labor to develop and maintain the compilation, collection and analysis of data and statistics. There is provision to provide loans to small business to enable, where there are economic difficulties, compliance with the provisions under the legislation. It is possible for employers to request inspections, and an Institute of Occupational Safety and Health has been established to develop appropriate standards and conduct research.

In Austrafia we have an absurd situation where there exists simply a multitude of governmental and semi-governmental bodies, with no overall co-ordination. The result is that we do not have statistics on the problem as a whole and have not been able to develop a national approach. If we are going to talk in this House about reduction of health costs we ought to be talking, as at least sections of that report talk, about prevention. If we are going to be equitable and just in relation to the whole question of health, we are going to have to take industrial health much more seriously. If the Federal Government is to exercise a role, the first task seems to be to at least analyse the position and see that the statistics on the problem are available. Even that first step is presently beyond us and I understand that a national conference which was proposed to look at just these kinds of problems has been delayed because the Government will not provide the funds with which to man it.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

– It is a rarity in political life for a humble back-bencher to be able to participate in what could be the making of history. Equally it is rare indeed for a back-bench member of this House to be in a position to announce a development which may be of considerable significance. All members of this Parliament will be fully aware of my longstanding concern for the welfare of the people of East Timor, not merely because of Australia’s debt of gratitude to them for their stalwart and loyal support in the dark days of World War II, but because I believe, and all Australians believe, in the sanctity of basic human rights, including self-determination and, of course, all of us would be concerned about the threat to Australia’s integrity and national security posed by the continuation of major military action involving all forms of conventional warfare in an area that is less than half an hour flying time from Darwin.

My views on East Timor have for over two years been made known to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), to the Government, to the Parliament and to the nation. In the debate on the Address-in-Reply on March 7 1 reviewed the Timor situation in considerable detail up to and following Australia’s announcement of 20 January 1978. I do not wish to retrace history. What I want to say today to the Parliament is that I believe we may now be approaching the possibility of a negotiated peace settlement in East Timor. After bitter and intense fighting in East Timor, extending over two and a half years, and involving, in fact, the loss of up to 100,000 lives, a situation of stalemate- not dissimilar to that which occurred with the Timorese resistence to the Japanese in World War II- has now developed.

A number of reports which have come to hand indicate that Indonesia’s position with respect to East Timor may, in fact, be weaker today than it was three months ago, and the failure of Indonesia to capture such vital areas as the coffee growing area of Fatubesse and, in fact, losing other territory captured, seems to confirm reports coming in that a stalemate has definitely set in.

I do not want to breach any confidence, or to reveal details of conversations and information which have come to me over the past few weeks. Suffice it to say that the situation may well be as described in a recent issue of the International Bulletin, published at Berkeley, California. I shall quote from a report which was submitted by Mr Banning Garrett. Referring to the war, he said:

The war appears to be a stalemate. Fretilin cannot force Indonesia out of East Timor militarily, while Indonesia apparently cannot defeat Fretilin- at least not in the near future and not without an even greater commitment of troops and resources. And such a commitment would have to be made by Indonesia without any firm assurance of success.

The next words are very important:

Top Indonesian generals are known to be concerned about the costs of continuing the war and are discouraged about the prospects of winning. Reports suggest that some of the generals may be willing to pursue a negotiated settlement of the war. And talks with knowledgeable diplomats suggest that Fretilin is also interested in negotiations. These sources say that Fretilin is apparently willing to make concessions to Indonesia to secure withdrawal of Indonesian forces from East Timor and self-determination. Fretilin leaders are said to recognise that East Timor is located in an isolated part of the world between two powerful non-communist nationsIndonesia and Australia- and that the East Timorese must ultimately live and work with their neighbours. Fretilin is thought to be willing to consider licensed exploitation by Indonesia of its natural resources, including offshore oil reserves. Fretilin may also be willing to agree to close economic ties with Indonesia, and to abstain from supporting separatist movements in the vast Indonesian archipelago.

I believe it to be a fact that on 15 April of this year in New York it was intended that there would be a meeting between an Indonesian General and Jose Ramos Horta, who is the representative of the Democratic Republic of East Timor at the United Nations. I believe that, because of circumstances beyond the control of both parties, that meeting did not take place. I also believe that there is a real probability that the meeting will, within the next week or so, take place on neutral territory. If there is a possibility of a negotiated peace settlement, I believe that Australia has a major role to play in it. I wish to propose an eight-point plan contingent upon the willingness of the parties to negotiate a settlement rather than to permit the continuing conflict to go on year after year, as it undoubtedly will, with no end in sight.

  1. 1 would suggest that the obvious place, if negotiations are to occur, would be in Australia.
  2. The obvious chairman-mediator of those negotiation discussions should be our Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Andrew Peacock who, I respectfully submit, is a statesman of world eminence and a person who is highly qualified to chair such discussions.
  3. It is imperative that there should be an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of both sides to proclaimed areas.
  4. In respect of those proclaimed areas the United Nations should send into East Timor, with the consent of both parties, a peace-keeping force to ensure that the military forces of each side are in fact contained therein.

I suggest that the immediate admission of International Red Cross may now be very close to reality. I need merely refer to the fact that whilst Australia has repeatedly requested the admission of International Red Cross to East Timor, until today there has not been a positive response. It is indeed heartening to read a report today that following discussions between President Suharto and Vice-President Mondale, International Red Cross may now be admitted to East Timor. If that can be confirmed it is a step that I am sure honourable members on both sides of the House will welcome warmly.

  1. A situation could now be reached in which, if negotiations could be brought about, there should be a renewal of the requests by Australian members of Parliament to make not an unofficial visit but, in fact, an official visit, to East Timor.
  2. I believe it would be the wish of all parties, if there is to be a negotiated settlement, that there should be a proper act of selfdetermination in accordance with international law, to let the people of East Timor decide for themselves. I have not the slightest doubt that if the vote were to go in favour of integration of East Timor with Indonesia, and the vote were properly conducted, it would be accepted by the representatives of Fretilin. (8)1 want further to submit that in the longterm future integrity of the Democratic Republic of East Timor could be well safe-guarded by the making of treaties between the Republic, Indonesia, Australia and Papua New Guinea.

We three nations, Australia, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, virtually surround East Timor. We believe it to be the wish of people of good intent in those three countries- and I include President Suharto in these remarks- that the integrity of East Timor could be maintained. It is indeed heartening to believe- and I do believe it to be the fact- that we could in this day and age sit down around a conference table and reach a situation where bloodshed would be ended, death would cease and destruction and devastation be brought to a conclusion.

I do not wish to raise hopes unjustifiably. I am fully aware that there have been discussions on both sides of the fence on possible negotiations for a peaceful settlement. I am also aware that there has been argument whether a settlement negotiated by the representatives of Fretilin outside East Timor would be accepted by the Fretilin forces inside East Timor. I believe that President Nicholau Lobato is now in a situation where he would be prepared to consider entering into negotiations. In my view, it is obvious that if negotiations are to take place Australia has a major role to play. I say with the utmost confidence that Australia’s integrity in this matter, notwithstanding heartburnings about the decision of 20 January, is high. The status and standing of the Minister for Foreign Affairs is high within the Pacific area, indeed throughout the world.

I ask the Australian Government to watch closely the developments over the next few weeks and to be prepared to come forward to assist. Please God, Mr Deputy Speaker, if the situation does develop where negotiations can take place, I hope that Australia will stand ready to play a vital role in ending a war which has been a matter of great concern and distress to every Australian, regardless of his party political persuasion. I trust that the Government will watch the matter closely and act with speed and impartiality if the call is made to our nation to mediate in this most important matter.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-The West Gate Bridge fiasco is a horrifying example of the failure of governments composed of nonspecialists to understand and adequately supervise projects involving complex technical matters. The original bridge design by Freeman, Fox and Partners proved tragically inadequate in October 1970 when the collapse of the span between piers 10 and 1 1 caused 35 deaths. Following the adverse report of the Royal Commission on the West Gate Bridge, Dr W. A. Fairhurst, C.B.E., an eminent Scottish bridge engineer was brought in as Director of Engineering. He produced an essentially conservative new design with the assistance of Mr Harold Richards and Dr George Deutsch. This involved building four additional piers and four additional cables fixed to each of two central towers. This was designed to reduce the greatest areas of stress in the side spans between piers 10-11 and 14-15.

However, on 22 December 1971, without consulting Fairhurst, the Technical Committee of the West Gate Bridge Authority rejected Fairhurst ‘s plan and substituted an alternative hypothesis by Professor Karlheinz Roik and Mr Hans Wolfram, less than 24 hours after Mr Wolfram’s return from an overseas trip. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short table headed ‘Comparison of the Plans’, setting out the differences between the Freeman Fox design, the Fairhurst-Richards-Deutsch plan and the Wolfram-Roik scheme.

Leave granted.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I thank the House. Seven years and four months later, the Bridge is still not complete. Construction costs have escalated from an estimated $42m to $150m by March 1978, and a possible total of $ 175m by 1979 when it is hoped that the Bridge will open. These figures do not include interest charges which amount to more than $10m per annum. The Wolfram-Roik design was a catastrophic blunder which has added about $80m in cost, not counting additional interest charges, and four, perhaps five, years delay in opening the bridge.

I examined the files of the Authority and found that:

  1. No technical documentation was submitted in support of the hasty decision to abandon the Fairhurst scheme and adopt the Wolfram-Roik proposal. In fact, at the time of the change there was no detailed plan actually in existence; it was merely an untested hypothesis.
  2. No reasons for the change were provided by the Technical Committee.
  3. Dr Fairhurst, as Director of Engineering, was not consulted.
  4. The Authority Chairman, Mr Oscar Meyer, claimed in the Melbourne Herald on 30 July 1 977 that Fairhurst ‘s plan was rejected because it was estimated to cost more than the Wolfram-Roik scheme. However the minutes of the 19th Report of the Directorate of Engineering, a document dated 20 January 1972, estimated that the Fairhurst scheme would cost an extra $1.5m and the Wolfram-Roik plan an extra $2m, that is $500,000 more than the Fairhurst scheme.

To lay opinion it might appear that the Fairhurst scheme would cost more because it meant erecting 4 extra piers and 8 extra cables. However, these costs were far outweighed by the unanticipated extra labor cost of the WolframRoik plan. Fairhurst ‘s scheme provided for direct external support at the two greatest areas of stress, that is, between piers 10-11 and piers 14-15. The Wolfram-Roik scheme provided that these two areas should not have direct external support, but should depend on a highly sophisticated, intricate and expensive stiffening by welding and rivetting inside the box girders. This substituted additional horizontal strengthening at enormous labour cost for the simple and relatively cheap external support of piers and cables. In addition, a half inch metal ‘battle deck’- it is like an aircraft carrier’s deck- would replace a concrete deck.

Again, to lay opinion it might seem that the greatest stress point in the bridge would be in the middle of the long central span. Once more, lay opinion would be wrong. As the two volumes of diagrams produced by the firm of Hardcastle and Richards Pty Ltd, consulting engineers of Melbourne, demonstrated- especially the one labelled 71/107/15-the ‘bending moments’ of the central span amounts to minus 55,000 tons/ feet. Between piers 10-1 1 and 14-15 the figure is minus 120,000 tons/feet on each side. The West Gate Bridge Authority was, at all relevant times, under the chairmanship of Mr Oscar Meyer, O.B.E., Chairman of Australian Carbon Black Pty Ltd and a Commissioner of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. The Deputy Chairman was Mr B. J., now Sir Bernard, Callinan, C.B.E., D.S.O., M.C., Chairman and Managing Director of Gutteridge Haskins and Davey Pty Ltd, Consulting Engineers, a Commissioner of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria, a Commissioner of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and a Director of BP Australia Ltd. Below the West Gate Bridge Board was a Technical Committee of three Board members comprising Sir Bernard Callinan as Chairman, Mr Meyer and Mr J. R. Duggan of Colonial Gas Holdings Ltd.

Below the Technical Committee in 1971-72 was a three man Directorate of Engineering. At the relevant time in 1971 Dr W. A. Fairhurst was the Director of Engineering, Mr Hans Wolfram was Deputy Director, and the third member was

Mr Harold Richards of Hardcastle and Richards Pty Ltd, consulting engineers. Mr Wolfram was then, and still is, a Director of Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey, Sir Bernard Callinan ‘s firm. Richards was a strong supporter of Fairhurst and his scheme. Wolfram, as soon appeared, was a secret opponent.

In September 1971 Fairhurst ‘s scheme was adopted by the West Gate Bridge Board after lengthy scrutiny by the Technical Committee. Despite that, Sir Bernard Callinan was quoted in the Age of 11 September 1971 as saying, with uncanny foresight, that ‘the general appearance of the bridge would not change, but there would be many internal modifications ‘-in other words exactly the reverse of the Fairhurst scheme. Mr Wolfram was then sent abroad, ostensibly to recruit new contractors and technicians to carry out the Fairhurst scheme, but in reality to sabotage it. Fairhurst resigned in disgust and Sir Bernard Callinan became engineer for the steel span himself from the end of 1 97 1 until August 1 973. Professor Roik came out from Germany and on 15 February 1972 Mr Meyer told the Age that he had completed the alternative design for completing the bridge ‘within. 40 hours of arriving in Australia’.

At all material times the ‘responsible ‘ Minister was the Hon. R. J. Hamer, M.L.C., then Minister for Local Government. It is clear that he never understood the significance of the major design changes and even told the Victorian Parliament that the new plans, the Wolfram-Roik plans, rested on Dr Fairhurst ‘s international reputation. In fact, Fairhurst was bitterly opposed to the plans adopted. Subsequent Ministers in charge, the Hon. R. J. Hunt and the Hon. J. A. Rafferty who went to the Ministry of Transport in 1973, have not understood the issues either. The West Gate Bridge came under the Ministry of Transport from 1973.

The story of Fairhurst ‘s elimination has all the classic elements of a conspiracy. The very complexity of the issues involved was a trump card in the hands of the conspirators. The most alarming aspect of this horror story is the complete ignorance of the Victorian Government and its willingness to leave all technical decisions to the socalled experts. The so-called Professorial Technical Advisory Group quoted by the Victorian Government in support of the Wolfram-Roik scheme literally never met and its members were individually conned into signing a statement in support prepared by International Public Relations Ltd. Worst of all, vital information has been suppressed, particularly the fact that the greatest stress areas in the bridge have no external support. Every newspaper in Australia ought to demand the right to publish diagram 71/107/15. Unfortunately the West Gate promotors have been able to assume that the very complexity of the issues will protect them from exposure because exposure rests on an understanding of the facts.

In my letter to the publication Engineers Australia on 27 January 1978,1 wrote:

The worrying question posed by West Gate is not about engineering. It is about decision-making. In an increasingly technological age, who makes the decisions? Should it be the politicians or the technologists? I draw the line at the often accepted argument that technology is best left to the technologiststhat somewhere there is a man in a white coat who understands complexities and that we should leave decisionmaking in his hands (or claws).

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
Dawson

-The matter I raise today is one of growing concern to many Australians. The closer that Australians live to the point of entry to Australia of Vietnamese boat people, as they are described, the greater is the concern of those people. On Tuesday of this week I raised this problem by way of question to ascertain whether the Government’s policies and procedures are sufficient to cope with the anticipated escalation in the numbers of these refugees coming to this country by boat. The answer I received reflected an appreciation by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) that there is a problem and that procedures were changing to cope with that problem.

I question whether these changes will prove sufficient to head off a potentially dangerous situation. The National Times this week devoted a full page article to this subject. In July 1977 I warned that the first boat load was only the beginning of a flood of these refugees from Vietnam. Unfortunately the prediction has proved to be only too true. At that time I suggested that we should toughen our attitudes from the outset, recognise a change in the ground rules and update our procedures to cope with the absolute certainty of an increasing quantity of refugees coming to our shores. The numbers will increase because of the initial and basic attitudes that we adopted on that occasion. First, they were accepted. Once a foot is placed on Australian soil it is difficult to have it removed even when there are others who seek to enter this country through the authorised door of normal immigration procedure and should have a higher priority. Secondly, welfare relief offered for a week’s subsistence, which amounts to probably ten times more than the average monthly income of people in

Vietnam, can only be an encouragement and not a disincentive.

The communication channel back to South East Asia was established by the first arrival of these boat refugees and by sympathetic and emotional Press comment. Probably this was only natural but it was not realistic as the circumstances have since proved. Good news travels fast, particularly to South East Asia. This news was received and welcomed in that area and particularly in Vietnam as evidenced by the ever increasing flow of boat people who are now arriving on our shores. At each port of contact on the way to Australia the boats receive directions and instructions on how to proceed. Singapore and Indonesia do not want them but at the end of the line lies Australia which is known to be favourably disposed towards the refugees. An article from Darwin headed ‘More refugees’, which appears in today’s Australian Financial Review, states:

Vietnamese refugees landed at Melville Island, north of Darwin, yesterday to ask a surprised local policeman the way to Darwin. A police spokesman in Darwin said yesterday that there were two refugee boats anchored off Melville Island. Navy sources said that the boats carried 42 people.

Perhaps the policeman should have directed these boats and future refugees to a port of entry at either Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane. This may be the only way in which a real appreciation of the problem can be given to the majority of Australians living in the security of the southern and eastern coastline. Darwin and northern Australia should not be deserted and let bear the burden of this problem alone. Australia security, Australian jobs and to an extent Australian drug risks are as great and as important as health problems in respect of the exotic and other diseases associated with the boat people. In all areas of defence, security, health, immigration, foreign affairs and drug trafficking we should be alert to the dangers and change accordingly. In Mackay on the eastern seaboard we have a first hand witness to poaching by Taiwanese fishermen on our Barrier Reef and the plunder they cause. On the occasion an arrest is effected- and that is not too often- we realise only too well the gaps in our present policies that leave us open as Australians to the dangers that I have mentioned.

I do not talk out of a lack of sympathy for the genuine refugee. All Australians would have genuine sympathy for refugees who are fleeing in the face of spreading communism and the alternative with which many of them must now be faced. But how do we determine a genuine from a non-genuine refugee? How do we set the guidelines of acceptance or rejection? How do we keep these guidelines fluid? How do we have this concern shared by other nations that are not necessarily affected? The Minister assured the House the other day that co-operation to effect delays was being sought by nations and governments which are on the route taken by the refugees. But can these delays be effected?

This is not the first time that the Australian Government has had to deal with the problem of refugees. I remind the House of the refugee problem between West Irian, a province of Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea while that country was still a territory of Australia. Many hundreds of Papuan refugees came across the Papua New Guinea border into the West Sepik district and the western district of that country. In the West Sepik refugees were immediately interned in a refugee camp where they were held in quarantine and seclusion from the outside world until their application for temporary residential status was either granted or rejected. Upon rejection they were returned to their own country, although in many cases they were in fact granted temporary residence in Papua New Guinea. In many cases people who came into Papua New Guinea were treated as illegal immigrants and consequently were held under the relevant sections of the Immigration Act until their residential status could be determined. This allowed the Australian and Papua New Guinea governments to screen carefully all entries to ensure that only the desirables were allowed into the country and that exotic diseases were not brought in by the refugees.

Although there was some criticism of the administration of the Papua New Guinea refugee problem it was extremely successful and I believe that a similar system should be applied to Vietnamese entering Australia. I am sure that such a system would placate a lot of the antiVietnamese public opinion and feeling that is commencing to spread throughout the north of Australia. I submit these comments to the House because I am concerned that this refugee problem can only escalate, just as I was concerned in July of last year when I first raised this matter and predicted the possibility of what has now in fact become the truth.

There is a feeling of isolation in our north which deepens when evidence becomes available through these incursions on to our shore. Lack of proper defence and a positive attitude towards these refugees is concerning many northern people. Many people who are prevented from bringing to Australia close friends or relatives because of the job aspects of our immigration policy complain bitterly about our open-handed policy towards these Vietnamese refugees. I would imagine that most honourable members have had that comment made to them over the last six months.

I suggest that Australia establish some offshore base on an island on which all the necessary security and health checks that are required could be conducted before these people arrive in Australia. The refugees on the base could be processed by officers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for acceptance or repatriation, depending on the circumstances of each individual. But time must be given for that inspection process to be carried out. Our defence surveillance should be brought to a level to enable the boat people to be intercepted and accompanied to such a base. It would be easier to internationalise the problem from an off-shore base than from an Australian base because once it becomes an Australian base it is a national problem and not an international problem.

I do not doubt that 20 years hence will see a great change in the characteristics of the typical Australian and that the Vietnamese and South East Asian cultures will play a part in the change that we see reflected at the moment. These people will add their own culture to our way of life. However, for the present, we face a difficult position in which northern Australians have very definite views on this subject. So I ask in this Grievance Debate that the Government treat this matter as a problem, both nationally and internationally, which requires urgent attention. I trust that the Government will give urgent attention to the whole refugee problem, particularly the boat refugee problem.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I wish to talk about a matter which is closely related, but not directly related to that which has been raised by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), that is, the manner in which the surveillance of Australia’s coastline and resources zones is to be undertaken and the position of the defence forces in that undertaking. I am concerned- I have expressed this concern in this House on a previous occasion- about the continual statements of the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) in which he has made it quite clear that he is seeking to remove surveillance of the nature mentioned by the honourable member for Dawson, that is, coastal surveillance of territorial integrity, from the function of the Defence Force, despite the fact that in the Government’s White Paper on defence that function is clearly set out in a number of places as being an accepted function of the Defence Force. My concern is that the defence forces, through the professional advisers to the Minister, are seeking to protect their budgetary arrangements by the device of shedding what could become a growing encumbrance on their funds unless other financial arrangements are made. It is a serious situation and one which I think is regrettable.

On 24 January of this year, the Government announced that it was setting up a committee of permanent heads to examine and make recommendations on the means of increasing the level of Australia’s coastal surveillance. It was implied in that statement that the Government considered that a greater degree of coastal surveillance was required and that the Government would fund the necessary increases. If that was not meant, such an explanation should have been included in the statement. The fact that the defence planners feel it necessary to oppose this proposition because they see it as a threat to the funds available to them for what they see as proper defence functions indicates the necessity for the Government not only to make a decision but also to make clear the funding arrangements and the sources of those funds.

There has been considerable discussion about this matter and a number of proposals concerning it have been put forward. I understand that at least one which is under consideration by the Government- a news sheet which circulates in Canberra has said that the decision has already been made in this regard, but I should hope that that is not true- suggests the setting up of an independent coastguard. There are arrangements already for co-operation between departments, under the chairmanship of the Department of Transport, for the collection and collation of information on civil surveillance matters and the use of that information. Certainly no one could suggest that the defence forces would be carrying out civilian police roles in this area. That is a matter which could be fairly simply disposed of by administrative arrangements. I think it important that that not be the criterion.

The setting up of a separate coastguard service is an attractive but certainly a misinterpreted proposal, if we were to set up a separate coastguard operation in Australia to provide separate surveillance for what are basically civilian roles, although I should have thought not, a fairly substantial organisation would have to be set up. It would have to be a much more substantial organisation than most people tend to think. The United States coastguard regularly appears in various forms on our television screens, but most people do not realise the extent of that organisation. The United States coastguard has a strength of some 35,000 men. It has a number of small ships and large ships, far in excess of the total number of Australian Defence Force ships. The United States coastguard has substantial numbers of aircraft and helicopters and a substantial quantity of other specialised equipment. That coastguard would not be comparable, even though the United States and Australian coastlines are, with any force that may be envisaged as a separate operation in Australia.

It should also be pointed out that if the Defence Force, which has the technical capacity in communications and logistics command arrangements, does not undertake the actual physical surveillance tasks, new arrangements will have to be implemented. New command authorities, new lines of command and a totally new bureaucracy will have to be established in order to carry out a function which is being carried out at the moment substantially by the Defence Force although without the necessary equipment or funding. We cannot, as was suggested by the Minister in answer to a question, wait for or depend on the development of over-the-horizon radar. We certainly cannot seek to expand the highly technical military surveillance equipment which is in fact purchased for and should be utilised mainly for military purposes. Thus additional equipment will be required and obviously, additional funding will be required. I suggest to the House that in either the short term or long term it would be cheaper to fund a special unit of the Services to carry out this function. It would also be more efficient from a national point of view, remembering that our budget availability for any given purpose is restricted and is certainly not comparable with that of the United States, to which a lot of the suggestion about a coastguard allude.

I repeat that I am concerned that practical discussion about how this function can be carried out does not appear to be taking place, certainly not at the defence level. I should have thought that in any budgetary discussions where funding for defence was going to be a serious problem if a low threat situation were to continue over a period of years an actual functional operation would be of assistance to the budgetary claims of the Department of Defence. I think it is bad politics for the Department of Defence to be seen to be shedding a role which most Australians, especially those in northern Australia, see as one of its functions and as a responsibility which ought to be undertaken. Recently Mr

Everingham, who is the Majority Leader in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, made the point that northern Australians are part of Australia and, as such, are entitled to expect that they would be defended by the Australian Defence Force. This statement was repudiated by the Minister for Defence. But I think it sets out the concern of people in northern Australia, who feel that they are the ones who are at risk and that they are the ones who are vulnerable.

If the Government opts for a separate coastguard, within a few years we will have the situation where a quasi-Service organisation which has access to publicity on the grounds of what it is doing on a regular basis will be seeking to expand. That, I am sure everyone accepts, is a certainty. That organisation will be seeking to expand on the basis that it has functions to perform, functions which must be performed and functions which the Australian people consider they are entitled to expect to be performed. The pressure on budgets will be back on the Department of Defence because it will not be one of its functions: It will be a function which will be competing with its military surveillance operations. I think it politically unwise of the Minister for Defence and of his advisers to seek to have the Department opt out of this role. It would be nationally unwise for the Government to come to a conclusion whereby another force seeking to use funds and establish a second bureaucracy in an almost parallel field would be formed.

Mr GILES:
Wakefield

– I thought both the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) and the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) made thoughtful speeches with thoughtful suggestions. If I could pick up the theme running through both speeches in relation to the arrival of Vietnamese refugees the one thing I would say as Chairman of the Government Parties’ Rural Committee is that if rumours are correct that these vessels are today lined up in Darwin harbour then the Government is probably not doing as much as it should do to achieve safety for the human and livestock populations of Australia by leaving them lined up in that way. If they are wooden boats they should be burnt. If they are steel vessels they should be isolated and sprayed according to technical advice. It may well be that they are subject to that treatment. If that is so, I fall back on my first position and say that obviously they should be destroyed by burning if they are wooden and capable of being destroyed. Already we have had more than implications of certainly a type of blue tongue in Australia. We could get foot and mouth disease from those countries through which these vessels pass. There is a full range of human diseases against which the nation must be safeguarded.

Parliament is about to pass Bills proclaiming the elimination of death duty and gift duty. This, of course, is the biggest single action it could have taken on behalf of rural properties and farmers in general. I have always felt that for too long the small businessmen and small farmers of Australia have been bearing the brunt in this field of taxation for the bigger farmers and corporate firms that can arrange their finances and their financial structures. In both cases they quite logically wish to see their business perpetuated beyond a generation. It is important for the country that they should be perpetuated beyond one generation. However, for too long the small elements of the business and farming communities have borne the brunt. The Government’s legislation is the biggest single action it could have taken in the rural area to help those sorely pressed farmers who are currently experiencing costs rising well ahead of demand for their produce. In many cases they are currently affected by drought: In many cases for the duration of three years. There are other hopeful signs. I have sought leave of the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) to have incorporated in Hansard a chart dealing with the wheat industry. I seek leave of the House to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The chart read as follows-

page 2237

WHEAT: THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION AND OUTLOOK

Production

IWC estimates 1977 world wheat production at 384.0 million tonnes, down from the 1976 record of 417.9 million, and the second largest ever.

USDA estimates production of SS.l million tonnes (58.3 in 1976)

EEC 1977 crop expected to be 38.3 million tonnes (39.2 million tonnes in 1976)

Canadian Agriculture Ministry estimates production at 19.7 million tonnes, compared with record 1976 production of 23.6 million tonnes.

Trade

World trade in wheat and wheat flour 1976-77 (excluding EEC intra-trade) estimated at 6 1.0 million tonnes. 1 975-76 actual trade 66.S million tonnes. 1977-78 outlook 70.5 million tonnes.

Stocks

Total supplies for 1977-78 (Argentina, Australia, Canada, EEC and USA) projected at 1 87.6 million tonnes. 2.6 million tonnes more than 1976-77.

Indicates aggregate 54.2 million tonnes stock level for five exporters (55.7 million tonnes for 1976-77).

Aggregate world closing stocks of wheat (excluding China and USSR) are now projected at 78 million tonnes; 5 million tonnes down on the previous year. 3 March 1978

Mr GILES:

-I thank the House. The implication of the chart that the honourable member for Port Adelaide has been kind enough to allow me to incorporate in Hansard is that it deals with production in the three major wheat exporting countries- the United States of America, the European Economic Community and Canadawhere production is down, as will be seen from the table. It deals with trade where the world estimated projected use of wheat and flour in the coming year is up significantly on estimations. It deals with stocks held in the seven major wheat producing nations of the world. I think that will be of interest to and a hopeful sign for those farmers involved in wheat production whose income is very largely dictated by world export prices.

I want to spend the remaining five minutes available to me in discussing the wine grape growing industry. Honourable members will be well aware by now that during the 1978 harvest there has been a very large surplus of grapes in Australia. About three-quarters of the surplus of grapes for which a home has not been found for the produce of many of the 6,000-plus grape growers throughout Australia comes from the State of South Australia. South Australian members of Parliament, and perhaps the honourable member for Wakefield in particular, have a very grave responsibility. Much of the wine and brandy industry of Australia is centred in the Barossa Valley, the Riverland area and more recently in the Clare area of my electorate. The honourable member for Wakefield has a grave responsibility to keep putting forward the views of, on the one hand, the many grape growers, and on the other hand the tremendous number of South Australians involved in the processing and distillation processes of the wine and brandy industry. Because the four minutes remaining to me is not sufficient for me to go into this area in depth, in brief terms the current situation is that the majority of the grape surplus in Australia is of red grapes- -shiraz, cabernet, grenache and other varieties. That is the area in which demand has fallen off quite alarmingly in the past few years.

If I might mix my metaphors, it is not all beer and skittles on the white wine scene. Some of the surplus today in South Australia is also of white grape varieties. The reason for this is that the increasing demand for white wine is levelling off. The only third ingredient which allows grape growers an outlet for their production is in the field of brandy. Without being politically nasty in any way might I remind the House that the Whitlam Government virtually taxed brandy off the market. In three separate steps it increased the excise on brandy, not by 20 per cent, 30 per cent or 80 per cent, but by 231 per cent in a 10-month period. I must be fair and say that due to the budgetary problems of the Fraser Government it has not done anything to try to correct that situation. It is my hope that as the Federal Government comes towards the current Budget it will have a very close look at the enormous amount of money taken from the wine grape growing areas by the Federal Government. Without being precise, about $29m has been taken from that industry. In other industries this charging by the Government can be borne by processors and by companies and firms involved in distillation and processing. In the case of the wine grape growing industry, its vertical integration is quite acute. Anything that happens at the top end of the industry is visited back through the consumer directly to the producer.

I hope the House would support me in maintaining that any industry that the Government takes from today should be at least an economic industry, a viable industry. One can think of many, many cases in this country where the opposite position pertains and the Government has in one form or another helped by protection, subsidies, grants and in many other ways. I warn the Government that it cannot continue to bleed an industry that is self-sufficient. Surely a prime purpose of any government action is to keep an industry that is viable in that situation so that it is not a sock on the taxpayer. I am hopeful that the Federal Government will decrease the excise on brandy in the coming Budget. If it does, that will represent the only remaining outlet for surplus grapes.

In 1954 the government of the day did precisely this. There was then a surplus of grapes and the surplus disappeared within a matter of two or three years. Those honourable members opposite who remember the Coombs report will recall his suggestion to the Whitlam Government that excise advantage to brandy should be removed. Being wise in hindsight- although I fought it at the time- I say that it was logical. There was a big and heavy demand for grapes. There is not now. The Coombs’ argument logic can be reversed accurately and entirely and to the advantage of the wine grape grower as brandy represents the only possible growth area with a decrease of excise over the next few years, until once again grape growing and consumer demand gets into balance.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– I wish to grieve about two matters today. The first one concerns the very important issue of Question Time when questions are asked in this Parliament without notice. I refer to the long period that Ministers take in answering questions and the contempt by the Executive, particularly by some Ministers, for the Parliament itself- and I make that point very clearly- in that they ignore repeated requests from the Chair to shorten their answers. I do not say that with disrespect to the Chair. As I am one of the Deputy Chairmen of Committees I have the greatest respect for the Chair. However, I have noticed that successive Speakers have appealed to Ministers to shorten the length of answers to questions and I have seen, despite frequent requests from successive Speakers, those appeals completely ignored. For that reason I think it is important that we ought to have a look at what has been happening.

In 1968, the Parliament sat for 66 days. In 1968 the average number of questions each sitting day was 20.2. In 1977 the Parliament sat for 68 days, two days more than it sat in 1968. In 1 977, the average number of questions a day was 15. Those figures do not include questions which were ruled out of order. Quite a number of questions have been ruled out of order in recent times not because of the attitude adopted by the Speaker but because of the inexperience of members. The reason that so few questions are able to be asked during Question Time is that Question Time is being utilised by Ministers to make statements in respect of which leave should be asked after Question Time to make a statement to the House. Virtually on every occasion leave would be granted for a Minister to make such a statement. Lengthy answers by Ministers are a method which is used to stifle honourable members asking questions which may be embarrassing to the Government so that the longer the answer given by a Minister the less likelihood there is of embarrassing questions being directed to the Minister who is making a lengthy reply or to one of his colleagues.

I submit that this Parliament steadily is becoming an instrument of the Executive which of course means that the Executive is no longer under effective scrutiny of the back bench. I again state that there is a growing practice of contempt on the part of the Executive here in this Parliament and outside it for the processes of Parliament itself. I think this is a very serious situation because, after all, Question Time is the only opportunity for backbenchers on both sides of this Parliament to scrutinise the activities of the Executive. The only other way is to put something in writing. Usually we get back the typical Public Service reply which dodges the basic issues which have been raised. It is here in this forum through the cut and thrust of debate that the greatest opportunity exists for us to obtain answers and information. I do not say that this problem is peculiar to this Government. I want to be quite honest about this. This also occurred when we were in office. I was concerned then at the fact that a steady deterioration in Question Time was occurring so far as the number of questions which were being asked. Of course the fact is that today Ministers instead of addressing themselves to the question that has been asked tend by using the thimble and pea trick to turn the question onto a different issue altogether and answer, if you like, a different question even though they may claim it has some relevance to the question that was originally asked.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– They do it all the time.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– As the honourable member for Parramatta says, they do it all the time. I believe that it is well and truly time that the Standing Orders in regard to the relevance of answers to questions in this Parliament were updated in order to avoid this use of a Standing Order in a way that at times is quite disgraceful. I do grieve about this matter. I think it is very important indeed that we should face up to it as a Parliament otherwise this Parliament will no longer be an effective check on the Executive and what is occurring behind the scenes.

The other matter I wish to deal with is the question of Norfolk Island. I have been shocked to read reports that Norfolk Island is to stay as a tax haven at a time when the Treasurer (Mr Howard) has been announcing that he is going to close all tax loopholes. He has announcedand I give him full credit for this- a number of instances of loopholes that are to be closed, including the Curran scheme. There was some minor disagreement so far as the Labor Party was concerned in that we wanted the tax avoidance legislation made retrospective to an earlier date than the Government proposed, but the Treasurer did not agree with that. Nevertheless we applaud the fact that at least some schemes are to be closed. However, there are at least 14 other loopholes which have not been closed. Norfolk Island is a recognised tax haven. I first raised this in 1970. 1 raised in 1971 and in 1972 the fact that Norfolk Island and the New Hebrides were being used as tax havens by the wealthy in this country. People have come down here from Norfolk Island- people with a conscienceto point this out to honourable members. Yet in the new arrangements which apparently the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) has announced in Norfolk Island the Island still will be a tax haven for Australians. It will have a different taxation system from all other Australian territories. It will have a taxation system under which a much smaller rate of tax will be levied. It really is quite extraordinary when one considers that the Treasurer, having announced that he is going to close all these tax loopholes, in reply to a question asked the other day by my colleague from Western Australia, the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins), said that he would not agree to closing that extraordinary rank of the tax loophole of family trusts. The reason was that very prominent people- people in the establishment in this country- are involved in family trusts.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Members of the Government.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Not only members of this Government but also the Premier of Victoria. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), and the former Treasurer are all on record as being involved in family trusts, which is one of the most effective ways to avoid tax. The Treasurer used a new phrase the other day in reply to a question asked in this House. He did not say ‘tax avoidance’. I cannot recall his exact words but he said something to the effect that this is a way of cutting down your tax.

Mr Young:

– Minimising.

Mr ARMITAGE:

-‘ Minimising ‘-that was the word. It is called minimising tax. It is not tax avoidance; it is a minimising of taxation. The facts of life are that all the wage and salary earners in this country cannot minimise their taxes. They all have to pay tax on their full incomes. If they fail to declare one tiny bit of income a tax inspector will go out, bring them into the Taxation Office and put them under investigation and interrogation because they may have tried to reduce their tax by $10, $20 or $30 in a year. Apparently when a Prime Minister, a Premier of Victoria, a Deputy Prime Minister of this country and a former Treasurer who is at present a Minister are involved it is no longer tax avoidance; it is tax minimising. For that reason, I ask that this Parliament itself, and in particular the Treasurer, should give serious consideration to this question.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond)

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr NEIL:
St George

-I rise to express concern about a number of actions of the New South Wales Government, particularly as they relate to the federal sphere. The first one is the New South Wales Government’s actions that are inconsistent, to say the least, with a strong policy directed towards the elimination of terrorism. That Government has left itself open to clear charges that it is soft on terrorism in two main areas. Firstly, it is apparently determined to close a block in a prison in Sydney which is the only block suitable for the incarceration of the most dangerous class of criminal. I make it plain- I have made it clear in this House beforethat terrorists should not be glamourised by the community. Those persons are criminals. There is no point in talking about executions when we are talking about plain, simple- although in many cases digusting- murders. These criminals need to be contained. If it is not possible to contain them, escapes or the practice of trading in prisoners can develop.

The Katingal block in Sydney was built especially to contain the most dangerous form “of criminal, the person who is often in the class referred to as the terrorist. It had a special set of security arrangements. It was also designed to prevent the type of action that occurred in Belfast some years ago when a helicopter flew into a prison and a number of persons escaped by that means. Even though it has been so specially designed there has already been one escape from this prison which is supposed to be security proof. To my knowledge, the person who escaped has not since been found. What is the community to expect? Is it to expect protection or is it to expect a permissive attitude towards this type of criminal? We know the prison officers’ attitude. The prison officers have found that since the Government made its announcement that it will close the prison there has been a great upsurge of activity in the prisons by way of bashings of warders, riots and undisciplined behaviour.

Only a few weeks ago, a riot occurred during the time that prison warders- I do not excuse them for this- were adhering to strict rules of work and were operating with a reduction in staff. During this period a riot occurred. It was said that within 20 minutes large numbers of the most dangerous criminals in Sydney would have been outside the major blocks and would have had only the walls to scale, if an alert had not been sent out. Prison officers came from their homes- some came from their local clubs and other places they had gone whilst they were off duty and the riot was quelled.

Since that time, the New South Wales Government has asked the police to go in. But the police are not specialised in these matters, and have in some cases refused, for example, to do the cooking for prisoners. So the situation is in turmoil because of this decision of the New South Wales Government to close the only maximum security block in New South Wales and, according to my advice, the only maximum security block in Australia considered capable of dealing with the maximum criminal element known as the terrorist. The New South Wales Government has said that it will close this block without having another block ready to take these people. It has made vague statements about where it will build another block or where it will disperse the prisoners. There is no proposal available that would have another maximum security block in operation within the one month that the New South Wales Premier said it would take him to close Katingal. Of course, since then because of the political difficulties that have arisen he has had to have some further inquiries made into the matter. He has had to back-track. His great words about ‘one month or else’ are starting to look sick, but he still appears determined to go ahead and close the Katingal block as soon as possible.

What is going to happen to these prisoners? There are persons in that block at the present time who have committed the most heinous crimes, persons who would be in the company of terrorists if they were sent there. The proposal is to close the block and to disperse these prisoners amongst prisoners in other gaols. Not only is this dangerous but it also flies in the face of sensible and reasonable penal attitudes. What is the point of taking the most hardened criminals and dispersing them amongst other prisoners, particularly youthful prisoners who, in society’s interest, should be rehabilitated. The New South Wales Government will take these men, many of whom are in prison for 15 or 20 year terms for the most vicious crimes, and disperse them through the prisons and allow other prisoners, particularly younger persons to come into contact with them. It is not only offensive to all reasonable ideas of protection of the community, but also it is offensive to sensible proposals for prison reform itself.

I call on the community at large to write letters and to contact their State representatives because it is the State Government that has power over this prison. If there should be- and we hope not- incidents of an international nature of a type of terrorist activity that comes near our shores, which are matters that the Federal Government obviously has an interest in and which might have to be dealt with under federal law, then surely we in this Parliament want to know that any persons convicted will subsequently be held in the appropriate maximum security prison. Even if the conditions in such a prison were considered in some cases to be severe and excessive, surely a reasonable review could have been conducted without the necessity to abolish the whole block, without the necessity to get rid of it.

The second area in which the New South Wales Government appears to be soft on terrorism is that of special branches. Let me make it clear at the outset that I believe strongly that organs of the States, such as special branches, must ultimately be under the control of the elected government, ultimately under the control of the people. There are, of course, security arrangements that have to be kept and there are necessary measures of secrecy that have to be complied with. However, I do not believe that special branches can become a law unto thenown, that they can adopt practices and procedures that are unknown to the appropriate Minister. But having said that, we now find that the New South Wales Attorney-General and the South Australian Attorney-General have combined to consider at least the limitation of the roles of special branches. By implication, there appears to be a policy developing of the complete restriction or even abolition of special branches.

In New South Wales the Special Branch has to the best of my knowledge acted responsibly and reasonably in the past few years. The New South Wales Premier recently said that he thought the Special Branch had acted reasonably. Files have been found that are ancient and those matters presently are under consideration. The position does not appear to be comparable to that which arose in South Australia. But if, as has been stated, the Labor Caucus in New South Wales is seriously considering the abolition of the Special Branch or placing strict restrictions on its activities, it is going about it in entirely the wrong way. It is necessary to have strong, sensible special branches with officers who are trained properly. I believe there is something to be said for more of them going overseas for proper training in multidisciplines, including the proper provision of civil liberty facilities to persons with whom they come into contact and including a full understanding of their responsibilities to the elected government. If the States abolished special branches it would be a very serious state of affairs because the Federal Government’s supervision in these areas runs constitutionally only to a certain degree.

In my own practice at the Bar previously and since I have been in politics, I have found that matters come to the notice of members of Parliament that cannot be raised in the public arena but which require the attention of the authorities. Often no real problem exists when the matters are looked at. Special branches operating properly and sensibly are the first arm of intelligence gathering for the purpose of understanding potential terrorist activity. Without intelligence the community is blind. Without an understanding of what terrorists are up to, we are incapable of proper reaction. The New South Wales Government is embarking upon a very dangerous course indeed.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My grievance also concerns a form of terrorism- the terrorism practised on the young unemployed. Perhaps the most disheartening aspect of mass unemployment is the length to which some unscrupulous people will go in order to exploit the young unemployed. Unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, is the greatest national problem with which we are confronted. Youth unemployment in the western suburbs of Sydney is so high that it now ranks with the economically depressed ghetto areas of the United States of America. We are facing the prospect that many young people will not in the foreseeable future find employment or, at best, will be employed only for a very short duration. In order to alleviate these problems, the Government initiated a scheme called the special youth employment and training program, which provided an incentive for employers to employ young people who had been unemployed for a period of up to four months. Under the scheme they were granted a subsidy of $67 per week for every young person they employed. Most of the people who have been taken on under this scheme have been between the ages of 15 years and 19 years. Nearly 40,000 people have been affected by this program. Over $50m was spent during the financial year 1 977-78 in sustaining it.

Sadly, there is evidence that the scheme has been disgracefully abused and the lives of the young people involved have been cynically exploited. According to a survey conducted by the Department of Employment and Industrial

Relations in December of last year, only 35 per cent of those people taken on under the scheme and completing it have been given permanent jobs by their employers. Obviously, many employers are retrenching young people at the end or shortly before the end of the six months training period. The conclusion to be drawn from this information is that many employers are making use of this scheme merely to reduce their operating costs rather than as a means of training personnelthe sole reason for its implementation. All those people eligible under the special youth employment and training program have endured periods of employment for at least four months and often for many months longer. It seems to me that employers who practise the cruel deception of promising a young unemployed worker a permanent job under the pretext of this program and then sacking such a person after receiving, in effect, six months cheap labour should be compelled to refund that subsidy to the Federal Government It would appear that only through such means can we prevent the type of exploitation I have described.

I suspect that there have been several instances in my electorate of the scenario I have described becoming a horrible reality. Spurious, or at least very suspect, reasons are advanced for the dismissal of these young people near the end of their six months training period. I urge the Government to review this scheme, which I believe was commenced as a band-aid and a sop for the great mass of unemployed kids. Some unscrupulous employers are cynically exploiting the scheme and, in the final analysis, breaking the hearts of kids who optimistically think that they are on the threshold of a career only to be thrust back into the limbo of the unemployment wilderness.

There is another related matter regarding the Commonwealth Employment Service which I find incomprehensible. It seems to me to be very strange that many employers- I know that this happens in my electorate- fail to take advantage of the employment opportunities that are offered to them to fill vacancies with the number of kids registered for employment with the CES. In my area about 4,500 young people are registered for employment. It seems very strange that only 40 per cent of the vacancies that occur in the electorate are filled through the CES. I think that employers generally have listened to the theories that are put about by lots of people, in lots of cases Government supporters, that all the young people who are unemployed are long-haired dole bludgers. That is not the case in my electorate. Most of the kids registered at the CES, which

I visit quite regularly, are well educated, well brought up, decent young kids looking for a job. They really and diligently want to work. I find it quite sad that employers fail to take the opportunity of this great reservoir of people looking for jobs and instead use the private employment agencies.

The kids who are unemployed at the moment represent the best educated group of young people we have ever turned out. Education in the last generation in Australia has seen a revolution. The type of child leaving school at the end of fourth or sixth form is the best educated young kid we have ever turned out. It is very sad that 4,500 of them in my electorate are unemployed, yet vacancies are being filled from other sources. I urge all employers, particularly those in the Parramatta area, to look to their CES when they have a vacancy to fill. There is a great mass of kids there who want to work.

As an alderman of the local council, I was very pleased that the council saw fit to advertise for ten apprentices in five trades- plumbing, carpentry, painting, gardening and mechanics. The number of kids who came along to apply for these jobs was sickening. Six hundred children applied for ten vacancies as apprentices. This proves the point I am making that the bulk of the young people who are unemployed genuinely want to work. They do not want the dole. They want the dignity of employment. They are prepared to take on apprenticeships, which means five years on low wages and going to a technical college in their own time, which indicates to me that they are kids who genuinely want to work. They do not want to fill in time. They do not want the dole in order to go to the beach or the movies or to do the other things of which they are accused. They want work.

In my electorate there is a great mass of kids registered with the CES for work. I urge all employers to think about going to the CES and using it as an employment agency. It is not there just to hand out the dole. It is there to find jobs for people. The type of young person I know of who is registered at the CES is the best type. He is a person I would be very pleased to employ. I hope that employers in Parramatta take note of this next time they are trying to fill a vacancy.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– I want to introduce a subject which is rarely raised in this House. In doing so I do not wish to denigrate in any way the serious subjects which have been raised this morning. No one in this country enjoys the wintertime more than I do in as much as I am a keen follower of both of the major football codes played in this country, rugby league and Australian rules. I have a friend at Coolangatta, John Cunningham, who had a saying: When the going gets tough, the tough get going’. I was reminded of that saying last Sunday night when I viewed a television replay of a football match between Western Suburbs and Manly- Warringah. It seemed to be more of a battlefield than a football field. It raised serious questions about the code as it is being played. Irrespective of the arguments that take place as to which is the best code, football seems to be part of our national make-up. Having been born at Manly and having shifted to South Australia I can enjoy both codes equally. I do not take part in the arguments about the merits of the respective codes but I enjoy the wintertime in as much as I am a very keen follower of ManlyWarringah and a very keen follower of Port Adelaide. Both are magnificent football teams in their respective codes.

Many of the mothers who watched the game between Manly- Warringah and Western Suburbs must have shuddered at the thought that there was a chance that their sons would play this sport. It seemed to denigrate the game of rugby league to an extent to which many people would not be interested in watching it any further or promoting the sport. It also raised the question of the extent to which a referee can scrutinise the game. Many of the offences were quite clear to those of us who observed the game on television and obviously to the rugby league authorities who watched it subsequently because they have taken action against certain players. This action sometimes cannot be taken during the game.

To a large extent this problem has been overcome by the two-umpire rule in Australian rules whereby the game comes under closer scrutiny. The viciousness with which the game was played last Sunday has been eradicated to a large extent from Australian rules. It will have to be eradicated from rugby league if it is to remain a major sport in this country, which I hope it will do. It is a fine spectacle and first class teams compete but no one in their wildest dreams could describe the match last Sunday as being a fine game of rugby. It seemed that a number of the people who were participating in that game were intent on seeing that their opposite numbers did not play again this season. I think that up to date something like five people from that match have been suspended for a number of weeks. Action will have to be taken on the day of the match.

This matter raises the question of whether the codes might have to sink their differences- I talk now not only about rugby league and Australian rules authorities but also the soccer authoritiesto see what can be done in a uniform manner to see that violence is taken off the field of football. It is not in the interests of those people participating to spend all the summer months getting fit to take part in a sport when in their first game they can be put out for the rest of the season. It is rather ironic that a person who is put out by virtue of some action that is taken against him by another player can be injured for the rest of the season while the person who took the action perhaps is suspended for two matches. Any person who takes an action on a football field that puts another player out for the rest of the season should also be out for the rest of the season. In this way perhaps the football field can be cleaned up.

Both sports have had some fine representatives. I recall having watched Manly- Warringah as a youth and seeing people the late Bert Collins, Mackie Campbell, Roy Bull and Ken Arthurson who were great footballers and I enjoyed watching the sport immensely. Today in watching the best footballers in Australian rules one sees that they are subjected to enormous attention. I notice from the newspapers that Keith Greig of North Melbourne said that he will have to take greater care to protect himself. He is a bloke who has won two medals, but obviously when people go out to play against him they feel that some action has to be taken to reduce his effect and his influence on the game. The same can be said for many other players. I noticed that the half-back for Manly- Warringah last Sunday came in for some special treatment. He is five or six stone lighter than some of the players who were playing in the forwards for Western Suburbs. Action has to be taken. Obviously we would support the authorities taking action to see that violence is eradicated from the sport.

Mr Groom:

– They have been saying this for 100 years.

Mr YOUNG:

– The Minister said that they have been saying this for 100 years. I do not know whether he came in for any special attention when he was playing- whether his brilliance warranted it. But I recognise the fact that he was a league player and knows a bit about the game. Most of the brilliant footballers of course are able to take care of themselves merely through their brilliance in the sport. But some of them are subjected to very special attention which is not warranted and which is not part of the game. One can only guess at the feeling between the two clubs involved and the crowd that watched the game last Sunday and what will be the attitude next time Manly and Wests play. Some people may go along to see whether the match will turn out to be the blood sport that they anticipate and some may go along in the expectation that the two teams, which are top teams in the Sydney code this year, are able to play the game in a manner that their expertise demands. As a keen follower I sincerely hope so.

Mr Chapman:

– Go for Aussie rules, Mick.

Mr YOUNG:

-The honourable member for Kingston intervenes. I notice that his team has been relegated in the last couple of weeks, as has his reputation on motor cars. I raise this subject because it has been the subject of some discussion on our side of the House. We have a lot of members from the western suburbs of Sydney. I think the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) is the representative of the Western Suburbs area. I ask him to go to the Western Suburbs club and to see that the next game between Western Suburbs and Manly is played fairly so that those of us who have a little enjoyment from the sport between parliamentary sittings can continue to enjoy these two great codes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am not sure what relevance that grievance has to ministerial responsibility but this was an occasion on which the Chair showed indulgence.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2244

COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION

Ministerial Statement

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– by leave- This statement concerns the Government’s decisions on the recommendations of the report of the independent inquiry into the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation. In 1976 a comprehensive review was initiated to see whether government programs for the development and co-ordination of Australia’s science and technology effort were as effective as they might be. One inquiry established at that time concerned the role of a permanent Australian Science and Technology Council, and as a result of that review, I introduced a Bill last month to establish ASTEC as a permanent and independent statutory authority. Honourable members will be aware that in 1976 in independent committee of inquiry was also established to review the objectives, structure and programs of the Commonweath Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The members of the inquiry were: Professor Arthur Birch, Professor of Organic Chemistry at the Australian National University; Sir Cecil Looker, former President of the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges; and Mr Russell Madigan, O.B.E., Chairman of Hammersley Holdings Limited. The inquiry’s report was presented on 25 August last year and was tabled on 6 October 1 977.

The inquiry’s report included 122 recommendations. In considering these, the Government has been mindful of the important contribution which CSIRO has made to science and technology in Australia over the past fifty years. The Committee of Inquiry observed that ‘the world reputation of CSIRO is a source of pride and morale to its scientists, and to Australia’. If any reminder were needed of the great contribution which CSIRO has made, it is sufficient to refer to the decision last month of the International Civil Aviation Organisation All Weather Operations Division to adopt internationally the INTERSCAN microwave aircraft landing system developed by CSIRO in collaboration with the Department of Transport. The structure of CSIRO was last reviewed and reorganised in 1949. At that time CSIRO was employing 2,500 persons in 12 divisions. It now employs 7,000 persons in 37 divisions. In the light of the findings of the inquiry and other advice available to the Government, it has been decided that CSIRO should again be substantially reorganised.

CSIRO will remain a single multi-disciplinary research entity responsible to the Minister for Science but much of the day to day management of CSIRO activities at present undertaken by the executive, will be devolved to directors of new functional groupings of divisions, to be called institutes. Under the new arrangements, the Executive will concentrate on policy issues including the determination of research strategy and priorities. The Executive will be assisted in this task through revitalised advisory and consultative arrangements which I will outline shortly. The executive of CSIRO will comprise a slightly smaller governing body than at present. There will be a chairman, who will also be chief executive, and two other full-time members together with between three and five part-time members. The full-time members may or may not be drawn from within CSIRO. The part-time members will all be drawn from outside the organisation.

The Government has agreed with the committee of inquiry that there be up to six institutes created from within CSIRO, each headed by a very senior scientist as director. Each director will be appointed by the executive for terms of up to five years, with provision for reappointment. Although the main role of the institute directors will be managerial, they will be actively consulted by the executive in matters of policy. The committee of inquiry favoured institute directors being appointed by the executive and holding office on the executive in an ex-officio capacity, thereby providing a direct link between the work points of the Organisation and the executive. The Government, however, after fully considering all aspects of this matter including advice received from ASTEC on the issue, has decided that institute directors should not be members of the executive but should have only an advisory role. For the information of honourable members I table the advice dated 28 September 1977 which I received from ASTEC.

The committee of inquiry recognised that much of the success of CSIRO in the past can be attributed to a policy of leaving scientific decisions in the hands of scientists. The Government agrees with the inquiry that this policy should remain unchanged, and accordingly, the basic research unit in CSIRO will continue to be the division headed by a chief of division. The inquiry drew attention in its report to the importance of consultative machinery which could help the executive to incorporate policy advice and the advice of users of research results in its determination of strategy and program priorities for CSIRO. Accordingly, the advisory council will be strengthened to enable it to act effectively as the major source of advice to the executive. Its membership will be reorganised along the lines proposed by the inquiry and will include representatives from a wide range of interests. It will be completely independent of the executive of CSIRO, have its own secretariat and members of the CSIRO executive will not be members of the council. It is envisaged that the advisory council will set up ad hoc work groups to investigate particular areas related to CSIRO activities. Advisory council advise and initiatives will be incorporated in the CSIRO annual report.

The Advisory Council will be linked with reconstituted State committees, which will be the main source of advice to the Advisory Council. The State committees will provide grass roots contact with industry, centres of education and the community generally. Each of them will maintain close contacts with CSIRO divisions in its own State. The chairman of the State committees will be members of the Advisory Council. The Government will also be looking to CSIRO to encourage its scientists to take initiatives in broadening their own contacts within and outside CSIRO so that their contribution in the formulation of policies at the institute level can be strengthened.

I now turn to the research activities of CSIRO and its future role. The Government agrees with the inquiry that the main role of CSIRO should be defined more clearly in the Organisation’s constituting legislation, the Science and Industry Research Act 1949. Amending legislation which will be introduced in the Budget sittings will make it clear that the main role for CSIRO will be scientific and technological research in support of Australian industry, community interests and other perceived national objectives and obligations. CSIRO research for Australian industry will contine to include work in support of the rural and mining sectors, the manufacturing sector, the construction sector and the services sector, such as transport. CSIRO research will support such community interests as the better protection of our environment, flora and fauna, and consumer interests.

The report of the inquiry made a number of other recommendations on the scope and emphasis of the Organisation’s research effort which the Government has accepted. The main concern of CSIRO research will continue to be the physical and biological sciences. The types of research to be undertaken will be longer term research for the community’s benefit which industry and other research organisations are unable to carry out, and fundamental and short-term problem-oriented research if it is related to the role of the organisation. Research into economics and the other social sciences will not be undertaken, but steps are to be taken to utilise the requisite expertise from these fields in program conduct, evaluation and planning. Research in human medicine will not be a direct objective of CSIRO, but research results in the biological and physical sciences will be assessed for their possible significance and application in human medicine. Individual scientists will be encouraged to follow up their research as far as practical into the developmental stage.

CSIRO will have a major role in helping Australia meet its international obligations. For example, CSIRO will continue to undertake basic research, such as in astronomy, atmospheric physics and oceanography, to increase man’s knowledge of the region in which we live. CSIRO will also assist the Government in meeting Australia’s international obligations to developing countries. The Government is most conscious of the vital role that developing countries will increasingly play in world affairs and of our need constantly to review government policies to take this factor fully into account. To this end, the Government recently established a committee to review Australia’s relations with the Third World. Consistent with this policy approach, CSIRO will contribute to the scientific and technical needs of these countries as part of Australia’s foreign aid program through work carried out both in Australia and abroad. CSIRO will also have the opportunity to contribute through other arrangements such as the Consultative Group on Energy established at the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting in Sydney.

In all its areas of research, CSIRO will have to make sure that it does not duplicate the research activities of other research institutions, undertaken or otherwise supported by the Commonwealth or State governments.

CSIRO ‘s autonomy in the setting of research project objectives will be maintained. Recognising that CSIRO ‘s activities must accord with the policies of the Government, the Birch Report has recommended ministerial discretion should also be maintained, to be used as a last resort. The Government has accepted this recommendation and should ministerial discretion be employed it will be reported in CSIRO ‘s annual report.

The Government has accepted the inquiry’s recommendation that, through the application of the revised advisory and consultative machinery, current programs should be terminated where they are judged to be inappropriate. It has also been agreed that CSIRO should present, at appropriate intervals, the main thrusts of its broad policies and more detailed objectives for government, parliamentary and community scrutiny.

The inquiry recommended that specific approval of the Minister should not be required for CSIRO to enter into arrangements for the implementation of research results. The Government has decided, however, that the implementation of research results should continue to be a function of CSIRO, subject to a general power of the Minister to provide the Executive with guidelines.

There are numerous further matters dealt with in the report of the committee of inquiry. On many of these, the Government has reached a decision. On others, further examination is required and is currently being undertaken as expeditiously as possible. It is the Government’s intention to implement, as soon as possible, the new organisation and Executive structure of CSIRO to facilitate the detailed implementation of the Government’s decisions on the inquiry’s report.

I conclude by placing on record the Government’s appreciation of the work done by the members of the inquiry, Professor Birch, Sir Cecil Looker and Mr Russell Madigan. Their contribution to the development of Australian science and technology in this inquiry has been an outstanding one, made possible by their wide experience, foresight and judgment. The committee of inquiry could not, of course, have carried out its work without advice from Commonwealth and State Government departments, the many private companies and individuals who made submissions to the inquiry, and of course members of CSIRO at all levels, who, the committee noted in its report, assisted the inquiry with ‘courtesy, patience and frankness’.

I present the following paper:

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation- Ministerial Statement, 1 1 May 1978

For the information of honourable members, I also table a copy of the statement that the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) is making in the Senate on the independent inquiry into CSIRO, which will cover a number of matters in much more detail.

Motion (by Mr Fife) proposed:

That the House take note of the papers.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– We on the Opposition side are pleased that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has now announced his decisions on the reorganisation of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. We also note the statement that is to be made in the Senate by Senator Webster, the Minister for Science.

The social and economic context in which the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation now operates differs considerably from that which prevailed in 1949, at the time of the previous major review of the Organisation’s activities and structure. Thirty years ago, it was widely believed- indeed almost universally believed- that there was an almost inevitable link between scientific research and economic progress. Technological developments and inventions, it was thought, flowed directly from research, especially research at the frontiers of knowledge. Technological innovation was not regarded as a serious problem by science policy makers.

As a result of these attitudes, the pursuit of excellence in scientific research and the control by

CSIRO itself of the implementation of its research results were understandable. CSIRO scientists have undoubtedly earned for the Organisation a well-deserved reputation for highquality research in a very wide range of fields. They have also been responsible for technological products of major importance. InterScan, as has been mentioned by the Prime Minister, has, of course, recently achieved international recognition. But there have been, in recent years, several well-informed and constructive criticisms of the failure of the licencing and patenting procedures to return to Australia the benefits of research by our scientists. There have also been responsible comments that inadequate economic evaluation of CSIRO research is undertaken. Naturally the scientific decisions must be left in the hands of scientists, as the Birch Report and the Prime Minister’s statement point out. But the Opposition is not completely satisfied that the Prime Minister’s statement embodies a policy which would ensure that CSIRO research and development produces maximum benefit to the Australian people. We do support a changed emphasis on the thrust of CSIRO research. In 1949, rural research was that most demanded by the nature of the economy. Now, manufacturing and the tertiary sector require a greater emphasis of research effort.

Although this fact is acknowledged by the report and the Prime Minister’s statement, the committee of inquiry decided against making any substantial review of CSIRO programs, advising only that ‘programs should be reviewed and, where judged to be inappropriate, terminated’. This is a disappointing generalisation. As well as the economic changes and improved economic understanding of the role of science which have taken place since CSIRO was last reviewed, social attitudes to science have matured. No longer is there a persuasive, naive trust that technological change is necessarily advantageous. A much healthier, critical attitude has developed, including an acknowledgement that community and environmental needs must be considered directly. They cannot simply be tacked on to the needs of industry. The Opposition would expect the Government to give serious attention to this matter in any review of CSIRO research priorities. Unfortunately, in this respect, too, the Birch Report is rather vague.

In summary, the main thrust of the report and of the Prime Minister’s statement is that, on the whole, no major changes should be made to either the structure or the functions of CSIRO. These structural changes which are proposed are improvements. They will allow improved coordination of CSIRO activities -

Mr SPEAKER:

-I must interrupt the honourable member for Prospect. The Chair will be resumed at 2.15 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– Before the suspension of the sitting we were discussing the reorganisation of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation following the publication some time ago of the report on how to alter the CSIRO. I was saying that the structural changes which have been proposed are improvements in our view and will allow improved co-ordination of CSIRO activities. The changes contain some provision for the involvement of people outside the CSIRO and the oversight of research programs. According to the statement of the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) in many areas the Birch inquiry has led to further discussion and reviews. We still await their outcome. These include discussions on how CSIRO scientists and academics could most usefully cooperate and contribute to the mutual benefit of teaching and research in Australian science. It may be that CSIRO scientists, active in research or at the end of their research careers, could stimulate students very effectively, and academics could benefit from a regular change in their research environment in the CSIRO.

One of the difficulties that I foresee for science and for many other academic disciplines in Australia is that with academia no longer expanding it will be difficult for persons retiring from active research to obtain administrative jobs in academic or similar institutions. This will be difficult not only for those people but also for the people who hold positions for which they are no longer best qualified or suited. I hope that the academic and scientific community in such institutions as the CSIRO will be able to work out some method which will allow persons who have good qualifications and who were active researchers still to contribute to the academic community and yet will not prevent young people getting into the main stream. It appears that over the next few years there will be very few new academic jobs opening up in universities and other tertiary institutions and it will be very difficult for bright young people to enter such institutions.

How the CSIRO can best co-operate with manufacturing industry is apparently still under discussion amongst various government departments. We would expect any liaison to be based on a critical understanding of the kind of research at present undertaken by industry within Australia. The level of research by industry here is well recognised to be low by international standards, certainly by the international standards of advanced countries. This is no doubt partly due to the domination by foreign companies in this country, but it is mainly due to the fact that our population base is too small to support such research. I do not mean by that that we do not have enough population to provide researchers, but we do not have enough population to buy sufficient of the goods produced by our manufacturing industries to enable local manufacturing industry to spend large amounts of money on research. I hope that the changes proposed to the CSIRO will improve the activities of that organisation. I have a feeling that bureaucracy both in government and in such institutions as the CSIRO and universities probably will absorb the changes, which will not be terribly great anyway. However, speaking in a more optimistic frame of mind, maybe the aims of the inquiry and of the Government will be achieved by the proposed changes.

Debate (on motion by Mr Bourchier) adjourned.

page 2248

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr MORRIS:

– Yes. In an interview broadcast on the Australian Broadcasting Commission program P.M. on Tuesday, 2 May- that is, last week- the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon), in response to a question about his failure to release the report of an interdepartmental committee which inquired into the provision of air services in the Northern Territory, said:

And the reason I can’t release an interdepartmental committee report is because it contains commercial information given to it by operators through the Territory. The way Mr Morris blandly uses and misuses commercial information given in these confidential papers, he makes it much more difficult for me to table such a report.

I state categorically that the Minister’s statement is completely false. I have not had access to the commercial information in the confidential papers given to the inter-departmental committee or to the Minister by operators in the Northern Territory. I have not had access to the confidential papers to which he referred and, consequently I was never in a position either to use or misuse the information they contain. I reject utterly his suggestion that I would misuse information in confidential papers. I regard his statement as defamatory and I am seeking legal advice on appropriate action.

page 2248

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA AND PAPUA NEW GUINEA: NEGOTIATIONS ON MARITIME BOUNDARIES AND ON OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO TORRES STRAIT

Ministerial Statement

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– by leave- I wish to inform honourable members that, in my discussions in Port Moresby last week with the Papua New Guinea Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Olewale, we agreed upon the principal basic elements which are to be included in the treaty to be concluded on maritime boundaries between our two countries and on other matters relating to the Torres Strait. In this statement I propose to present a broad commentary on the course of the negotiations. I also intend to respond more fully to questions which have been raised concerning the status of certain islands in the Torres Strait. It is important that honourable members understand that because the Papua New Guinea Parliament is at present in recess, I have agreed with Mr Olewale that we shall each present to our respective parliaments in two weeks time a fuller outline of the principal basic elements to be included in the treaty. It is also my intention that, at that time, illustrative maps will be made available to honourable members which will indicate more clearly than words can do the results of these important negotiations.

Honourable members will know that Australia and Papua New Guinea have been engaged in these negotiations over a period of years, beginning before Papua New Guinea moved to independence in 1975. The negotiations have involved a requirement to delimit territorial seas, the seabed and fishing zones throughout the area between the two countries. This requirement arises because there are no existing international lines of delimitation on these matters. There could be no such lines until Papua New Guinea became independent. It is true that the so-called 1878-1879 Une has commonly been regarded as constituting a maritime boundary. However, it is clear from the very terms of the letters patent referring to the line that it did not represent a sea or seabed boundary. The purpose of the line was only to indicate the islands that were annexed to Queensland. The negotiations have also involved the question of the status of certain islands in the Torres Strait and many intricate historical, cultural, social and economic factors of great significance to the people of the area.

The Australian and Papua New Guinea governments have approached the negotiations with great care and concern in order to arrive at a solution which is equitable in human terms and lasting and beneficial in its consequences. We have sought an agreement which will stand the test of time both legally and functionally. We have been determined to achieve a treaty settlement which would strengthen the fabric of the relationship between the two countries and their peoples, which we both regard as of high importance. We have looked for a treaty settlement which will have the capacity to adapt to changing circumstances on matters of day-to-day significance while at the same time retaining a durable certainty about the distribution and nature of the rights of the parties concerned.

It has been common ground that a treaty of this kind should be comprehensive and enshrine agreement as a total package definitive of jurisdiction throughout the area of shared interest. Thus, whilst there has been preoccupation with the Torres Strait as an area of special significance to both countries, the question of the delimitation of seabed and fishing rights throughout the whole area running some 1,200 miles from the Arafura Sea to the Coral Sea has also been of major importance.

In the course of our negotiations, it became necessary to confirm and identify precisely those islands which were annexed to Queensland. I undertook last week to provide further material for honourable members on this particular matter. In a statement on 31 March 1978 I said that research had shown that the small uninhabited islands of Kawa, Mata Kawa and Kussa, which lie very close to the Papua New Guinea mainland but which have often been shown on maps as part of Queensland, were not among the Torres Strait islands annexed to Queensland in the last century. I added that the Australian Government had accordingly informed the Government of Papua New Guinea that, in the eventual treaty, Australia would recognise them as part of Papua New Guinea.

I dealt with a number of aspects of this matter in my answer to a question in this House on 3 May. As I stressed in that answer, it is necessary to go back to the original documents in order to establish their intention. A paper dealing with those documents, with relevant chart and map extracts attached, has now been placed in the Parliamentary Library for the information of honourable members. I invite the attention of honourable members to that paper and wish to add only three points. Firstly, the paper shows among other things that, when the relevant letters patent were being prepared by the British authorities in 1878, a line was drawn on an admiralty chart to show the islands intended to be annexed. That is to say, a chart was specifically prepared by the British authorities to show the intent of the letters patent, and copies of that chart were duly circulated to the Governor of Queensland and others, together with copies of the letters patent. The chart shows a line that excludes the Kawa Islands and Kussa Island from the islands to be annexed to Queensland.

Secondly, as the paper points out, the original intent has not been completely forgotten or overlooked. Maps have appeared, under very distinguished auspices, showing the Kawa Islands or Kussa Island as not being among those annexed to Queensland. In particular, the 1878 admiralty chart was referred to when the territorial extent of Queensland was examined in the legal context of the seas and submerged lands litigation in 1975 in the High Court. The chart was specifically referred to by Queensland counsel as showing how the ‘boundary’ was defined in the letters patent.

Thirdly, the correction of the widespread misunderstanding about these islands has not meant the creation of a legal vacuum. The effect of the letters patent of 8 June 1888 constituting British New Guinea was that islands off the south and south-eastern shores of British New Guinea ‘not forming part of the Colony of Queensland’ were included within British New Guinea. By virtue of the Papua Act 1905, British New Guinea was accepted by the Commonwealth as a territory under the authority of the Commonwealth by the name of the Territory of Papua. After the Second World War that Territory was administered in union with the Territory of New Guinea and, as the third schedule to the Papua New Guinea Act 1949, as amended up to the time of Papua New Guinea’s independence, makes clear, islands within the Torres Strait that were not part of the State of Queensland continued to be within the bounds of Papua New Guinea immediately prior to Papua New Guinea’s independence.

It will be clear from what I have said about the status of the Kawa and Kussa Islands that no question arises about any transfer of Australian territory to Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guinea sovereignty over those islands will be recognised in the treaty. Australian sovereignty over all Australian islands in the Torres Strait and their 3-mile territorial seas will be recognised in the treaty. The Torres Strait Islanders will, of course, remain Australian citizens. There will be a delimitation of the territorial seas between Boigu, Dauan and Saibai and Papua New Guinea. In addition, there will be lines delimiting seabed and fisheries jurisdiction running through the whole area between the two countries.

I also regard it as most important that, in addition to the clear jurisdictional lines which will be enshrined in the treaty, a protected zone will be established in the Torres Strait. This zone will protect the traditional practices and cultures of the peoples who inhabit the area. The treaty will provide that they will be able to move freely about the zone in pursuit of their traditional way of life and that this will remain undisturbed by the formal jurisdictional arrangements.

I believe that the approach taken by the two governments towards the treaty settlement- to resolve the many complex and sensitive issues by a process of steady and frank bilateral negotiationhas been the correct one. I regard the agreement now reached upon the principal basic elements to be included in the treaty to be an historic one. Whilst considerably more work has yet to be done on the development of detailed treaty articles, I am now confident that it will represent a mutually acceptable and equitable settlement which meets the genuine concerns and interests of the two countries. As I explained at the beginning of this statement, I have been able to give at this stage little more than the broadest account of the outcome of my recent negotiations with Mr Olewale. As I have agreed with him, we shall however each be presenting to our parliaments in two weeks’ time a fuller outline of the agreed basic elements to be included in the treaty. I present the following paper:

Australia and Papua New Guinea: Negotiations on Maritime Boundaries and on Other Matters Relating to Torres Strait- Ministerial Statement, 11 May 1978.

Motion (by Mr MacKellar) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Opposition welcomes the interim report of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) and notes that there will be a full debate on this matter in about a fortnight. It has been difficult for a very long period to get some clarification of the situation because the definition of the ‘Territory’ of Queensland apparently was defined in the letters patent as including the Talbot Islands and confusion has arisen as to what islands in fact bear or merit that description. Charts have now been published which indicate that perhaps the expression ‘Talbot

Islands’ was used to apply to islands other than those which are immediately adjacent to the Papua New Guinea area. In other words, according to what has been said here, the expression could well be deemed to apply only to the islands of Boigu, Aubusi and Moimi.

The Opposition also notes that the matter is the subject of treaty negotiations with our very friendly neighbour, Papua New Guinea. We hope the negotiation of the treaty will be concluded to the satisfaction of both countries. Today we are not able to comment fully on these matters. We look forward to the more extensive debate that will be able to take place when we debate the matter further. We welcome the fact that the study of the status of the islands of Kawa, Mata Kawa and Kussa has been made available for study. We have already expressed our concern in the Parliament and concern has been expressed in the Press about what the Government’s position may be. On the basis of the study which has been made available it is evident that there could well have been confusionperhaps to some extent there is still some confusion or disagreement- as to what is the exact position of the boundary. The study is a welcome aid in clarifying the situation and I hope from a personal point of view that it will lead to a satisfactory resolution of the matter.

From a constitutional point of view and assuming that the Government’s views about the historical position are proved to be correct in the legal sense, I make the following comments: The treaty to be agreed to by the governments of Papua New Guinea and Australia does not involve any transfer of land territory and does not involve the transfer of any territory from Queensland. In the Seas and Submerged Lands Act case there was clear difference of opinion between the members of the High Court of Australia as to whether the territorial sea fell within the territorial limits of Australia. Only two of the seven judges on the case- Mr Justice Gibbs and Mr Justice Stephen- held the view that the territorial sea was within State jurisdiction, but their view was not the majority view. Five other judges formed the majority view. Three of them, Sir Garfield Barwick, Mr Justice Jacobs and Mr Justice Mason, clearly took the view that the territorial sea did not form part of the land territory of Australia but that we had the territorial jurisdiction to legislate in respect of the territorial sea, being within our external affairs power. The two other members of the High Court, Mr Justice McTiernan and Mr Justice Murphy, took the view that the territorial sea was attached to Australia. An important point to note is contained in a report which has been tabled, concerning the boundaries between Australia and Papua New Guinea and in which my colleague the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) has expressed a view with which I find myself in complete agreement. The report states:

The territorial waters adjacent to a State do not form part of the State.

That is the clear position. I place on record my indebtedness to my colleague for his excellent report and knowledge.

Let us note also that the letters patent of 1878 are limited to the islands in the Strait. In other words, the islands in the Strait are part of Queensland. They make no claim to the waters surrounding the islands. The letters patent state that certain islands should be annexed to and form part of Queensland; they do not cover any waters. Therefore, the view that I now express is that these islands should remain part of Queensland with a territorial sea but that that territorial sea should be under Australian jurisdiction, to which the Seas and Submerged Lands Act will apply once the low water mark is reached. So we make our position clear on that. Therefore, no question will arise as regards section 123 of the Constitution. Under that section, the limits of a State may be altered only with the consent of both the Parliament of and the electors in that State. The executive power of the Commonwealth, as contained in section 6 1 of the Constitution, together with the external affairs power give the Government complete power to negotiate a treaty of the type outlined by the Foreign Minister. I want to make that quite clear.

I think we also need to make the constitutional position quite clear because it could well be that the Government of Queensland, as is its wont, would want to have a good deal to say on many matters. I want to make it perfectly clear that this is a matter for negotiation between the Australian and Papua New Guinean governments. We do not want to see any weak-kneed approach to the position as to what are alleged to be Queensland’s rights because we are concerned about what has happened already in Queensland in two areas- Aborigines and human rights. We support the concept of a negotiated settlement between Papua New Guinea and Australia, although we reserve our final judgment until we see the treaty. We place the Government on notice that we are not prepared to see the Queensland Government start to dictate terms in this matter.

Debate (on motion by Mr Bourchier) adjourned.

page 2251

POLICY ON NORFOLK ISLAND

Ministerial Statement

Mr ELLICOTT (Wentworth-Minister for

Home Affairs)- by leave- Earlier this week I visited Norfolk Island to announce to the Norfolk Island Council and the residents of the Island, the Government’s decisions on its policies for the Island. Whilst there I read to them a statement containing those decisions. So that honourable members may be kept informed of the Government’s decisions on these important matters, I table that statement. Rather than read out the statement, Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

page 2251

POLICY ON NORFOLK ISLAND

Statement by the Minister for Home Affairs, the Hon. R. J. Ellicott, Q.C., M.P.

My purpose in coming to Norfolk Island and meeting with you today is to announce the decisions that the Government has taken on its policies for Norfolk Island, to discuss those decisions with you and to begin a process of consultation on a number of matters arising from them.

It has been made clear on many occasions that the views expressed by Members of the Council and residents of Norfolk Island would be presented to the Government for consideration. You may be assured that this has been done and that the Government has taken full account of those views in making its decisions. The Government has also agreed that further consultations are necessary before a number of important aspects can be brought to finality and, in particular, before the necessary legislation is drafted. I have therefore returned to Norfolk Island both to honour my previous undertaking to do so and also to take up with you a range of matters on which firm decisions will need to be made at a later date.

May I say at the outset that the Government recognises the special situation of Norfolk Island, including the special relationship of the Pitcairn descendants with the Island, its traditions and culture. It is prepared, over a period, to move towards a substantial measure of self government for the Island. It is also of the view that, although Norfolk Island is part of Australia and will remain so, this does not require Norfolk Island to be regulated by the same laws as regulate other parts of Australia.

One of the main recommendations of the Report of Sir John Nimmo on Norfolk Island was that, except in special cases, all laws which applied to other pans of Australia generally should also apply to Norfolk Island. Having considered all relevant matters the Government has decided not to accept this recommendation but to allow the present situation to continue under which laws of the Australian Parliament only apply to this Island if special provision is made in the particular law.

A matter of considerable concern to the Government has been whether it should now extend Australian taxation and Australian social service benefits to the Island. The Government has decided not to do so. This issue has created much debate and there have been strong arguments put for and against. It has not been an easy matter to decide. The Government believes, however, that the wise course is to see whether there can be developed for the Island an appropriate form of government involving its elected representatives under which the revenue necessary to sustain that government will be raised internally under its own system of law.

One matter which 1 discussed with the Council on my last visit was whether social service benefits should be available to citizens as of right or by grace and favour. The Government believes that social service benefits appropriate to the conditions of the Island should be provided as of right. My understanding is that the Council does not disagree with this. The Government does not, however, believe that the services provided should necessarily be the same or at the same level as those available on the mainland. For instance, they need not include unemployment benefits.

The Government believes that in order to make decisions about such matters as the Island’s revenue potential and the nature and level of social welfare benefits it is necessary to have much more information than is presently available on the economic strengths, weaknesses and potential of the Norfolk Island economy. It therefore proposes that there be set in train at an early date an economic feasibility study. The purpose of this study will be to assess the capacity of the Island’s economy including, but not limited to, the amount of income derived by residents of the Island (including companies), the likely effect of various levels of income tax on the economy, the cost of living, appropriate levels for social service benefits and the likely effect of other forms of tax (e.g. stamp duty). The Government would hope that such a study could be completed within six months. I would like to discuss with the Council while I am here the procedures under which this study might be implemented to ensure its effectiveness.

When the results of this study are known, appropriate social service benefits and their levels could be determined in consultation with the Norfolk Island Council in the light of that study. Another matter that could be determined in consultation with the Council in the light of that study is the actual source of any additional revenue needed to meet the cost of the new constitutional and administrative arrangements which the Government proposes including, of course, the cost of introducing a scheme for social service benefits. The Government’s view, as I have indicated, is that any such additional expenditure should, if practicable, be met from sources on Norfolk Island. The Commonwealth Government would, however, meet the cost of maintaining the Administrator and his staff.

I now come to constitutional questions and, in particular, to the nature of the constitutional arrangements which the Government proposes for the Island.

The Government has decided, as recommended by the Nimmo Report, that the present Norfolk Island Council will be abolished. Instead, it proposes that there be an incorporated body to be known as the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly, with power to pass laws for the peace, order and good government of Norfolk Island. The Government accepts the following further recommendations of Sir John Nimmo relating to the Assembly:

The Government has in mind that the Assembly should be in operation no later than 1 July 1979.

The Government has also carefully considered the specific powers over which the Legislative Assembly should in the first instance have complete legislative power and executive control. It agrees, in substance, with the list of powers recommended by Sir John Nimmo, with the addition of education. The Government proposes that the Assembly have complete legislative power and executive control over these matters, subject to a right of veto by the Administrator in respect of education, immigration, customs services and fishing, in view of their particular sensitivity and national importance. The full list of powers to be granted at the outset would therefore be as in the attachment to this statement.

The Assembly would have major financial powers. It would take over those operations at present yielding revenue to the Administration other than in areas where the Commonwealth retains responsibility, and it would have power to borrow subject to the approval of the Treasurer. In addition to its other powers, it would also have a broad advisory capacity. It would have the capacity to advise the Administrator on any matter relating to Norfolk Island over which the Commonwealth Government has power. As recommended by Sir John Nimmo, continuing liaison would be maintained between the Administrator and the Legislative Assembly.

I would emphasise that the Government believes that if the measures I have outlined are taken they will be a major step towards a form of self government for the Island. Consideration will be given to increasing the areas of the Assembly’s legislative power and executive responsibilities no later than five years after its incorporation.

I now come to certain other specific matters that have an importance of their own.

The question of the possible representation of Norfolk Island in the Commonwealth Parliament has proved to be a very difficult one. The Government believes that no decision be taken on this matter until after consultations have been held with the Legislative Assembly.

Concern has also been expressed regarding the likely effect on the tourist industry of possible imposition of Australian sales tax on Australian manufactures destined for Norfolk Island. It has been decided that, as recommended by Sir John Nimmo, such manufactures shall continue to be exempt from sales tax.

It has also been decided that Commonwealth legislation with regard to workers’ compensation should not be extended to Norfolk Island, provided that an all-embracing accident insurance scheme satisfactory to the Government and the Norfolk Island Council or Legislative Assembly is implemented.

As regards zoning and land development, the Government is of the view that steps should be taken within twelve month to finalise and adopt by Ordinance a suitable plan for the Island, with consideration being given to the declaration of an appropriate area around Mt Pitt as a National Park and to the declaration of appropriate areas on Norfolk and Phillip Islands as part of the National Estate. These steps would be taken in full consultation with the Norfolk Island Council or Legislative Assembly.

The Government is aware of the need for adequate communications with Norfolk Island and, in particular, the problem of the maintenance and upgrading of services at the Norfolk Island airport. These matters are within the Ministerial responsibilities of my colleague, the Minister for Transport, and he has advised that he expects to bring forward recommendations before the end of this year.

It will be obvious that the precise constitutional provisions to give effect to the Government’s proposals will need careful consideration. The Government has authorised me to discuss these provisions and the other matters I have mentioned such as financial arrangements with the Norfolk Island

Council and I am to report back to Cabinet before any instructions are given for final drafting. As I indicated at the outset, part of the reason for my visit is to begin this process of consultation.

There are, of course, many recommendations in the Nimmo Report. In this statement I have dealt with those which are basic. Those which I have not mentioned will be the subject of discussion, decision and announcement at a later time.

The Government has also considered the proposals that have been made for a referendum. It has already received a wide expression of views from the Council and the community. In reaching its decisions it has taken those views fully into account

In all the circumstances and having regard to the decisions it has made, the Government has decided that a referendum should not be held.

The Government’s decisions have been made after a careful balancing of the many factors and varying points of view involved. Its objective has been to provide for the development of a responsible form of self government for Norfolk Island. A number of decisions have been taken, but within them there remains scope for further consultation and collaboration with the Norfolk Island community and its elected representatives. I would hope to see that consultation and collaboration commence immediately.

page 2253

ATTACHMENT

page 2253

POWERS OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

In the first instance, legislative and executive powers to be granted to the Assembly in respect of the following matters: roads, footpaths and bridges; drainage; sewerage and sanitation; disposal of garbage and trade waste; recreation areas; pasturage on commons; livestock; pounds; pests and noxious weeds; cemeteries; guest houses; electricity supply; water supply; lighterage; places of public entertainment; promotion of tourism; omnibuses and taxis; sale and distribution of foodstuffs and beverages; repair or demolition of dangerous buildings; new buildings and the alteration of buildings; advertised hoardings; fires and prevention of fires; road traffic; street lighting; prevention and suppression of nuisances; trading hours; street stalls; raising revenue for the Assembly’s budget; coastlines, foreshores, wharves and jetties; ‘fishing; slaughtering of stock; domestic animals and birds; storage of petroleum products; firearms; museums, memorials and libraries; motor vehicles and road traffic; forestry and related activities; radio and television; noxious trades; markets and weighbridges; carters and hawkers; quarrying; maintenance of rolls; telephone services; postal services; education; ‘customs services; philatelic activities; ‘immigration, with a right of appeal to the Minister by any person aggrieved; registrations (births, deaths, marriages, companies motor vehicles, dogs, etc.) which are at present handled by the Administration; internal audit; the undertaking of business activities and contracts with respect to any of the matters specified above.

Subject to veto by the Administrator.

The Assembly would also have power to borrow money subject to the approval of the Treasurer.

Consideration to be given to increasing the areas of the Assembly’s powers no later than five years after its incorporation.

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

– I have nothing to add at this stage except to say that the policies announced received very wide support on the Island and that I had very useful discussions with the Council following the reading of the statement to the Council and to the Island over the local radio. In those discussions I began the process of consultations which was promised in the statement. I present the following paper:

Norfolk Island- Government Policy- Ministerial Statement, 1 1 May 1978

Motion (by Mr MacKellar) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-We readily agree that the document tabled by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) outlining the Government’s policy on Norfolk Island, ought to be tabled for the information of honourable members. Whilst acknowledging some aspects of the move to partial self-government for the Island, the Opposition is highly critical of the delay in implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission which was headed by Mr Justice Nimmo. Its report was presented to the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, on 1 5 October 1976. So there has been a delay of some 17 months during which time a lot of lobbying has been going on by influential people from the Island for a certain course to be taken. Also during that time the wealthy tax dodgers and exploiters and some of the parasites have continued to enjoy a bonanza at the expense of the Australian taxpayers and the indigenous people on the Island.

On page 8 of the statement by the Minister, it is indicated that the basic principles contained in the Nimmo report have been implemented. Not only is this misleading, but it is also quite untrue. The report, if objectively read, clearly sets out principles which, if applied to the situation on the Island, would go a long way towards setting people on the road to proper self-determination as part of Australia, snaring the responsibilities and also reaping the benefits of being part of our great country. This would eliminate the exploitation and the tax-dodging by these so-called paper companies, companies which simply carry out paper transactions for the purpose of tax evasion. They are saving millions of dollars a year by that process. Page 232 of the report contains a table setting out company accounts and volume of money transactions for Norfolk Island. On page 233 of the report, estimates of tax lost to Australia are clearly spelt out. I might add that we see in the Commonwealth Trading Bank accounts for Norfolk Island, some $15,581,400 was transacted in 1975, while in the Bank of New South Wales accounts, the amount was $65,559,000. So we can see the method of evasion that was carried out by a number of companies on the Island.

Mr Haslem:

– Tell us how they are doing it.

Mr INNES:

-I will tell the honourable member how they are doing it. An individual called Elton Douglas Foote set up a triangular arrangement between a company registered on Norfolk Island, a company in Hong Kong which manufactured a detergent called Swipe and a buffer company between them and the outlet in Japan. By that arrangement they avoided taxation in three countries. All they did was transfer the money from the company in Hong Kong to Norfolk Island. The honourable member for Canberra has been to Norfolk Island big-noting himself. He wants a slice of the action. He wants to represent the place. Of course there are many other aspects of such cases and tax dodges about which my friend, the honourable member for Canberra would be well aware.

The statement talks about a feasibility study. That must be some sort of a joke. On pages 3 and 4 of the statement there is talk of the procedures for the feasibility study and the guidelines that would be discussed with the Council itself. Unless we have a royal commission into the activities of these companies to which I have referred, where will the Government get the authority to investigate such activities? Surely if the Government is going to take any action- surely it is the Government’s obligation to take that actionthen clearly it has to understand what the situation is all about. After all, the Nimmo inquiry carried out such an investigation. It carried out a feasibility study. An examination of the report provides plenty of material for the Government to act on but it has not done so. The report of Sir John Nimmo was an excellent one. It is to the credit of the learned judge. He applied himself and carried out the investigation that produced such a fine result. The principle contained in the report that has not been implemented by virtue of the statement is that the plight of people of Pitcairn Island- less than half the population, those who are genuine Pitcairners- those on the lower spoke of fortune’s wheel has been completely ignored. The Government’s policy outlined in the statement comes down heavily on the side of the exploiters, one of whom I have pointed out here this afternoon.

There were some 74 recommendations in the report. The Government has sacrificed the value of those recommendations at the altar of the money people manipulating the situation at the moment. The companies registered are contained on pages 23 1 and 253. Those companies have risen in number since 1975, when the inquiry took place and when there was a drop in the number of those companies involved, to somewhere in the vicinity of 981. A reference to the report will clarify the number. From that point onwards there has been a gradual increase back to about the 1 974 level. This may well have been encouraged by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) who is at the table. I hasten to say that I am not criticising him for acting in his professional capacity. It must have given great heart to the people who are the moneyed interests on Norfolk Island. He and another Queen’s Counsel prepared an opinion, which was reported in the Canberra Times in a book review by Frank Cranston under the heading Action Seems Close on This Political Hot Potato. The review goes on to say that the Council on the Island thinks that it is a very astute legal opinion. The article then states:

Prepared by two eminent Sydney Queen’s Counsel in August, 197S, the advice gave significant encouragement to islanders who believed they were threatened by the intentions of the then-Labor Government toward their tiny Pacific paradise.

. . although the Commonwealth Parliament has legal power under Section 122 of the Constitution to impose taxes or other imposts on the people of Norfolk Island for whatever purpose it thinks fit, to do so could well be in breach of a well-entrenched constitutional convention.

This in our view is a further very significant matter to be taken into account in relation to the future constitutional relationship between Australia and Norfolk Island’, the learned counsel said.

The point I am making is that that concept is enshrined in the statement. What are we doing? What actions are we going to take to prevent the sorts of things to which I have made reference? What has the Taxation Department done over that period since Barwick announced the situation? It has done absolutely nothing. It has not stopped at that point. Taxation evasion in respect of stamp duty and death duties must be costing the Commonwealth Government and the States hundreds of millions of dollars a year. As I indicated, the Government has done nothing. By the look of it, it does not appear that it will be doing anything at all.

I acknowledge the fact that in part of the statement there is reference to some measure of self government. However, I repeat that the basic principles of the Nimmo report have been completely ignored. Is there a stated intention of doing anything else about it? If there is not, the Minister might tell us what the Government is prepared to do about it. He might inform the House why up to this time the Taxation Department has not moved. As I said, the statement is heavily biased on the side of the wealthy and those vested interests on the Island. It allows the continued exploitation of those people who are properly the descendants of the Pitcairn Islanders. They have been exploited in more ways than one. They have been kidded into selling their property for a song. Now that the landholdings have been subdivided they are that expensive that the people in that situation cannot buy them at all. So it goes on. At this point for the purpose of providing information I seek the incorporation in Hansard of answers given by Senator Withers to questions in another place. I have spoken to the Minister on this matter.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

page 2255

NORFOLK ISLAND

Senator DEVITT;I direct to the Minister for Administrative Services a question on the subject of Norfolk Island. What consideration has the Government given to the question of the status of Norfolk Island vis-a-vis the Australian Constitution? What steps have been taken to seek the views of the people of Norfolk Island as to their future, having regard to Australia’s obligations and responsibilities to its Territories and also having regard to the historical uniqueness of the Norfolk Island community? What is the proportion of Pitcairners to the total population? In any referendum which might be held to determine the wishes of the Norfolk Islanders in regard to their future, what can be done to ensure that the views so expressed are those of the real Islandersthat is, the descendants of the association of the Bounty mutineers and the Pitcairners- and not those of the more recent residents, many of whom obviously went there for purposes of tax avoidance and in fact make no secret of it? Can the Minister state a figure representing the loss of revenue to Australia as a consequence of the tax haven used by entrepreneurs following the plugging of this tax dodge opportunity in Australia? What is the general level of Australia’s assistance to Norfolk Island? Is it possible, even at this late hour, to have an assurance that this historically important and quite unique and beautiful island can be preserved for long term residents, namely, people with ties of consanguinity with the Pitcairners? Finally, in the event of a referendum being held, is it not possible- in fact highly probable- that the result would reflect the views of the more recent residents rather than those of the real Norfolk Islanders for whose welfare we are principally responsible?

Senator WITHERS;Senator Devitt was kind enough to alert me to the fact that he was going to ask a question along these lines. Perhaps I can answer the questions seriatim. The Government announced on 17 December 1976 that it intends to continue to accept responsibility for maintaining Norfolk Island as a viable community and that its constitutional relationship with Australia would remain that of a Territory of the Commonwealth of Australia. As to the second question, under the terms of reference, the royal commission was asked to take into consideration amongst other things, the interests of Norfolk Island residents and the historic rights of the Pitcairn settlers. The royal commission presented every opportunity, both formal and informal, for residents to present their views. As to the third question, my recollection is that the royal commission report stated that of about 860 electors some 320 are of Pitcairn lineage. The actual figures, as at 30 June 1976, were 859 electors, 323 being of Pitcairn descent. As to the fourth question, under the laws which provide for the conduct of a referendum on Norfolk Island every elector is entitled to vote and voting is by secret ballot Therefore it would not be possible to identify the views of any particular individuals or groups in a referendum. However I should mention that I have received a petition, signed by 1 88 residents of whom 86 are of Pitcairn descent, asking that the Government accept in principle the recommendations of the royal commission.

As to the fifth question relating to tax avoidance and evasion, this is a detailed question that relates directly to the responsibility of the Treasurer and I shall seek information from him. As to the sixth question, evidence given to the royal commission was to the effect that the total direct and indirect assistance given to Norfolk Island by the Commonwealth during the financial year ended 30 June1975 was in excess of $2m. As the honourable senator would appreciate, the amount varies from year to year. As to the seventh question, I have given an undertaking that before making any submission to the Government I shall visit Norfolk Island and personally review the situation there and the local factors on which the Government will require to be informed. In response to a request I made in November, following the tabling of the report, I have received the views of the Norfolk Island Council on the recommendations in the report and these are being considered. The matter is one which affects Australia as a whole and therefore the interests of residents both of mainland Australia and of Norfolk Island have to be given proper consideration.

As to the last question, many people in fact have speculated to the same effect. I might just add that I first visited Norfolk Island with the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances when Senator Wood was its Chairman. He led the delegation and Senator Devitt and Senator Cavanagh were also in that delegation. Since I first visited Norfolk Island I have been most attracted to it. The matters to which the honourable senator adverted in his seventh question about this historically important and unique and beautiful island I shall always have very much in my mind.

page 2255

QUESTION

NORFOLK ISLAND

Senator DEVITT; I direct a question to the Minister for Administrative Services. As the Minister, accompanied; I understand; by the AttorneyGeneral, Mr Ellicott, recently paid a visit to Norfolk Island, can he now say what decisions have been made in regard to the constitutional position of the island and its future administration? Will any decisions as to the future of Norfolk Island take strongly into account the interests and life style of the true Norfolk Islanders? Can the Minister say what significance, if any, can be attached to the fact that in this year’s Budget the vote for Norfolk Island has been reduced by $88,000?

Senator WITHERS; As the honourable senator would know, most of the revenues on Norfolk Island are raised locally. There has been quite a significant increase in company registration fees which will add greatly to the revenue. Honourable senators can imagine with what glee that was greeted by some on Norfolk Island. I refer now to the first part of the question concerning the constitutional position of Norfolk Island. As far as the Commonwealth Government is concerned that was quite clearly decided in Berwick’s case. The High Court said that Norfolk Island is an Australian territory over which this Parliament has plenary powers. All the nonsense talked by some pseudo-lawyers and some other sorts of interesting people on Norfolk Island as to its independence and special relationship just will not hold water. The High Court would not entertain any sort of argument that the island is other than an Australian territory over which this Parliament has total legislative capacity. I inform the Senate that in spite of a campaign which is being waged over on Norfolk Island against the Nimmo Royal Commission report which was commissioned by our predecessors, the Government has not yet come to a final decision on the report. I hope that before the year is out I will be able to announce a series of Government decisions on the report.

There are some matters of quite great import concerning Norfolk Island. As honourable senators will have noticed, a campaign occasionally has been waged in the Canberra Times, which for some reason is the only newspaper that seems to give much credit to it, by certain people on Norfolk Island who, I believe for their own selfish, personal and financial interests, are totally opposed to the implementation of certain sections of the Nimmo report.

Senator Georges; Quite vicious.

Senator WITHERS; As the honourable senator says quite vicious’. The last attack was launched under privilege before a Senate committee alleging that the Administrator had committed certain unlawful acts. In spite of the fact that I have invited the person involved to go to the Commonwealth Police or the Crown Law officers he has not yet taken up the offer. That action, if I may say so, was described by a Norfolk Island councillor as the worst example of gutter politics he had seen exercised by a Norfolk Islander. That shows the tactics that some people on Norfolk Island are attempting to use to protect their own financial interests and even more tragically in some way to persuade the Commonwealth Government not to grant certain benefits in the social security area to Australian people who live on Norfolk Island. I know that Senator Devitt has a deep and continuing interest in Norfolk Island. I assure him that I hope before the year is out the Government will be able to announce a positive decision over a whole range of these matters.

Senator DEVITT; I wish to ask a supplementary question to clear up a point in which I am particularly interested. The Minister did not respond to the section of my question in which I asked whether special consideration would be given to the interests of the people who are really Norfolk Islanders.

Senator WITHERS;I take it the honourable senator is referring to the people of Pitcairn descent. Yes, one of the fundamental aims of any Government policy in this area will be to see that those who are truly pan of Norfolk Island and have not gone there for other purposes will be properly looked after.

The two answers outline the shape of the population. This information bears witness to my claim that the people on the Island who can truly call themselves descendants of the Pitcairn Islanders represent about one-third of the population. On that basis, the Opposition suggests that a referendum to lead up to what might be determined in future as a self-government situation would be farcical. Those people who are in the majority, some 200 Australians, and the other people who are blow-ins for the reasons that I have outlined, will be the people who would swamp those who really need our assistance and who ought to be the object of our attention.

One part of the statement refers to the question of taxation, social services and welfare. One little pearl contained in the statement refers to the fact that social services should be available to citizens as of right, or by grace and favour- that was the question. They say that the Council comes down on the side of social welfare. It is worth examining just what the taxation situation means. Surely, there is evidence to show that there are people on that Island who would be better off if a taxation system applied because there would not be tax evaders. It seems ironical that the Treasurer (Mr Howard) has announced legislation- proper legislation- to prevent tax evasion. So, it ought to be applied to Norfolk Island. I wonder why it has not been done in the past. Perhaps the Treasurer could answer that.

Mr INNES:

-It is the old, old story: Why didn’t you do it? The Nimmo report has been out for 17 months but not one action has been taken. You have just sidestepped the issue and followed the pattern of your own opinion. That is what you did.

Mr Haslem:

– Read the Nimmo report.

Mr INNES:

– I have read the Nimmo report. It is about time that you read it. Not only should you read it, but the 74 recommendations and the principles spelt out in them would achieve all the aims to which I have made reference. We are a party to international covenants on social welfare and the like. The Nimmo report spells it out chapter and verse. What have we done about that? The pensioners on the Island, by grace and favour, for God’s sake, were getting before the Nimmo inquiry $10 a week to live on or to exist on. Later, it became $20. The point I am making is that a whole range of recommendations have been completely and utterly ignored. What do we see in the statement? Lip service is paid by the Minister to the recommendations and the principles clearly spelt out in the report. We call on the Government not just simply to talk in terms of a so-called self-determination, which means very, very little in many respects. It ought to concentrate clearly on the other issues, prevent this tax evasion and do the job for which it has been elected.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-The question is that the debate be now adjourned and that the adjourned debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. -

Mr Bryant:
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I think the ayes have it.

Mr Bryant:

– I want a division.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is there only one voice?

Mr Bryant:

– Will you have my dissent recorded? It is a fair example of the total discourtesy of this Government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Wills will resume his seat. His objection will be recorded.

page 2257

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Mr FRY:
Fraser

-On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present the Committee’s report on proposals for variations of the plan of the layout of the City of Canberra and its environs- 65th series. A limited number of copies of the report is available from the Tables Office and copies have been placed in the Parliamentary Library. Additional copies will be available for general distribution in the very near future.

Ordered that paper be printed.

Mr FRY:

– I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

Mr FRY:

-The report I have tabled is the first report to the present Parliament by the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. It concerns proposals to vary the Canberra City Plan. This is the 65th series of such variations made to the plan since its adoption in 1925. The Committee report provides honourable members with information about the proposal contained in the instrument of variation of the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott). These inquiries on the variations are becoming increasingly important to the Australian Capital Territory community. As the city and its population grow the planning and development proposals of the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of the Capital Territory tend to affect existing communities more directly than they have in the past when most development related to rural areas and did not affect established communities.

The Committee sees it as essential therefore that it consult the community and obtain views on proposals put forward by the authorities. The Minister has co-operated in this regard and in the case of the 65th series extended the period within which objections might be lodged from 14 to 21 days. The extended period meant that the Lands, Planning and Environment Committee of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly had time to complete its own examination of the proposals and to report to the Assembly. The Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory thus had the advantage of an Assembly view when considering the 65th series.

The Committee has also modified its own procedures to ensure greater publicity for the proposals contained in the series. It now conducts public hearings when officers from the Department of the Capital Territory and the National Capital Development Commission and those who have lodged objections appear to make submissions to the Committee in an open forum. Inspections of the sites where controversial developments are proposed were also undertaken by the Committee. The Committee will continue to seek to involve the community further in its examination of such proposals. But the Committee is equally concerned that the authorities should consult individuals and communities affected by their proposals. In the current series, for instance, the Committee has recommended that two items be deferred until certain aspects have been taken up with the communities involved. The first of these involves the proposed group centre in the Belconnen suburb of Kaleen. The Committee considers that when retail centres are being planned after local communities have become established there should be consultation and liaison with the communities from the earliest stages of planning. The newly formed residents’ association in Kaleen raised a number of pertinent objections to the proposal for the group centre as presented in the series. We have recommended that implementation of the proposal be deferred pending further consultations with this group and others who are affected.

A proposal that would have enabled boom gate parking to be installed in the city centre near Marcus Clarke Street and Childers Street has also been recommended for deferral by the Committee. The National Capital Development Commission submitted that implementation of the proposal would have meant that it could establish boom gate parking in the area when the need arises. The Committee considers that this proposal should be deferred until the need has in fact been more clearly established.

We have also sought from the National Capital Development Commission a full report on future development proposals for the recreation area associated with Ginninderra Creek. This is one of the most important recreation areas on the north side of Canberra and the Committee is concerned about its preservation as an area for recreational use and that it should not be affected adversely by further residential development. It has therefore sought from the Commission a full report on developments proposed for the area. This arose in connection with proposals for new housing in Latham which have caused concern to local groups because of encroachment on the existing recreational area. The Committee has agreed to the variations proposed but has expressed the view that no development in relation to these and related areas should proceed until a detailed plan of the whole area has been published.

The work done by this Committee at times results in difficulties with groups of residents who object to proposals which the Committee considers, in the wider interest, should be implemented. We have endorsed two proposals in the current series in the face of strong objections from local residents. One relates to the proposed access road to the Kambah Pool and the other to a proposed development for 35 detached housing blocks in section 266, Kambah. Our reasons for upholding the proposed variations are explained in the report. But in each case we have sought to ensure that there is continuing consultation between residents and relevant authorities so that people affected by the proposed variations can be assured their views will be heard on important issues as development proceeds.

Other major items which are dealt with in the current series include proposals for the establishment of a new residential area in Isaacs and substantial residential developments in Holt and Florey. Major roadworks include the reconstruction, realignment and upgrading of Fairbairn Avenue and the realignment of Majura Road and of the Paddys River Road to the Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve. I commend the report to the House.

page 2258

PRIMARY INDUSTRY BANK AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian Rural Bank Act 1977. That Act, which received the royal assent on 10 November last year, provides the legislative framework for the establishment and operation of a rural bank. The Bill amends the legislation in two respects. (Quorum formed). The first is to change the name of the new institution from ‘Australian

Rural Bank’ to ‘Primary Industry Bank of Australia’. This is the effect of clauses 3 through 7 and 9 and 10 of the Bill. The Government has decided to propose a change in the name in the light of the view of the New South Wales Government authorities that the name at present provided for could be confused with or mistaken for that of the Rural Bank of New South Wales which has become widely known throughout that state simply as the ‘Rural Bank’. A somewhat similar position applies with respect to the Rural and Industries Bank of Western Australia.

The second change is effected by clause 8 of the Bill, which amends section 7 of the Act. That section at present provides that the Commonwealth may make grants or loans to the bank on terms and conditions determined by the Treasurer. The amendment retains the power for the Treasurer to determine the terms and conditions of any financial assistance provided by the Commonwealth, but in addition requires the terms and conditions to be agreed with the bank. The requirement for agreement by the bank is consistent with comparable provisions in the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959, the Reserve Bank Act 1959 and the Banks (Housing Loans) Act 1974 and is also consistent with the cooperative nature of the whole venture. I should reassure honourable members that there is no change in the objectives which the new bank is intended to achieve.

Since the legislation came into effect last year work has been proceeding as rapidly as possible towards establishment of the Bank. I refer to such matters as the drafting of the memorandum and articles of association of the company, the location of premises, the purchase of facilities and equipment, the establishment of accounting systems, the selection of personnel and so on. I record the Government’s appreciation of the energetic way in which these and associated matters have been pursued by the representatives of the major trading banks. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1977-78, which is at present before the Parliament, provides for the appropriation of an amount of $625,000 to finance the Commonwealth equity contribution to the Bank authorised by section 6 of the Act. This is based on a total initial capital for the Bank of $5,625,000 to be contributed in nine equal amounts by each of the seven major trading banks, the State banks together and the Commonwealth.

It is also proposed that representatives of each of the seven major trading banks and one representative of the State banks be nominated as directors of the Bank’s board. In addition, under the terms of the Act itself, I will be designating a chairman, a Commonwealth Government representative and two primary producer representatives. I will be announcing the names of these directors as soon as practicable.

The House will appreciate that aspects of the Bank’s operations- its lending policies, interest rates and so on- will not be determined until after the board has been established and relevant consultations have been held with the Commonwealth. The precise range and types of lenders, in addition to the participating banks, to be granted access to the refinancing facilities of the Bank have also not yet been determined but I reaffirm that it is the Government’s intention that there be wide participation. In particular, it is envisaged that the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia will be able to refinance loans to primary producers through the new Bank.

Considerable work remains to be done, and there are various formalities under the Act and in connection with the registration of the company that can be completed only when the legislation that I am now proposing comes into effect. I am not in a position to be precise as to timing, but I expect the Bank to be established around midyear, with lending operations necessarily commencing a little after establishment. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Young) adjourned.

page 2259

NORTHERN TERRITORY (SELF-GOVERNMENT) BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

I consider it an honour to present this history making measure to the Parliament. As its title makes clear, the purpose of the Bill is to confer self-government on the Northern Territory. The progress towards this present goal in the two and a half year life of this Government, of course, is most satisfying and gratifying to me as Minister for the Northern Territory. I am sure that honourable members will support the philosophy behind the legislation. The people of the Northern Territory, in common with other citizens of our federal Commonwealth, have the right- indeed the duty- to control their own affairs through a democratically elected legislature. This is what we are now seeking to achieve.

At Federation, the citizens of the Northern Territory, as residents of the State of South Australia, enjoyed the same political rights as other Commonwealth citizens. Because of the requirements of the Constitution, those political rights were removed in 1910 when the Territory was transferred from South Australia and accorded the status of a Commonwealth Territory. In a very real sense, the constitutional history of the Northern Territory since that date reflects the endeavours of the people of the Territory to regain the rights which they lost in 1910. That objective will not, of course, be finally achieved until the Territory is accorded statehood. However, there can be little doubt that, whilst not conferring statehood, the Bill now before the House will, when enacted, represent the most significant advance to date in the constitutional development of the Northern Territory.

In reflecting upon the fact that it has taken some 68 years for the Northern Territory to achieve self-government, I was interested to note that it was not until about 1964 that the population of the Territory exceeded 50,000. In the 14 years since the population has doubled to its present figure of about 105,000. 1 hardly need remind honourable members that this growth has taken place despite the devastation of Darwin on Christmas Eve 1974 by cyclone Tracy and the wholesale depletion of the city’s population which followed that disaster. I believe that the impressive growth of the Territory in the past one and a half decades bears full testimony to the interest and concern of successive Federal governments to promote the development of the Territory. During that period there has been a burgeoning of the Territory’s mineral productionespecially manganese and bauxite- and an increased realisation of the very great potential of the mineral wealth which, as yet, remains untapped. As honourable members are well aware, the Alligator Rivers region constitutes a source of uranium of major significance by world standards. The lead-zinc deposit at McArthur River also has major potential. I am optimistic that these are but two examples of great mineral wealth on which the economic future of the Northern Territory will undoubtedly be based.

Before directing my attention to the Bill, I would draw the attention of honourable members to the essentially bipartisan approach which has been adopted in this Parliament to the constitutional advancement of the Northern Territory. It was in 1947 that the first Legislative Council for the Northern Territory- albeit with a majority of official members- was established by the Chifley Labor Government. Through the 1950s and 1960s a succession of reforms to that Council was introduced by Liberal-Country Party governments, culminating, in 1968, with a majority of elected over appointed members. In 1974 the then Labor Government created the first fully elected Legislative Assembly. However, progress towards self-government was then halted when, at the Territory elections, the Labor Party was completely annihilated. On assuming office and in pursuance of the policy of this Government as announced during the election policy speeches of 1975, I had the privilege in 1976 of bringing before the Parliament a Bill which set the stage for the conferral of executive responsibility on the Territory through the creation of Executive Members of the Legislative Assembly. The Bill now before the House represents in a very real sense, a continuation of the endeavours of honourable members on both sides of the Parliament to meet the legitimate constitutional aspirations of the Northern Territory community, indeed, although it has proved necessary for presentational reasons to repeal the Northern Territory (Administration) Act, this Bill seeks the re-enactment, in largely the same form, of a large number of the existing provisions of that Act.

I turn now to the Bill. As is appropriate in a measure of this type, the Bill commences with a preambular statement of the intention of the Parliament and the constitutional authority for giving effect to that intention. Part II establishes the Northern Territory as a distinct political entity for the first time. Part III provides for the legislative power and has the effect of retaining the present broad-based legislative authority held by the Legislative Assembly. The assent procedures provide that the final decision on laws dealing with matters in respect of which the Northern Territory has executive authority will rest with the Administrator. In respect of such laws the Government would expert the Administrator to act on advice from his Northern Territory Ministers. In the case of other laws the Administrator will have the option of reserving the measure for the Governor-General’s pleasure. A reserve power for the Governor-General to disallow any laws within six months of their receiving the Administrator’s assent is retained. Consistent with the principles of responsible self-government, the authority of the Legislative Assembly will be enhanced in several important respects. The Assembly will be able to determine its own size and, subject to guarantees providing for eligibility for candidature and voting and the size of electorates, it will control its own electoral procedures. The maximum term of the Legislative

Assembly will be extended from 3 years to 4 years from the date the Assembly first meets after a general election.

Part IV of the Bill deals with the conferral of executive authority on the Territory. The duty of administering the government of the Territory remains with the Administrator who, in respect of matters for which the Territory has executive authority, will be advised by the Executive Council established under this Part. Provision is made for ministerial appointments in the new Government of the Northern Territory and for such appointments to be made by the Administrator. The matters in respect of which the new Ministers of the Territory will have executive authority are to be prescribed by regulation. In this regard, I would draw the attention of honourable members to my statement to this House on 14 September 1977, which, among other things, outlined the matters for which the Territory will have executive authority. Those matters represent a very broadly based package of State-type functions.

The provisions in Part V will enable the Territory to establish its own Treasury and exercise control over its own finances. The Territory or an Authority of the Territory will be able to borrow from the Commonwealth or on its own account as part of the Commonwealth’s semigovernmental loan program. The Commonwealth Auditor-General will be empowered to conduct audits on behalf of the Territory. I interpose here that broad agreement has been reached with the Northern Territory Executive on the financial principles to apply on selfgovernment. The detailed quantification of those principles is now being undertaken with a view to letters of understanding being exchanged between the Prime Minister and the Majority Leader.

The Commonwealth will continue to provide adequate financial support to the Northern Territory. Self-government will not be used as an excuse for reducing the overall level of financial support for the Territory and this has been made quite clear to the Majority Leader. However, the Government has always made it clear that associated with the assumption of executive authority must be the responsibility to raise a reasonable level of local revenue using the revenue efforts of the States as a benchmark. This proposition has been accepted and is being acted upon by the Northern Territory Executive. It will not, however, result in the citizens of the Northern Territory shouldering a higher tax burden than their counterparts elsewhere in Australia.

The miscellaneous provisions in Part VI cover a series of constitutional type guarantees in relation to the freedom of trade and the acquisition of property on just terms. Other provisions cover the application of the Secret Commissions Act and the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to the Territory. The Remuneration Tribunal is to be authorised to act for the Northern Territory in matters relating to the salaries and allowances of Legislative Assembly members and ministerial office holders. Part VII covers the transitional provisions and its effect is to provide for the continuance of existing laws, the current Legislative Assembly and the Administrator. Where matters presently provided for under the Northern Territory (Administration) Act will become the subject of enactment, the current provisions continue to apply pending such enactment.

The Commonwealth’s interests in land in the Territory are to be transferred to the Northern Territory by the operation of this Part but provision is made to effect the transfer back to the Commonwealth within 12 months of that land being required by the Commonwealth for its purposes. Property associated with functions for which the Northern Territory receives executive authority is also to be transferred from the Commonwealth. Procedures are provided to enable the Territory to be substituted for the Commonwealth, by way of regulation, in contracts relating to transferred matters.

The establishment of a Northern Territory Government will necessitate amendments to a number of pieces of Commonwealth legislation. Besides this Bill, the self-government package comprises some 14 separate amending Bills. Of these 12 could possibly be considered in cognate debate. These Bills are:

Ashmore and Cartier Islands Acceptance Amendment Bill 1978

Payroll Tax (Territories) Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978

Air Accidents (Commonwealth Government Liability) Amendment Bill 1978

Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Amendment Bill 1978

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill 1978

Commonwealth Motor Vehicles (Liability) Amendment Bill 1978

Northern Territory Supreme Court Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978

Ombudsman Amendment Bill 1 978

Lands Acquisition Amendment Bill 1978

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Amendment Bill 1978

Remuneration Tribunals Amendment Bill 1978

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978.

Two others, the Audit Amendment Bill and the Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill, for a variety of reasons, must be discussed separately in the Parliament.

It would be inappropriate for me to let this occasion pass without paying tribute to the people who, over the years, have made a significant contribution to the constitutional history of the Northern Territory. They are people who, while holding divergent political views, have been united and tireless in working and pressing the case for constitutional reform. It is people like Sam Calder, who has worked so tirelessly for so long to achieve this goal, Jock Nelson former Labor Territory member and Administrator, former members of the Legislative Council such as Dr Goff Letts who was so prominent in the initial transfers, the late Mr Justice Ward, ‘Tiger’ Brennan, Ron Withnall, Senator Bernie Kilgariff and many others who deserve the credit for what is taking place here today.

There has been throughout the closest of consultation with the Assembly of the Northern Territory. The establishment of the Consultative Committee comprised of the Territory Executive and the Minister for the Northern Territory, continued consultation at officer level, meetings of Ministers of this Government with the Majority Leader and his Deputy and involvement in interdepartmental committee deliberations, have all made this an exercise in co-operation. I have welcomed and appreciated that consultation and cooperation for it has been a rewarding and constructive partnership of effort. It began with Dr Letts and Mr Tambling and has continued both firm and active since Mr Everingham and Mr Perron have assumed leadership of the Territory.

In conclusion, I wish to express my confidence in the political and economic future of the Northern Territory. I have no doubt that the processes cif responsible government which will be set in train by this Bill will operate to the benefit of the Territory and, through it, the Commonwealth. I place on record my good wishes to the Ministers designate of the Government which will be brought into being on 1 July and express the hope that the responsibility which they are about to assume proves to be an enlightening and rewarding experience. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Young) adjourned.

page 2262

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AMENDMENT (FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) BILL 1978

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– by leave- In my second reading speech on the Bill which is about to be debated I said:

Part IX inquiries have in practice always been dealt with by a single judge . . .

I regret that that statement is not correct. I should like to set the record straight. Since 1956 when the Commonwealth Industrial Court was established there have been three inquiries by a court of three judges- one in 1975, one in 1977 and the third now before the Court.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-The Opposition is not opposed to the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment (Federal Court of Australia) Bill 1978, the essence of which is to provide that further matters under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act should be dealt with by a single judge with the right of appeal to a Full Court comprising three or more judges. Whilst this matter certainly would warrant discussion, as does any amendment to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, were the Parliament acting in the knowledge of agreement having been reached outside by employers and employees, this measure would certainly have the support of the whole Parliament. The amendment of such legislation, as the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) said in his second reading speech, is a measure which will provide the proper utilisation of the resources of the Court. I am sure that many of the parties appearing before the Court would agree with the suggestion. I point out that the Opposition views with utmost seriousness any amendment to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act because of the integral role the Act plays in industrial relations in Australia. But I must say that one of the shortcomings of the presentation of this amending legislation is that although the Minister indicated that these proposals had been put before the National Labour Consultative Council we have no indication, either from the NLCC, which does not make its decisions public, or the Minister, as to whether agreement was reached on the matter. I believe that the Parliament should be cognisant of the attitudes of both employers and employees to legislation of this nature coming before the Parliament. Then the

NLCC, to carry out its functions properly, should make Parliament aware of any decision it makes on such matters.

The advantages of the use of three or more judges on cases that could validly be heard by a single judge are all too obvious not to warrant support. I shall give some examples provided by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations which I have in mind when I make this statement. On 1 December 1976 in the case of Saint v Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union and others the applicant sought orders under section 140 that a rule of the Union under which an office was abolished was contrary to section 133 (1) (f) of the Act. The Industrial Court held that there was a difference between between an office altogether and dismissing a person from office when that office is to continue, and that an office might be abolished at any time provided such abolition was effected in accordance with the rules.

On 9 June 1977, in the case of Johns v Allen and others the applicant sought orders under section 141 that a person purportedly elected to the office of ‘organiser’ in the Geelong sub-branch of the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation not be treated as holding office on the grounds that the rules made no provision for such office. After consideration of the rules of the organisation and the relevant provision of the Act and regulations the Federal Court held that, quite clearly, the rules contained no provision for such office and the sub-branch had no power to create the office. On 13 February 1977 in the case of Campbell v Gorman the applicant sought orders under section 141 that a conviction for an offence against the rules be treated as null and void. The Federal Court found that the charge for the offence under the rules was not determined in accordance with the rules and amounted to a denial of natural justice. Notes on two other cases have been made available to me which I consider ought to be in Hansard. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard notes on the cases Hassett v Harding and others and Roots v Mutton and others.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Hassett v Harding and others (29 September, 1976). The applicant sought orders under section 141 that the committee of management of the Tasmanian branch of the TWU had ceased to exist on the grounds that two members of the committee of management had resigned, thereby leaving the committee of management incapable of forming a quorum. The Industrial Court found that the notices of resignation were not given in the manner required by the rules and were therefore ineffective. The matter involved a straight forward application of the rules.

Roots v Mutton and others (23 March, 1978). The applicant sought orders that his suspension under the rules of the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union be treated as null and void. The Federal Court found that the rule under which the applicant was suspended had not been validly adopted in accordance with the rule making procedures under the rules and was therefore invalid. This case simply involved a determination of facts.

Mr YOUNG:

– As the Minister has pointed out, in State jurisdictions matters of a similar nature in the first instance would be dealt with by magistrates. However, the Government has seen fit to make sure that matters of law in particular are always subject to a hearing by three or more judges. Nevertheless it seems to us that there may well be a case for disputes involving other sections of the Act going automatically to a hearing before three or more judges. I refer sub.sequently to sections 140 and 141 to enforce or challenge the validity of the rules of an organisation. In these cases it may merely prolong the course of litigation and increase the cost to the parties if the case is heard by a single judge, especially where the litigation was inspired by a factional dispute in a union. It would seem that it is not in the interest of any party or the court to have these matters prolonged. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of this matter when we go into the Committee stages of the Bill.

Cases under other sections of the Act have been exempted from hearing by a single judge. We agree with that entirely. The right of appeal may well be the yardstick by which these amendments succeed or fail. However, the Opposition is not entirely happy with the way in which the Bill is framed. Firstly, the Government is putting forward in relation to section 1S8P and Part IX of the Act that there would be no right of appeal. The area of concern in relation to section 1 58P is that there are to be inquiries into alleged irregularities in amalgamation ballots, and in relation to Part IX, inquiries into alleged irregularities into elections in organisations. The Minister makes the point that proceedings of this nature involve only determination of matters of fact which are not complex and that further litigation would be likely to be factionally motivated and should be discouraged. To me, that seems to be an over-simplification as to why there should be some restriction of access to the Court. In addition to that proposition put by the Government, and aided by the argument that there has never been an inquiry into an amalgamation ballot, the Government appears to be legislating by chance rather than by rationale. We say in both cases there ought to be the right of appeal, and indeed there should be the right of appeal from a single judge decision to a court of three or more judges in all cases.

To a large extent factions in trade unions are born out of the very nature of a free trade union movement. Thus free trade unions as such are enormously important in the make-up of Australian society. We would be deluding ourselves if we believed there was a recipe for legislating factions within trade unions or, as in this case, using factions as an excuse to further what we consider to be a bad principle. However, it is the policy of our Party that only matters of law should be subject to a hearing by the High Court and matters of an industrial nature should remain within the confines of the industrial division of the Federal Court. We would be against any blending of the industrial division of the Federal Court with the general division of that Court which could lead to far less expertise being available to deal with industrial matters of such critical nature.

As I said at the outset, this Bill could have been a simple measure attracting the support of everybody in the House, yet for reasons best known to itself the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has continued on its way of writing amendments into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act furthering the role of the Minister. I refer here of course to section 1 1 8C ( 1 ) (b) which provides that the Minister can have referral powers over and above the powers granted to the parties to the proceedings. There seems to be absolutely no justification for this provision except that it follows the line set down in earlier legislation by this Government to give the Minister an interventionist role in industrial relations. In 1976 sections 34 and 36A, and in 1977 sections 109 and 143, were amended. We can see other examples of the philosophy of this Government in interpreting the role of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. We find the manner in which this has been done curious to say the least. In his second reading speech in reference to the new section, the Minister said:

I would not envisage many circumstances in which the Minister would make use of this provision. However, it does provide a remedy for a situation in which the parties did not seek a reference and such a reference was desirable in the public interest.

Again the Minister uses in his defence of this provision the role of factions within the trade union movement. One can hardly envisage factions of any organisation not seeking a reference to a Full Court. Indeed, it has been the history of factions to exploit the courts to the very ‘nth’ degree. I have grave suspicions about what the Government has in mind in relation to the Minister. I use this opportunity to point out to employee and employer organisations that the role of the

Government has been written into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in such a way that come the day when the Government feels secure enough to implement its powers industrial relations will have a different course from the one that they have traditionally charted. I would be extremely surprised, indeed amazed, if employee organisations in particular ever agreed to such proposed legislation.

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

– I would like to clear up one or two points that have been raised by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). The first concerns his reference to the attitude of the National Labour Consultative Council. I am happy to be able to inform the House that the Council did not oppose what is being done here. It made the point that it would like powers of reference, comparable to those which existed in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, to a Full Bench. As honourable members know, the Government has made provision for that The honourable member requested details concerning two other matters. As to the question of section 158P and Part IX being not appealable, he suggested that my reference in the second reading speech to those sections was rather an over-simplification. In giving now more detail on why the Government took the attitude that it did, I stress again that every action taken under this legislation, including those taken under Section 158P and Part IX, can be referred. Either party can request such a reference and, if the Minister so directs, it shall be granted.

I shall discuss the referral powers of the Minister a little later, but insofar as the section 158P and Part IX questions are concerned, it might be useful to go into more detail on why we have taken the attitude that we have taken. As the honourable member himself has said, the issues concern mainly questions of fact- whether irregularities have, in fact, occurred. ‘Irregularity’ is defined in the Act. The present position is that inquiries under section 158P and Part IX can be conducted by either one judge or a Full Bench. As the honourable member said, there have not so far been any inquiries into amalgamation ballots. Inquiries into elections under part IX have, with three exceptions, been dealt with by a court constituted by a single judge. I would emphasise that there is no appeal from the court’s decision, however constituted. All that the amendments do is to maintain what has generally been the practice concerning Part IX inquiries, and to provide consistency in the treatment of matters of a similar nature.

The efficient operation of an organisation requires that questions in relation to elections be finalised as quickly as possible. An organisation cannot function as it should, in the interest of its members, while there is uncertainty as to who should hold important offices in the organisation. The existing inquiry procedures under Part IX, where there is no appeal from a court’s decision, strike a balance between the need to rectify irregularities and the need to ensure that the rectification process is not so protracted as unduly to disrupt the administration of organisations. The provisions of an appeal would provide additional scope for faction fights, which would necessarily further delay the finalisation of elections. This approach is reinforced by the provisions requiring that an application for an inquiry under Part IX be lodged with the Industrial Registrar, who is required to refer it to the court only when he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for an inquiry into the question whether there has been an irregularity in the election which may affect the result, and that the circumstances justify an inquiry by the court. That means, of course, that the fate of an application can be determined by the Industrial Registrar, from whose decision there is no appeal.

If there were to be an appeal from the court’s decision on an application for inquiry, consistency would seem to demand that the Industrial Registrar’s decision should also be appealed, or that all applications should be dealt with by the court without the intervention of the Industrial Registrar, so that they would be subject to the appeal provisions. In either case, the practical effect would be that the court would have to inquire into whether there was justification for the application. It could reasonably be expected that elections would be increasingly the subject of inquiries, on the application of disappointed candidates or their supporters, and increasingly organisations would be called upon to defend the propriety of their elections against allegations of irregularity, which an investigation by the Registrar would have shown to be without foundation. The position would be exacerbated by provision for an appeal against the court’s findings.

In relation to amalgamation ballots, a relevant factor is that they must be conducted by the Industrial Registrar’s Office or the Australian Electoral Office. Of course, that does not mean that the ballots are immune from irregularity, but it does mean that the scope for the occurrence of the irregularities is very much reduced. It is not the Government’s position that these inquiries cannot be dealt with by a full court. Under proposed section 1 18c a party to an inquiry will be able to apply to the judge for an order that inquiry proceedings be heard and determined by a full court. Such an application can be made at any stage of the proceedings. That will enable matters that are appropriate for a full court to be so dealt with, without the necessity to go through a preliminary hearing before a single judge, as would be the case if there were an appeals system. Moreover, it is not only under section 158p and Part IX that an allegation of irregularity can be investigated.

Where it is alleged that a relevant rule is invalid, or that there has been a failure to observe a rule, proceedings can be taken under sections 140 or 141, as appropriate. Indeed, the honourable member made several references to such cases. A decision under those sections is subject to an appeal to a full court. Consequently, where interpretations or other questions of law are involved, decisions on those questions can be made subject to review by action under sections 140 or 141, as applicable. All things considered, I do not believe that a right of appeal in section 158p, or Part IX, inquiries is either necessary or desirable.

Turning now to the other matter raised by the honourable member, that of the right of the Minister to have a matter referred to a full court, I assume that his argument is the old one that has been used against intervention by the Minister in matters before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission- that the parties should be able to settle their affairs between themselves without government interference. It is an argument which assumes that no one outside the actual contestants has any legitimate interests in how those contests are conducted or resolved. That may be generally true when the contest concerns only the relationships of individuals. It is certainly not true where the contestants are powerful industrial organisations whose activities can affect, for good or ill, the welfare of all Australians. The Government cannot stand aside and let these organisations arrange affairs to achieve results satisfactory to them but unsatisfactory to the community generally.

In my second reading speech I said that I would not envisage many circumstances in which the Minister would make use of that provision. The honourable member sought further details about what the Government had in mind and I will be glad to expand my original statement. I mentioned that it would provide a remedy for a situation in which the parties to proceedings had not sought a reference but such reference was desirable in the public interest. I mentioned, as an example, circumstances in which the Minister might become aware that factions within an organisation had commenced proceedings which were likely to be protracted and subject to appeal to a full court. It is in the interests of the members of the organisations that these proceedings be finalised as quickly as possible. It is also in the interests of the community, which provides financial assistance in proceedings under the Act.

It is estimated that at least $100,000 will be spent in providing financial assistance this financial year. Since 1972 approximately $400,000 has been spent on this form of assistance. There could also be circumstances in which it would be desirable to obtain an authoritative decision on a question of law arising from the proceedings, but which neither party to the proceedings would be prepared to pursue through the appeal process. It may be used, I repeat, only infrequently, but the power is there when required.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 3- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 4 (Limitation on appeals).

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– I listened with great interest to the comments by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street). It seems to me that in his approach to this issue the Minister may well be creating more problems than he is solving. Whilst it is important and necessary to rationalise the work of the Federal Court of Australia and make fuller use of the resources of the Court, there are certain procedures which are more readily dealt with in the first instance by a Full Court. I refer particularly to challenges to the validity of the rules of an organisation under sections 114 and 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. By their very nature these cases are often lengthy, extensive and involve considerable exercises in the interpretation of rules. They never take place in the context of an academic exercise between the parties. They are usually part of a background struggle for power within an organisation. That being so, it seems to me that it really would be a far more expedient and judicious use of the experience of the Court and a saving of the time of the parties if those types of cases were dealt with right from the start by a Full Court of three.

In the history of such cases it has not been unusual for one judge to find that particular rules are valid and two other judges to find that they are invalid. That being so, the very nature of the contest is such that from the point of view of the Minister it would be a saving in time and cost and a better use of the capacities of the Court if right from the start these cases were subject to a process under which they were dealt with by a Full Court. Proposed new section 1 18c provides that the parties or the Minister may apply at any stage of proceedings before a single judge to have the proceedings heard and determined by a Full Court. What is interesting about that is that an application by the Minister must be granted whereas the judge has a discretion as to whether to grant an application by one of the parties. In addition, the judge may of his own motion refer the proceedings to a Full Court.

It seems to me that there is no justification for putting the Minister in a special position in respect of being able to require that that proceeding be dealt with by a Full Court. Either the judge to whom the application is made should have a discretion irrespective of whom the applicant is or the parties to the proceedings should have the same right as the Minister to require that the proceedings be dealt with by a Full Court. That is a view that I urge upon the Minister. We are dealing with a reasonably sensitive area. I do not think that the Minister has to be reminded of that. In this area it is important that the Minister, to the extent to which he seeks this type of power, should not be seen to be in a position which is significantly different from that of the other parties to the proceedings. If that principle were adopted I do not think it would involve any serious diminution of the rights of the Minister but it would put the Minister at the same level as all other parties to the proceedings. It would not put the Minister in a position which could be seen and argued to be of some advantage and whereby the Crown can by the process of intervention produce a result which is not immediately available to the other parties within the jurisdiction. The Minister would be well advised to examine that proposal because I can see difficulties arising if the Commonwealth chooses to place itself in a position where the Minister does not approach the Court with the same rights, no more and no less, as the other parties before the court.

I share the view and the concern that have already been expressed by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) on the question of intervention. I understand the general philosophy of the Government, which says: We are dealing with powerful social institutions and the Government of the day has to give itself a right to intervene to protect the public, if necessary’. I understand the underlying philosophy behind that, but one has to deal with that philosophy in terms of the history, experience and tradition of this jurisdiction. The use of what is essentially a legal structure to solve the very complex problems of industrial relations is difficult and complex enough. Irrespective of whatever advantages this particular clause bestows, or is seen to bestow, upon the Commonwealth or any government I believe that ultimately it will produce situations which, rather than solve industrial problems, will actually increase the tension surrounding them. There may well be points of intervention for any Minister in these situations, but, as the Minister virtually conceded by implication, he sees this power of intervention almost as a power of last resort. In his elaboration of this clause he has indicated that it is a power that would be not used frequently. He concedes that point.

I argue that the history and tradition of this jurisdiction show that the points of intervention, as and when they have taken place, have largely served to complicate the normal processes for resolving problems between parties within the jurisdiction. In many cases, the actual intervention by the Minister has simply delayed what would otherwise have been a settlement and resolution of industrial disputes. If one looks at the history of my own State, where from time to time this sort of power has been exercised by State Ministers in the industrial appeal court jurisdiction, one will find that on balance it has not really assisted in difficult industrial situations. For those reasons, I ask the Minister to consider the arguments put forward by me and the honourable member for Port Adelaide.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-I wish to make mention of two matters. In respect of one the Labor Party has a very clear policy, that is, the right of appeal from a single judge to a court of three or more judges. As I said earlier, proposed section 118b (a), which restricts the right of appeal, serves as a grey area in what otherwise would have been a Bill that would have attracted the support of the whole Parliament. It is something to which the Labor Movement almost totally is opposed. I believe that it brings into disrepute the essence of the Bill, which seeks to utilise the resources of the Federal Court of Australia in a more meaningful way. That objective does have our support but we cannot support the restrictions in regard to it.

In regard to the role of the Minister, there can be no doubt, irrespective of the views of the National Labour Consultative Council, which may not be released publicly, that the trade union movement, the Labor movement generally, is opposed to the way in which the Minister is being written into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The Minister attends those meetings and he would be aware that he should not try to camouflage the action taken by the Government of again writing into legislation a provision relating to the Minister by saying that there are some powerful institutions. Most of the powerful responsible institutions with which the Minister deals as the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations are not only opposed to the idea but also have advised him accordingly. The Minister would know from his experience over the last couple of years that the best work that can be done by a Minister is not through the courts at all. In fact, if one may say so, the most beneficial actions taken by the present Minister have been outside the courts and outside formalities. Those actions have brought about the sorts of results which one would tend to think should have been the guide to what we should be doing in this Parliament.

There are grave doubts in the labour movement about what the Government is attempting to do. Every time it amends the Conciliation and Arbitration Act it gives a further role to the Minister. We receive very little comfort from the guarantee that the Minister does not envisage this power being used very often. That may be said in relation to the number of ways in which the role of the Minister is being written. We are not talking specifically about one case. What we are talking about is the different course the Government is charting in the role it plays in industrial relations- a course which is away from what has been traditionally the case. The Government cannot legislate to meet every single incident that is likely to crop up in industrial relations. One cannot achieve a perfect recipe in industrial relations.

I suggest to the Minister that he ought to heed the words of the responsible who make up the vast majority of people in the labour movement and not be cognisant of the actions of the minority upon whom this legislation is based. I suggest in all seriousness that this role of the Minister is a bad thing for industrial relations in Australia and one cannot predict what it might bring in the future if the Government continues on a similar course.

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

– I take up two points which were referred to by both the honourable members for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) and the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). The honourable member for Melbourne Ports felt that sections 140 and 141 were more appropriately dealt with in the first instance by a full court. As the honourable member says, these issues often involve highly sensitive areas in the union movement. I agree with him in that assessment. He expressed the view that time and cost would be saved if a matter went to the full court in the first instance. But I believe this is a matter of balance. The argument he put may be so in a great many of the sorts of issues that can arise out of section 140 and section 141 actions. This does not have to be so. Therefore the Goverment does not consider it unreasonable that, in the first instance, these actions can be dealt with by a single judge. I stress again the point that if any of the parties or indeed the Minister- and I will come back to the referral power of the Minister in a minute- see some danger signals in relation to a section 140 or section 141 action, the matter can be referred to a full court without going through the full procedures of an appeal. I believe that some actions undoubtedly can be appropriately dealt with by a single judge, and where they can be well and good because this would be a better use of the court’s resources. But if there are difficulties I would guess- and I believe the honourable gentleman with his experience would agree with me- it would not be long before a matter was referred to the full court, particularly in cases which involve the sorts of issues we know can arise.

I have already explained in some detail in my second reading speech why I believe it is necessary for the Minister to have the power of referral. I reiterate that in proceedings such as those which can arise in the industrial division of the Federal Court the Minister as the government’s representative in turn is the representative of the public interest. It is true that we have taken action in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to ensure that the Minister can act in the public interest on his own initiative. The Minister is in a special position in representing the public interest and he has a special responsibility which does not apply to the parties themselves. I explained that the Minister would not use his power as a normal course of action, but the Government believes the power needs to be in the legislation. I am aware of the trade union movement’s general opposition to this right of the Minister but I make no apology for this power. A government should not stand aside if it believes the public interest is at risk. It should have the power to intervene on behalf of the public when it considers it necessary to do so. We have made provision for that power in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and we make the same provision in this Bill.

Question put:

That the clause be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 63

NOES: 30

Majority……. 33

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2268

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT SERVICE BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 May, on motion by Mr Street:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate on this Bill resumes, I suggest that it might suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Re-establishment and Employment Amendment Bill, as they are associated measures. Of course, questions will be put separately on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-The Opposition supports the legislation in as much as the Bills are a first step to upgrade the Commonwealth Employment Service. But the shortcomings are obvious and I hope step by step to be able to go through them, and indicate to the Government the thinking on this side of the House in relation to a properly constructed Commonwealth Employment Service, structured in such a way that it can efficiently meet with the demands made upon it by employers and employees alike.

Considering Australia’s experience over the past 30 years, one would have expected that a government today, in 1978, would have had many more ideas, and would have been prepared to devote a great deal more of this country’s resources when dealing with the Commonwealth Employment Service. When comparing the governmental activity concerning this matter at the end of World War II, with the Bill introduced by the Minister for Employment and

Industrial Relations (Mr Street) last week, it makes today’s Government’s measure look shabby by comparison. The Government may well ask, if these are the views of the Opposition, why then in fact are we supporting the Bill. It is, as I said, a first step. The Labor Party will give the Government every co-operation required to update these services. There will be no hurdle placed in the path of the Government at all in dealing with these matters.

So our judgment was based upon a very simple question: Is it better than the existing CES operation or is it worse? The decision of the Labor Party is that the measure is marginally better.

There is one point I should like to make, however, before entering into the main stream of this debate, and that is directed at the people who have serviced the Commonwealth Employment Service in recent years. When one looks at the unemployment rate between 1950 to 1978 with very minor exceptions in recent times, there is an obvious pattern of Australia’s good fortune in having a very low proportion of its work force unemployed. One could understand, then, that the politicians, academics, public servants had cast the Commonwealth Employment Service offices in the role of the not too important. It has only been the most recent impact of a world recession which has demanded the focussing of far more attention on the Commonwealth Employment Service than has previously been the case.

This recession not merely placed many tens of thousands of people out of work but it brought to Australia in a fashion before unheralded, a restructuring of our industries at a pace with which Australia itself could not deal. I think it important to make this point so that any discussion about the operation of a Commonwealth Employment Service office is relevant to the overall economic problems that our country may face. In other words it is no good blaming those people working in the Commonwealth Employment Service offices for our own shortcomings. But I had hoped that today we would have had sufficient time to look at what structure is needed to carry out the function of placing people in employment, and to be able to meet the vacancies caused from time to time in industry. Because, just as I said looking back over the years we have a pattern of very low unemployment rates, today, looking forward, it will take a government of the utmost enterprise to eradicate the major problem of unemployment as it has been consolidated in this country. In all seriousness and with the best of will it is an impossible task to read into the Bill before the House or, more specifically, the clauses dealing with the functions of the Commonwealth Employment Service as described in the Bill that this Bill is other than window dressing.

I realise that the Norgard committee report will be the subject of a great deal of quoting throughout this debate, and properly so. However, let me be the first to fire the shot. In making the criticism, I refer the Government to the words contained in the Norgard committee report:

However, what the CES needs more than any of the improvements suggested above is the political will and the support of the Government to upgrade its activities so it can function as a modern manpower service.

Obviously the warning given by Norgard has not been taken up by the Government. It is one thing to say, as did the Minister in his second reading speech, that the purpose of this Bill is: to provide a legislative framework for the CES which is appropriate for its development as a modern manpower service.

But the Government has no general manpower policy which this new authority is to carry out. The Government would not need any new authority to carry out programs which it has in operation at the moment. I do not wish to condemn the present schemes outright. In some cases they may do a minor good. But the Minister and the Government know that in relation to a total workforce problem the present programs are not even scratching the surface. The manpower program as such needs direction from the top. The Commonwealth Employment Service authority could and would be frustrated by policy emanating from the Executive. If the Executive does not want full employment all the window dressing in the world by the Commonwealth Employment Service will not overcome the problem. That Service in fact would need the utmost co-operation from a sympathetic government giving to it the autonomy and the resources required to develop initiatives if we are to overcome this problem. I would like also at this stage to refer to the Norgard recommendation, which stated: . . management of the CES should be vested in a statutory authority wholly and solely concerned with employment and manpower matters including analysis of the labour market and formulation of manpower programs.

One would have thought that having decided against the statutory authority the Government would have taken the opportunity to tell us why. At the moment let me say we are unpersuaded in the Labor Party towards having a Commonwealth Employment Service as a statutory authority. But it is a recommendation of the Committee set up by this Government which, in fact, has been totally ignored by the Government. Whilst making the point about the statutory authority one would have to say that the Bill before the House gives the Commonwealth Employment Service very little independence at all. This would not be a shortcoming if the Government had a range of manpower programs which would keep the Commonwealth Employment Service busy implementing them. But that is certainly not the case as I have already said. When the National Director has his first meeting with his staff he will be discussing the same old, stale programmes which in real terms do very little to assist the vast majority of unemployed people or industries that are searching for new employees.

Mr Speaker, the importance and the urgency of a measure such as this are reinforced every month we look at the unemployment figures. For some of the elder people in our community it brings fears of another depression. For some of the very young people in our community it brings frustration before undreamed of. It bewilders and confuses governments, workers and employers. No relief can be gained from measuring the figures of unemployed people in this country against the figures of some other country. To say that we have 7 per cent and some other country has 7 per cent, so everything in Australia must be normal, is unacceptable. We must reject that theory as being shortsighted and inhuman. We should start from the very positive statement that we are a massive country with great resources, a very small population and a duty to provide employment for all those who wish to work. Only by adopting that as our guide can we be expected to make proper manpower decisions.

On the question of manpower programs I do not lay the blame at the door of any particular organisation for Australia’s inadequacies. The 1950s and 1960s bred complacency, but that complacency has no place in our thinking today. Unemployment and the social scars that come with it are a nightmare to hundreds of thousands of Australians and collectively we have to lift that burden. It may be that in putting forward proper manpower programs the Government of the day would suggest that their investment in this area would be set down for longer than the normal parliamentary term. Again I think it important to point out on behalf of the Labor Party that should this Government be so moved, the Opposition would look seriously at any manpower program initiated by this Government, to see that wherever possible our support was forthcoming. It is becoming obvious from the experiences of countries overseas that if the operation of our new Commonwealth Employment

Service is to be successful many of the programs will be long term in nature. Such planning would be ever so more successful if it carried with it the support of the Parliament, not just the governing party; and I look forward to the day when we can be tested on this point, but up to date the Government hau seen fit not to introduce a total manpower program, but is condemning those affected by a lack of it, to an inadequate service that has been provided in the past by the Commonwealth Employment Service and undoubtedly will be provided in the future.

I want to refer here, Mr Speaker, to the words of Mr Lindsay Bowes. Mr Bowes is the Director of the South Australian Department of Labor and Industry and certainly one of the foremost authorities on the subject of manpower in Australia. Mr Bowes said quite recently: ‘Labour market imbalances were likely to remain unchanged until Australia’s manpower planning faculties were developed. ‘ He said also that ‘conventional policies seemed unlikely to solve labour market imbalances’. I draw attention to a further quote of Mr Bowes when he said: ‘These current labour market imbalances are likely to proceed into the future as long as either the international economic situation, the education system and community values all remain unchanged or government and employers insist upon relying on those policy actions which seemed sufficient during the previous decade’. Mr Bowes, of course, was pointing to something that is obvious to all those who wish to look at the problem, and that is we cannot use the solutions of the 1950s and apply them to the problems of the 1970s. In so many of the areas touched on briefly there the Government is silent. It gives an interpretation of a manpower program but, as I said it lacks the political will or the resourcefulness to carry them out.

It may be that we should look closer at the problems that the Commonwealth Employment Service is likely to be confronted with and on this I would like to make reference to the special groups of unemployed. So many people classified as disadvantaged unemployed can, as Norgard pointed out, become unemployables. There needs to be extreme care taken and extra counsel given to prevent this from occurring. The most important of all is the need to accept that there are special groups of unemployed. There is no doubt that in Australia today people readily identify young people unable to find employment as the most disadvantaged group. This stems largely from the number of people who make up this group which by itself, gives

Australia a greater than average post-war unemployment rate. It also exposes our failure to sensitise the break from school and entry to work. For three decades this barely offered a problem. Today to every young person leaving school anxious to enter the workforce it appears to be a great wall holding them back, restricting their opportunities, forcing them into employment necessitating far less than the skills they have been trained in, necessitating their long travel from their home, and making it appear futile to continue any form of higher education. I have said many times before that this is not a phenomena of only the working class suburbs or regions of this country. Families, irrespective of where they live, are subject to suffering the same consequences.

For the Commonwealth Employment Service to do anything positive in this area would require intensive collaboration with the educational institutions of the various States. A lead can be drawn on this from the recommendations of the Norgard Committee contained in section 5.19, which reads:

  1. 19 The Review therefore strongly recommends that the CES should withdraw from any large scale program aimed at counselling students in their final year of school. Rather the CES should play a more constructive and meaningful role by: providing labour market information and occupational information geared to the needs of young people at various levels of the secondary school system; encouraging and assisting in the development of career decision-making and other occupationally relevant programs in schools including working with career advisors in schools; encouraging and assisting employers in their efforts to play a positive role in bridging the gap from school to employment- e.g. by assisting in the design of induction programs for youth.

The Bill contains an opportunity in its establishment of the National Advisory Committee for employers and employees to play some part in the inability of the Commonwealth Employment Service in the formulation of policy. I realise that both groups as described by the legislation will warmly welcome the opportunity to express their views formally through the channels of government as they have to do so often informally. These appointments should be continued wherever possible and wherever government legislation provides. Another matter with which the Commonwealth Employment Service will have to come to grips is the issue of the increasing role of women in the workforce. I would hope that the Commonwealth Employment Service is not guided by the Government’s silence into believing that women are only of secondary importance. It is rather amazing still to hear in the late 1970s debate over the right to work of some sections of our community. Mr Whitlam pointed out in a speech given recently:

It is time we recognised that women not only have a right to work if they want to but in most cases they need to work to support themselves and their families. There is no longer anything grasping or indulgent about the two income family. Hundreds and thousands of women get jobs to make ends meet.

It is in the area of the employment of married women that the most dramatic change in the work force has taken place. Let me say again on behalf of the Labor Party, as I have said so many times previously, that it believes in the right to work for all those desirous of working and to the Labor Party a married woman has just as much right to go to work as any other citizen. In fact, as one can observe from the rapid growth of married women in the work force, reaching over 22 per cent of the total work force as of November 1977, they play an extremely important role in the country’s economy. The fact that in 1947 women as a whole made up 22 per cent of the work force and that today they make up approximately 36 per cent of the work force is a clear indication to the Commonwealth Employment Service of the general acceptance of women in the work force. That needs to be stated and restated so that there can be no misunderstanding as to the Parliament ‘s view on this matter.

It is also worth noting another problem when talking of women in the work force- here again the Commonwealth Employment Service should be the instrument for measuring this problemand that is the hidden unemployment among women. I do not wish to raise now the old argument of the payment of unemployment benefit to married women; that can wait until another day. But the fact that to a very large extent unemployed married women are not entitled to unemployment benefit is an action by which women are sent scurrying back to their homes and discouraged from actively seeking new employment. Obviously figures of this nature do not show up in the Commonwealth Employment Service’s monthly unemployment figures, nor would they show up in the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ figures because they would have to be actively seeking work seven days before the survey date’.

One study done in the United States of America revealed that, in a period of rising unemployment, for every 100 women laid off 30 joined the unemployed and the remaining 70 dropped out of the labour force as discouraged workers. The rapid increase of employment of women also refutes the argument on the wage rate question. Again, whilst it is not totally relevant to this matter, this is an argument which was used against the Labor Government for the rise in unemployment figures in this country. At a time when equal pay had been given by the courts, between May 1974 and November 1975, female employment increased by 80,000 whereas the number of men employed declined by 60,000. At the moment, proportionately more females of Australian and migrant origin are unemployed in all age groups than the corresponding group of males. When these figures, which today show a total of 10.4 per cent of the female work force unemployed, are added to the hidden unemployment to which I have already referred one can comprehend the problems concerning the newly-structured Commonwealth Employment Service operation.

I conclude my remarks on this item by quoting an International Labour Organisation declaration which reads:

All measures shall be taken to guarantee women ‘s right to work as the inalienable right of other women doing and to refuse as necessary existing mass collective agreements, practices or customs which limit the integration of women in the work force on a footing of equality with men.

In looking at these groups, the Commonwealth Employment Service will have to be cognisant in a manner far more sophisticated than previously has been the case in Australia of the specific problems of migrants. A very large proportion of Australia’s work force was born outside of this country. Without saying as much, it has been expected to a very large extent that those people will fill the jobs that Australians do not want. The statistics would show us that in manufacturing industry, for instance, migrants comprise a far higher proportion of the work force than they do of the total work force. There is much talk in Australia of structural adjustment. That would affect the migrant families more than it would affect any other group. If the car industry, the shoe industry or the textile industry were being restructured, then, even in the sense of retraining the people involved, quite specific provision would have to be made for the problems of migrants. I hope that the local committees to be set up under clause 17 (2) of the Bill will contain a very good sprinkling of migrants so that they can have their say about the functioning of the Commonwealth Employment Service offices. I will certainly be encouraging them to do so.

Likewise, Australia has to acknowledge that many Commonwealth Employment Service offices will have to deal with Aboriginal people. It is said that 30 per cent of the Aboriginal work force is unemployed. Closer scrutiny, I believe, would put that figure much higher. The Norgard Committee made reference to it in paragraph 5.45, as follows:

The Review considers that an increase in staff is vital if the employment service is to give anything better than a nominal service to Aboriginal clients, especially those in isolated areas. The increase in staff should be devoted to: increasing the range of in-plant training arranged for Aboriginals under NEAT; improving the service to areas only barely being serviced by vocational officer; improving liaison with other agencies concerned with Aboriginal client groups.

Again in this area we should be more positive in our attitude towards establishing employment faculties for the Aboriginal people. As citizens with special problems we should establish special services to blend them into the work force. I have full confidence that this could be achieved. As with other such groups, the physically and mentally handicapped person will require a professionalism within the Commonwealth Employment Service beyond that which may have been expected in the past. The Commonwealth Employment Service obviously will be successful only if its schemes receive support from the community in general and the State and Federal governments specifically.

This is an area in which the Federal Government, with the Commonwealth Employment Service’s operation, virtually has the field to itself. Its policies are the pacesetters. I note that the Minister said in his second reading speech the Government does not want a monopoly in the vacancy filling business. I cannot see any earthly reason why the Government should not have a monopoly. Any agency that is providing a service of the level indicated by the figures given by the Minister in his second reading speechthat is, in 1977 the Commonwealth Employment Service made over 1,200,000 referrals to vacancies and effected over 400,000 placements- is in a position to develop an expertise that would inevitably give it a position that I would regard as being beneficial to the community. The great advantage of building the expertise and the efficiency of the Commonwealth Employment Service is that it will in fact in the long term save the Government money. I sincerely hope that the Government makes the investment necessary in the first place in order to benefit in the long term.

In addition to the various manpower policies on which the Government is silent we have also the very vexed question of the administration of unemployment benefit. The Norgard Committee said in its report that no subject raised more comment than the role of the Commonwealth Employment Service in this aspect of the administration. All the peak labour councils were of the view that the role of the CES in this area should be abandoned. The role of the CES in the administration of the payment of unemployment benefit is a clear contradiction in terms of any agency established to promote and implement manpower policies.

The Parliament is aware, of course, of the Government’s attitude to the payment of unemployment benefit and all the rules that it has laid down in order to harass those eligible to receive the benefit. The frequent visits to CES offices by unemployed people is not done in line with the objective of finding employment or to receive counselling of what employment may be available, but rather to remain eligible to receive unemployment benefit. Such a practice obviously brings an agency into clear disrepute. The CES will continue to spend hours, days and even weeks collecting and processing information which is of no earthly use to its main objective of placing people in employment.

This Bill neither allows total withdrawal of the CES from this area nor gives it total responsibility. The grey area remains. There appears to be no attempt by the Government to heed the advice of the Norgard Committee. The Norgard Committee said in paragraph 2.35 of its report:

Briefly, the procedure would be that people wishing to claim unemployment benefit should be required to register with the CES. As a matter of preference, the Review would not wish to have the CES issue, receive or check Department of Social Security benefit claim forms, but recognises that the CES ought, as a community service, have the necessary forms available. The claim form would be endorsed by the CES to the effect that the person was registered for employment and passed to the Department of Social Security. Thereafter the CES would take no pan in the benefit procedure except to inform the Department of Social Security that the person was no longer registered or to report on unsatisfactory attitudes to employment . . . Should a person appeal against withdrawal of benefit as a result of a report from the CES the Review would hope that the CES would be called upon to speak at the appeal hearing.

There is no explanation in the Minister’s second reading speech for ignoring the information that was given to the committee of inquiry. Those union and association representatives speaking on behalf of the employees in the Commonwealth Employment Service have made their views quite clear. One gets the distinct impression that the departmental bureaucracy is loathe to adopt any of the suggestions put forward by the Norgard committee.

There is one final matter, apart from other points that will be raised from this side of the

House, that I wish to mention. This, I believe, throws up the problem of an agency being asked to implement a plan for which the Government has no policy. I refer here to the much discussed early retirement arguments. The Government gives no lead on this matter at all. There are many people in our community who believe that an early retirement plan would help to overcome the high rate of unemployment amongst the young people. The Labor Party as yet is not committed to any such plan but we are committed to having the Parliament discuss these matters, and it goes without saying that the National Director of the Commonwealth Employment Service and his Advisory Council will obviously come up against this argument.

The mandatory retiring age of 65 years for men and 60 years for women is a social rule that we inherited but have never questioned. The changes in the expected life span or our standard of living or the demographic changes taking place in our society have failed to rouse the Government even to the extent of having a Parliamentary debate on this matter. But now, quite rightly, people say why 65? Some countries with a more purposeful social conscience than the present Government have a flexible retiring age of between 60 and 70 years of age. Others have made arrangements whereby part pensions can be paid for those opting out of the workforce before 65. At least one country permits early retirement on full pension provided that person is replaced in employment by an under 30 year old. This is a question that we have to look at closely. The ratio between those at work and those receiving social security payments plays an important part, of course, in this debate.

In the United Kingdom where in 1977 some $80m was made available in making early retirements available in areas of high unemployment it was found that the majority of people who utilised this facility were in fact already unemployed. So that now a growing number of countries grant early retirement to persons approaching retirement age who have been involuntarily unemployed for a specified period of time. The idea recognises the problem of older workers who find it especially difficult because of age or health to become re-employed. In contrast to the examples given, the United States of America quite recently as a result of considerable lobbying from age groups such as ‘Grey Power’ extended the retirement age to 70 years.

But just as the Government would have to lay down the guidelines in order for the newly established Commonwealth Employment Service to successfully implement the plan, so also would the Government have to think seriously about preparing people for retirement. It has now become a practice of several large companies overseas to allow people approaching the retiring age to gradually work a snorter and shorter working week, so that the process of utilising their spare time commences perhaps two years before they reach the mandatory retirement age. These matters should be discussed in the Parliament. Attitudes should be adopted by the Government if the role of the Commonwealth Employment Service is to be successful. The present Bill before the House, although as I said it is marginally better than the old one set up by the Commonwealth Employment Service, will not, in our opinion, be able to fulfil the objectives set down for it without positive Government policy. Accordingly, I move:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr West:

– Yes. I second the amendment.

Mr FALCONER:
Casey

-The House is debating the Commonwealth Employment Service Bill 1978 and an associated amendment to the Re-establishment and Employment Amendment Bill. There is a clear need for updated and streamlined legislation of this kind. As the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) pointed out, the existing legislative basis for the Commonwealth Employment Service is to be found in the Reestablishment and Employment Act 194S. That Act was designed to implement policies for reestablishing discharged servicemen and service women and for resettling workers displaced as a result of an economy changing from a war-time footing to a peace-time consumer economy. Let me state at the outset that the CES, in my experience, does a very good job in very difficult circumstances. I am sure that all honourable members who have had some contact with their local CES offices will agree that the CES does a good job in dealing with individual problems.

I can assure the Minister that the reason he does not get many representations from me these days on individual problems concerning the CES is that they are all settled directly between my office and the local CES offices concerned. However, even dedicated CES officers would agree that the structure of the Service and its confusion of roles renders it unable to cope with the expanded range of training schemes and other manpower programs given to it by successive governments and also with the enlarged expectations of the public. There is a need for an identifiable management structure in the Commonwealth Employment Service. Presently the management responsibilities and the lines of communication are spread through various people in the CES and in the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations.

Sometimes it can be hard for a person dealing with the CES to find out who is ultimately responsible for some aspect of administration. I have in mind a case of a constituent of mine, a person who runs a small business, who discovered recently that he had been blacklisted by the CES because he allegedly had misused its services. He felt that this was due to a misunderstanding and asked the local office to whom he should speak in the CES or the Department in order to explain his actions. No one seemed to know just quite who was the appropriate person to whom he should speak. He contacted me and after I had made some inquiries of the Minister’s office I referred him to a senior officer in the regional office of the Department in Victoria who very rapidly settled the matter to the satisfaction of all.

I am pleased therefore that the Bill now before us establishes the office of National Director of the Service. The first requirement for a clearly defined management structure is the appointment of one person who bears managerial responsibility for the organisation and who will then set up in turn proper reporting relationships up and down the line with subordinate officers held accountable for their separate functions. Ultimate responsibility which is diffused throughout a departmental bureaucracy is no responsibility at all. That does not reflect adversely on any officer of the Department or the CES who has any administrative and management responsibility at present. To my mind this was the purpose of Norgard in recommending that the Commonwealth Employment Service should be re-established as a statutory authority. I believe that the Government was wise not to proceed with the recommendation. We have had a problem in the past with the proliferation of statutory boards and commissions each taking elements of policy making out of the hands of government. Unless there is a clear need for a statutory authority, I do not believe that governments should set them up at will. I believe that the Government has in fact picked up the main purposes of that recommendation, one of them being the need for a clear management structure, and has done it in a way which avoids taking responsibility for policy formulation out of the hands of government

I turn now to a remark which the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations made in his second reading speech relating to the International Labour Organisation obligations. He said: the Government does not intend the CES to have a monopoly of the vacancy-filling business. Private and informal contacts, newspaper advertising and recruiting agencies all play a significant role in local labour markets. However, the Government in accordance with International Labour Organisation obligations is committed to providing a national and comprehensive manpower service.

I think all of us on this side of the House are indebted to the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) for once again spelling out the socialist objectives of the ALP. Of course he advocated that the Commonwealth Employment Service ought to have a monopoly of the vacancy filling business. I want to expand a little on why that should not be so and why indeed there is great benefit to all- to employers, the unemployed and others seeking jobs, and to the economy as a whole- if there are other agencies operating in that area and providing competition. In the Minister’s second reading speech to which I referred, I take it that he was referring to Convention No. 88 of the International Labour Organisation concerning the organisation of the employment service adopted by the General Conference of the ILO in 1948 and which Australia has ratified. Article I of that Convention provides that each member of the ILO shall maintain a free public employment service but it goes on to say that such a service should cooperate where necessary with other public and private bodies concerned. The honourable member for Port Adelaide clearly spelt out the socialist policy when he advocated that the Commonwealth Employment Service should have a monopoly on vacancy filling. I believe that, rather than the Commonwealth Employment Service having a monopoly, there ought to be cooperation between it and private agencies and consultancies in the field. I shall discuss the areas of co-operation between the Commonwealth Employment Service and private employment agencies.

Indications given to me suggest that some Commonwealth Employment Service officers are standoffish and suspicious of any dealings with private agencies. For example, it has been reported to me that on occasions when a private agency has advertised a vacancy on behalf of an anonymous client company- the client has not been mentioned in the advertisement- a Commonwealth Employment Service officer has telephoned the agency to inquire about the identity of the client company so that the Commonwealth Employment Service office can refer likely candidates on its files directly to the company. The private agency, understandably, usually takes the attitude that candidates should be referred to it for assessment and possible inclusion in the short list presented to its client Apparently, the Commonwealth Employment Service takes the attitude that for it to co-operate with an agency which obtains a fee for its part of the service to the client would be contrary to the ILO obligation to provide a free employment service.

This is surely an unduly restrictive interpretation of our ILO obligations. If a reference by the Commonwealth Employment Service to a private agency can possibly lead to a better or an earlier matching of a job seeker with an existing vacancy that is surely to be encouraged. For a private agency to obtain a fee for its work of advertising on behalf of a client, appraising applicants and preparing written reports in greater detail than the Commonwealth Employment Service is likely to do surely does not involve any breach of Australia’s obligation to maintain a free national employment service. Job seekers and employers alike are free to approach the Commonwealth Employment Service at no cost to themselves but, if an employer prefers to buy the expertise and time of a private agency, that is a legitimate management decision which is made on the basis of the benefits available in return for the cost involved.

I am sure that the purpose of Convention No. 88 was to ensure that job seekers were not exploited by being required to pay a fee or commission in order to obtain a job. The fees for normal private agency services are, in fact, paid by the employers, not by the job seekers. The operations of a national employment service on the one hand and private agencies on the other are largely complementary in my view rather than competitive. I shall refer to some of the functions of the Commonwealth Employment Service set out in clause 6 of the Bill and make some comments on them. The first function of the Commonwealth Employment Service will sound very familiar to us. It is: . . to assist persons seeking employment or a change of employment to obtain suitable positions having regard to any experience, abilities, training or qualifications they possess and to the economic and other needs of the Australian community . . .

Clause 6 goes on to spell out some particular categories of persons for whom special arrangements should be made such as immigrants, Aboriginals, the young and the handicapped. It also spells out the need to provide various persons with vocational guidance services. Generally, finding jobs for people is understood to be the main function of the Commonwealth Employment Service. The contrast with most private agencies is that they find people for jobs. The starting point of a private agency is to fill a vacancy which has been referred to it by a client who will bear the cost of searching for someone to fill that particular vacancy. The function of the Commonwealth Employment Service is to look at the needs of the job seekers and try to find jobs to service them. Of course, there has to be an overlap, but there is that major difference between the starting point for a national employment service concerned with overall employment matters and the function of a private agency. In that respect there is no real competition of a direct kind between a national employment service and private agencies. Their activities are complementary. The Bill goes to spell out another function of the CES, namely:

To assist employers and intended employers wishing to fill vacant positions of employment to fill them with available persons who are suitable for the performance of the duties of, and who meet the employer’s or intended employer’s requirements for, the positions; . . .

That is where some conflict can exist with private agencies. It does not necessarily exist because private agencies do provide additional services for which employers are prepared to pay a fee. It could be expertise in advertising, in interviewing, in dealing with certain categories of staff, in administering tests of a psychological nature such as aptitude tests and personality profiles, and writing reports. Some fear does exist on the part of private agencies that CES could be beefed up to compete directly with them in this area. If no comprehensive service is available in a particular region from private agencies, I think it is legitimate that the Commonwealth Employment Service should move in to fill the gap. But if agencies are available to whom employers can turn, surely it is a good thing that there should be competition between those agencies. After all, they have to justify their fees to their clients and it is a good thing if the client companies are able to pick and choose, if they are able to tell agencies where they are falling down. If they are falling down in a very bad way they will go out of business as a result. I do not think that that sort of natural check and balance in the system is to be decried. The Bill then goes on to spell out the next function of the CES, namely: to promote and implement approved manpower programs and other measures designed to ensure a high level of employment in the community.

That is where a national employment service does have a role to play. It is not a role that can be played to a major extent by private agencies. Nonetheless, there is available in staff working in private employment agencies a large body of people who could be used by the Commonwealth Employment Service as public relations officers or information officers for the various training and manpower programs that exist and that any government might implement in the future. I believe that that is where co-operation can be improved, not in a way that would transfer any funds to the private agencies but simply in a way that would make better use of people who run private agencies. They could be informed properly of the schemes that exist and in turn they could inform clients and job seekers with whom they are dealing of the existence and availability of those schemes.

With respect to the Commonwealth Employment Service, I believe that in this area many CES officers do need a higher degree of training and experience than they have received in the past in order to administer the programs. One complaint I have heard from employers who have dealt with CES is that in many of the CES offices there is not sufficient continuity of service of particular officers who have been dealing with the training schemes. The employer has had to go along at regular intervals to different officers who are doing a tour of duty in the local CES office and explain his needs and his case over and over again. I have had a similar complaint from some job seekers who have had dealings with a particular CES office over a period of time. I simply make that comment because it is an area of concern. I believe that to a large extent the problem is being overcome. Certainly in recent months I have had reports from the people who initially complained to me that the position has improved with respect to continuity of service of the CES officers with whom they had dealings.

The next function of the CES listed in the Bill is: to register persons who are unemployed and who wish to claim unemployment benefits under the Social Services Act 1947 and to provide assistance in seeking employment for persons claiming or receiving such benefits;

I believe this is where the Government needs to spell out further the real role of the Commonwealth Employment Service in the administration of unemployment benefits. I agree that officers of the CES are in a most invidious position if on the one hand they are required to be professional job placement officers helping job seekers to find satisfactory employment but on the other hand they are in a position where they are seen by the job seekers as playing the role of policeman to apply the work test to them in order to determine their eligibility for unemployment benefits. I must admit that I should not like to be in that position myself. I accept the real objection that many Commonwealth Employment Service officers have to the invidious position in which they find themselves. There is no doubt in my mind that their principal purpose in that respect is to find jobs for the job seekers who come to them asking for assistance. They must not be in a position where job seekers lack confidence in the officers with whom they are dealing. The next function is: to publish information in respect of the labour market or the service relating to employment provided by the Service, or otherwise by the Commonwealth, or, with the consent of the relevant State, by a State;

The list of duties in clause 6 goes on to mention the collection of statistics and other information relating to the labour market. The validity and accuracy of the figures provided by the Commonwealth Employment Service is an area that has provided much debate in recent years. Indeed, an advisory committee on Commonwealth Employment Service statistics was set up in 1973. It reported on some of the problems involved in the method by which the CES collected statistics and the use to which they were put. The Norgard report comments to some extent on the problems involved. I believe that there is again a conflict in roles which ought to be pointed to here. If officers of the CES are to be involved primarily in the placing of people in suitable employment, it may well be that at times when they have a peak of activity of that type they do not have the time to collect the statistics to do all the administrative procedures such as lapsing people from the rolls who have found employment through other means that would be needed in order to ensure accurate statistics of a general nature. Therefore, I believe that it is appropriate for the Bureau of Statistics to take over the main role of the collection and publication of accurate overall employment statistics and that the Commonwealth Employment Service should concentrate very much on working statistics, operational statistics, that help it to do its job better, to concentrate on finding out the numbers and categories and areas of people unemployed and the types of vacancies available in various areas so that it has better statistical tools to help it match jobs to the vacancies. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:

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

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

-The Commonwealth Employment Service Bill 1978 is to restructure the administration of the Commonwealth Employment Service. It must necessarily be about employment opportunity- perhaps more succinctly, about unemployment. I say at the outset that unemployment, currently running nationally at 410,000, is completely unacceptable for any civilised society. It is being exacerbated by the deflationary economic policies of this Government and its failure to implement adequate retraining, manpower and immigration policies. In my electorate there are currently unemployed over 9,000 people or 1 1 per cent of the work force. The worst feature, of course, is unemployment amongst young people, particularly semi-skilled females. There are currently 1,200 young girls unemployed and seeking some 23 registered vacancies with the CES in Wollongong. In case honourable members think I am exaggerating I refer them to a report which appeared on 1 1 April 1978 in the Illawarra Daily Mercury- what is contained in this report is typical of what is happening all over the country- and which described how more than 100 girls answered one advertisement for a junior girl between IS and 16 years of age at the Uniset Boutique in Crown Street, Wollongong. The advertisement asked interested girls to apply at 10 a.m., and by 9.30 a.m. 100 girls had arrived at the boutique. Future prospects are indeed grim.

At least 200,000 university graduates and school leaves will seek jobs every year over the next five years. The number of incoming migrant job seekers currently runs at over 50,000 a year. In addition to that, we can expect 200,000 women, who are not now in full-time education and who are not presently in the work force, to seek work in that period. After allowing for resignations, retirements and deaths we would need to create at least 900,000 new jobs over the next five years just to prevent unemployment from getting worse. This would mean that the civilian work force would have to increase by 3.9 per cent a year. Over the last three years the compound percentage change in employment has been negative; it has been minus 0.4 per cent.

During the 1970s growth in labour demand was unable to cater for even a one per cent annual increase in the work force without increasing the unemployment rate. The number of persons employed in the manufacturing industry has declined from 1,294,000 in 1971 to 1,145,000 by the end of 1977. Civilians employed by private enterprise fell in number from 3.32 million to 3.24 million in the same period. During the period of the Fraser Government’s administration, the number of government civilian employees rose from 1.34 million to 1.5 million. This simply means that, despite the rhetoric of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) about transferring resources to the private sector, it has simply not occurred. We would be in even deeper recession if government employment had not slightly expanded.

It is the manufacturing, the construction, the textile, the footwear and the clothing industries which show the real decline in the labour force. Only the areas of retail trade, community services, and entertainment in the tertiary sector show any real expansion. Employment in the mining sector has increased from 75,500 to 79,000 in the last six years, but this represents only 1.6 per cent of our work force. They produce some $3 billion worth of exports, not to mention the value of their production consumed in Australia.

Much has been said about the so-called Gregory thesis, namely, that imports of manufactured goods rise as a result of increased export earnings and that this wipes out jobs in Australian manufacturing industry. Perhaps this argument is over-simplistic in the situation of increasing capital outflow. There is no denying that, if 79,000 employees in mining provide $3 billion worth of export earnings which may result in imports of equal worth, the important factor is the extent to which the number of jobs wiped out in Australia exceeds the number of jobs provided in mining.

There is a multiplicity of reasons for the present massive level of unemployment. All those reasons are related to the failure of capitalism to use improved technology in the interests of people and workers. This Government’s obsession with reducing inflation by cutting real wages and by cutting government expenditure has resulted in the consumer power of Australian wage and salary earners being savagely slashed. Accordingly, Australian manufacturing industry has suffered dearly. The major failure of capitalist economic policy- to create new employment -derives from its total inability to accept that the replacement of labour by technology must result in unemployment unless corresponding adjustments in the form of shorter working hours and improved conditions, including earlier optional retirement for workers, are implemented. However, the fact is that this Government’s policy, and, indeed, the economic policies of the capitalist world generally, have been unsuccessful in producing so-called manpower policies which would result in a real redistribution of work opportunities.

We may need manpower policies, but more than that we need deliberate policies of government and industry to create new jobs. This means and must mean increased government spending on housing, transport, local government employment schemes and State public works. It means introducing a resource tax to stem the haemorrhage of some $900m a year of capital outflow, caused in the main by repatriation of the profits of mining companies. Then, and only then, may it be possible to direct profits from the exportation of non-renewable resources to the task of modernising Australian industry. Only then may it be possible to reduce tariff protection against imported goods.

In his second reading speech the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) indicated that the Bill was the Government’s attempt to effect changes in the organisation of the Commonwealth Employment Service by introducing appropriate legislation. The Minister indicated that the changes followed an examination of recommendations in the Norgard Committee’s report. The report urges the creation of the CES as an independent statutory authority which is a proposal to which I am utterly opposed. Fancy handing over the unemployed to the tender mercy of the bureaucrats! No government should be allowed to delegate its responsibility for the unemployed to a possibly insensitive and unresponsive bureaucracy.

The Government’s response to the report is the creation of a semi-independent, quasistatutory authority, with obscure lines of communication, information and responsibility. The Norgard Committee’s report states that the CES is operating without clear objectives or priorities and that its limited resources are pretty thinly spread across a multitude of tasks. The Government ‘s response to this is a Bill which establishes no real priorities, which merely describes the functions already being performed by the CES and which makes no financial commitment to the provision of additional resources other than the appointment of a national director, which may be desirable but which is nevertheless a token response to an urgent national problem.

I draw the attention of the House to one other aspect of this Bill. That is clause 6 (c), which, it is said, will encourage the CES to ‘promote and implement approved manpower programs and other measures designed to ensure a high level of employment in the community’. In my opening remarks I referred to the changing structure of Australian industry. Whilst there is little doubt that some of the unemployment in this country has resulted from a structural imbalance, that is, the mismatching of available skills with available job opportunities, the principal cause of unemployment stems directly from the failure of government economic policy. The stark fact is that there are 410,000 unemployed and only 19,500 vacancies. Even if manpower programs matched every single vacancy there would still be 390,000 persons unemployed. Directing the CES to implement improved manpower planning programs without any clear overall objectives will not create jobs. Only a change in government economic policy will do that.

In introducing the Re-establishment and Employment Act of 1945, which created the Commonwealth Employment Service, the then Labor Minister for Post-war Reconstruction and Development, Mr J. J. Dedman stated:

First among the Government’s objectives is the maintenance of a high and stable level of employment To achieve the objective, measures must be devised to ensure that, at any time, more potential jobs exist than the number of people seeking them and that, as far as possible, employment must be of the right kind, and in the right place.

That was the Labor Government’s policy 33 years ago. It ought to be the policy of this Government now. I shall examine the deficiencies in the present Commonwealth Employment Service Relief schemes. All claimants for unemployment relief must pass the work test. The fourth section of the so-called work test is the most controversial. It states:

Not making an effort to obtain employment on his or her own behalf.

This controversial test is obviously being incorrectly applied. Mainly, it is the Department of Social Security which makes the inspection and determination through its investigating officers. Honourable members will recall that last October the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) ordered a major survey of recipients of relief. Subsequently, there were reports that 30,000 people were briefly removed from benefit entitlement and then readmitted. Logically, this must mean that they were incorrectly harassed and inconvenienced. Why did the investigation not occur and then, if necessary, action taken, instead of having this over-zealous behaviour? The truth is that the unemployed are helpless and unorganised, and at the mercy of the bureaucrats of the Department of Social Security.

In my electorate during this survey individuals were ordered by inspectors to produce written evidence that they were seeking work daily. This smacks of the old Depression mentality which was: Force people to use their already meagre revenues searching for work which does not exist. I refer to the enforced tramps of the 1930s and the attempts in the United Kingdom in 193 1 to force people to walk up to 15 miles a day seeking prospective employers. Does the Minister for Social Security really believe that such excesses will create one single extra job in Australia? If demanding that the unemployed seek work on a daily basis creates work, it means that employers who have jobs available are not engaging labour. If this were true the employers should be criticised for not doing so. The Commonwealth Employment Service is involved in a number of amelioraty schemes. It seems unbelievable, as the Norgard report states:

When programs arrive there is invariably a delay of several months before staff are reallocated for work related to the program.

This means that existing staff have to cope with the most difficult period of any program, the introductory stage. The review expressed dismay that staff received no special training for these new tasks. It seems incongruous that many Commonwealth Employment Service officers do not volunteer information to clients or employers about new or complex manpower programs because they have insufficient staff to handle the work generated from these programs. Little wonder then that, apart from the inefficiency of the programs themselves, the administration and payment to beneficiaries under these schemes border on the chaotic.

I shall examine the Special Youth Employment Training Program. It subsidises employers up to $66 a week for six months to employ an unemployed person under 25 years of age who has been out of work for four months. Unfortunately, there are real contradictions in this program. On a number of occasions I have interviewed parents and school leavers who have suffered the disappointment of being referred by the Commonwealth Employment Service to a prospective employer only to be rejected when the employer found that, as a school leaver, they were not entitled to the Special Youth Employment Training Program pre-subsidy. In addition, there does not seem to be any demand that there be an overall net increase in that employer’s labour force before the subsidy is paid. Perhaps there is a very strong case to remove these qualifications altogether and to adopt the idea which the Australian Labor Party put forward during the last election campaign of subsidising new employment only as long as there is a continuing net increase in an employer’s labour force.

Another great anomaly appears in the National Employment and Training scheme which, of course, authorises training and living away allowances in addition to unemployment relief for selected applicants. Many school leavers who find themselves with no real employment prospects and who do not possess the Higher School Certificate feel- correctly in my view- that they would be better employed in full time study to gain the Higher School Certificate rather than remaining idle. Yet the moment they return to school they are denied relief. Certainly a problem exists, and one knows that if they were paid the situation could be abused in regard to future school leavers. However, surely a competent Commonwealth Employment Service is capable of a fine judgment in these matters.

In regard to the educational program for unemployed youth, which is administered under the National Employment and Training scheme, there is often a bureaucratic bungle which discourages further people from taking the six weeks course. Is there any reason why students under the program must be removed from the unemployment benefit and transferred to payment under the NEAT scheme, which sometimes results in lengthy delays in payments? Why not continue to pay benefits and reimburse the Department of Social Security from the NEAT scheme if necessary so that there is no disincentive to these young people as a result of the changeover.

These schemes are only superficial. We in the Opposition are looking for real manpower programs and, like the unemployed, we are most disappointed by their absence. Now that the Government stands to gain from its tax avoidance legislation, let it re-introduce a local government employment scheme. My electorate benefited by $2.8m from Labor’s Regional Employment Development scheme. Many fine local amenities were created under that scheme which was introduced by the then Minister for Labor and Immigration, the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron). At its peak the scheme was employing some 30,000 Australians who, of course, are now unemployed once more.

In the few minutes still available to me I urge the Government to stop hounding the unemployed, to stop labelling the unemployed and to stop calling them dole bludgers. For a change, let us see what we can do for the unemployed.

Mr Ruddock:

– I have not heard that expression used once, other than by you.

Mr WEST:

-I have heard honourable members opposite use that expression in the electorates many times. I make four suggestions to the Minister. Firstly, the Government should immediately raise the level of permissible earnings to $20 a week in line with the limit for other pensioners and beneficiaries. Secondly, abolish the 7-day waiting period for the unemployment benefit. Thirdly, pay school leavers the unemployment benefit from the time they register for work and are available to take work if offered it. They are entitled to it and it would help them find jobs at the end of the year. Fourthly, pay the unemployment benefit to persons whose benefit has been cancelled but who have appealed to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and are waiting for the appeal to be considered. They are entitled to receive the benefit until it is proved that they are not genuine work seekers.

Often we hear the Metal Trades Industry Association asserting that in the middle of record postwar unemployment employers cannot obtain skilled metal tradesmen. As a result the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs attempts to fill the vacancies with imported labour while those migrants already in this country wait in vain for reunion with close relatives whose applications for migration have been knocked back by the Department. What we need is a subsidised apprenticeship scheme and real manpower programs to try to train our young workers of the future rather than relying on migrant workers coming here and then dropping them into slots when they become available. The Opposition gives qualified support to this Bill. However, unless the Government takes positive action along the lines suggested by the Opposition it is clear that we will face unemployment of as yet undreamed of dimensions.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Dundas

-Mr Deputy Speaker, as you will realise from some of the remarks that passed across the chamber, the speeches that we heard this afternoon from honourable members opposite on this important piece of legislation were, regrettably, negative and unduly carping. Quite frankly, I found them exceedingly disappointing. This is a positive piece of legislation, one mat would have been well served by the Opposition’s offering as an alternative positive and constructive proposals of their own, if they had them. But the legislation did not deserve the sort of carping, negative criticism that we heard here this afternoon. The purpose of the legislation is to update and upgrade the Commonwealth Employment Service. An effective and efficient Commonwealth Employment Service is required if we are to deal with some aspects of unemployment in our community. The Government has admitted that

Government Ministers, speaking on the sorts of programs that the Government is pursuing in this area, have made it clear that they regard the upgrading of the Commonwealth Employment Service as an initial and an integral part of the Government’s program to overcome some of the problems that we have in our community as a result of massive unemployment. It occurred not just during the term of office of this Government; the great majority of it occurred as a result of the policies and approaches of the previous Government. It cannot be forgotten that it was the policies and initiatives of honourable members opposite that brought about the great bulk of unemployment in this community. The number of unemployed rose significantly during their term of office. There has been an increase in the number since then, and we regard it as regrettable, but the great mass of people in this country who became unemployed, became unemployed at that time.

This legislation is positive. Its purpose is to update and upgrade the Commonwealth Employment Service, to enable it to carry out approved manpower functions, to implement programs and to promote them. It is a Bill which is to put aside the function that the service had initially in 1945, to redeploy ex-servicemen. That is an indication of the age of this authority and the way in which it has had to adapt increasingly to modern day needs. Certainly the sort of legislation that is proposed now is needed to give the Service the twentieth century guidelines that are so essential if it is to fulfil its functions. The Bill is a significant indication of the Government’s commitment to overcome the high levels of unemployment that we have in this community, because we regard low levels of unemployment as essential. It is certainly a Bill which acknowledges the width of the Service that we have seen grow in response to demands from the community over the last 20 years or so.

The organisation has the responsibility of collecting information on job opportunities, collating that information and placing people in positions. In 1977 some 400,000 people were placed in positions through the Commonwealth Employment Service. It provides a system of registration of those who are available for and seeking employment. It provides a vehicle by which labour market training can be pursued and for the administration of the important programs that this Government has initiated. I will deal with them later. It is important to note the programs that have been initiated by this Government and to compare them with the two programs that the previous Government initiated, one of which it put aside in its own term of office because it was found to be totally ineffective. In other words, the ratio of the Government’s programs to those of the previous Government is 5 to 1. This Government has performed but, under the previous Government, performance was wanting.

The specialist functions of the Commonwealth Employment Service also have to be acknowledged and I will spend some time in my address referring to one of them. The Service provides programs for Aboriginals, handicapped persons, migrants, vocational guidance and occupation assistance. The CES also has responsibility for collecting information in relation to the number of people who receive the unemployment benefit.

This legislation proposes to expand the role of the CES. It proposes to provide the organisation with leadership. The significant parts of this legislation provide first for the establishment, functions and powers of the Commonwealth Employment Service and the widening of those functions and, secondly, for the appointment of a national director and staff for him. Whilst the CES is to be part of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations it will have national leadership as a result of the appointment of a national director, a person who will be peculiarly responsible for giving it that sort of direction that it needs to fulfil its tasks.

The CES will have the responsibilities for promoting and implementing approved manpower programs. Finally, it will have available to it advisory committees which will be national, regional and local. These committees will assist in identifying problems that the CES experienced not only at the national level but also at regional and local levels. Norgard regarded these matters as being of great importance. This legislation does not seek to implement his recommendations which propose the establishment of a separate statutory authority. I note that the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), who led for the Opposition on this legislation, expressed doubts whether he would support the view that there ought to be a separate and independent statutory corporation.

I thought that the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West) in his very vitriolic address about the Public Service- and it is easy to see that he does not have too many public servants in Wollongong- made the point very clear that he would hold no brief for the Commonwealth Employment Service having a function within the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. It has to be acknowledged that -

Mr West:

– I said I would not support a statutory authority.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-I heard the honourable member refer specifically to bureaucrats. If my understanding is correct, the approach taken by the honourable member was that bureaucrats would be incapable of implementing the sorts of manpower programs that the Government initiated. The fact of the matter is -

Mr West:

– It is the responsibility of the Parliament.

Mr RUDDOCK:

– I believe it should be responsible to the Parliament and I am pleased to hear the honourable member saying so because this is the very nature of the legislation. If that is the case, I cannot understand the basis of the honourable member’s criticism of the fine Public Service that we have in this community. The fact of the matter is that whilst one could always find imperfections and one could always find difficult areas in relation to the implementation of government policy- we have experienced some of these problems and I propose to refer to some of them in relation to our objective of implementing part of the Norgard report- the great bulk of people employed in our Public Service are very fine people and are not deserving of the sort of criticism that we have heard from the honourable member for Cunningham.

We have agreed that the Commonwealth Employment Service ought to be responsible to the Parliament. I am one who wholeheartedly supports that proposition. I might be in trouble with some of my colleagues if I refer to some of the statutory corporations that were created by the Opposition when it was in government and say that honourable members can well appreciate the reason why I might take this approach. We know the difficulties that honourable members have from time to time in having representations heeded by Telecom Australia and Australia Post. Without the sorts of advantages that apply when one is dealing with a genuine private enterprise system, one can see there is good reason not to give up the power of the Parliament over the Public Service. It is important that there should be a proper reporting system to the Parliament as is envisaged by this legislation. Certainly I would not like to see an independent statutory corporation fulfilling these responsibilities. I believe that members of Parliament have to be prepared to accept the results of whatever policies we pursue. We have to be prepared to articulate those policies. We have to be prepared to take the responsibility for remedying those areas in which there are defects. I certainly agree that this legislation, in the form proposed by the Minister, is a proper approach having regard to the recommendations of the Norgard report.

I want to take the opportunity to draw the attention of honourable members to some other aspects of the Norgard report that were not necessarily required to be implemented in a statutory form. The first section with which I wish to deal- Aboriginal employment- was mentioned in a positive way by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) and I commend him for doing so. The Norgard report emphasises the problem faced by Aboriginals who are seeking employment. It gives some statistics which I think all honourable members would find quite disheartening. The number of Aboriginals registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service represents 30 per cent of the Aboriginal work force which is conservatively estimated at some 35,000 people. That is not a new problem; it has always been with us. I am not trying to run away from the nature of the problem having regard to the pace at which we can move because of changing attitudes. I refer not just to the wider community but to the attitudes of the Aboriginals themselves who are not in a traditional situation and have not lived in a traditional way. It is not possible, in my view, to change their background, their cultural values and their social and occupational factors at great speed. But it is important that we do as much as we can to assist in overcoming these marked problems.

The report emphasised that just over 100 positions are available for vocational officers and assistant vocational officers. Generally speaking, the vocational officers and the assistant vocational officers I have met in this area are Aboriginals endeavouring to help their own people. They are endeavouring to change the approach to employment and to change the approach of employers to employing Aboriginals.

I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) to note some of the particular problems pointed up in this report. I am sure that he is giving the utmost attention to the implementation of these recommendations but I point them out once more. I refer to the specific recommendation that travel funds be increased to boost the outreach activities of the vocational officers and the assistant vocational officers. Another suggestion was that the vocational officers and the assistant vocational officers should be relieved of some of their clerical work and responsibilities and given greater administrative support. These seem to me to be very positive recommendations deserving the utmost support from the Parliament. The report also recommended that the staffing in the area which provides employment to Aboriginals should be increased substantially.

I served on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in the Parliament before last when it reported on special works projects. I was very impressed with the quality of work of the Aboriginal employment service within the Commonwealth Employment Service. I was particularly impressed with the dedication of the officers involved. I would like to see a firm commitment and resolve from us all to give them the utmost support that can be given. I am sure that the Minister, knowing of these problems, has that very much in mind himself and would be pleased to know of the universal support of members of Parliament to encourage greater effort in this area and give those who work in the field greater opportunities.

One of the aspects which we emphasised in the report on special works projects was the need for the Commonwealth Employment Service to also adopt a changed approach to the employment of Aboriginals with lesser qualifications than might be expected of people joining the Public Service. The very nature of the special works projects scheme was to fund employers, local government authorities and State government instrumentalities so that they would take into their service Aboriginals who would gain experience while employed. I am very pleased that of late the Government has accepted recommendations which now enable the Commonwealth to participate also in these sorts of schemes and to take people in at lower educational levels than would otherwise be the case in order to give them the opportunity to serve in a position and then to take their rightful place in the Public Service.

I also want to support the suggestions and the recommendations on computerisation in the Commonwealth Employment Service. These initiatives are of the utmost importance. I think that computers will be essential to the labour intensive tasks such as the updating of records, which in itself is essential and in the linking of information that is received in the CES. Such tasks have to be carried out in an efficient way. I know that the Government recognises this need. I think we have an important role to play in encouraging the Government to pursue these recommendations, and to pursue them as quickly as possible. Employees in the Commonwealth Employment Service must be made available to undertake the important tasks of interviewing people, assessing them and ensuring that they are able to be linked to the jobs that are available. The Minister emphasised the very substantial savings in taxpayers’ funds that would be gained if the people who were available for employment were able to be linked to the jobs available as soon as possible. These initiatives that the Government sees as being important are being pursued by this legislation.

The next part I wish to deal with in the Norgard report is the initiatives taken by the Government already to recruit for the CES employment officers who have had practical and personal experience in industry. This was the subject of some industrial disputes a little earlier in the piece. In this House I supported very strongly the Government’s initiatives in getting into the Commonwealth Employment Service those people who would bring their wider experience into that area. I made that point very strongly in my speech at the time because I saw it as being an important part of the Government’s program in relation to updating the CES. But I want to point out that that is no criticism of the people who are at present employed in the Commonwealth Employment Service. There is no doubt in my mind about the dedication of the employees of the Government who work that Service. I have seen the sort of work that they do. For example, in my electorate, I am very familiar with the work undertaken by the Commonwealth Employment Service office in Parramatta. More recently, I have been very impressed with the activities of the Commonwealth Employment Service office in Ryde. I link those activities particularly to the Government’s initiatives in relation to the Community Youth Support scheme. It is in that area that one is able to assess the personal qualities of the officers involved. They are prepared to give of their own time to participate in this important program of the Government to ensure that it works. There is a place for these new employees that the Government needs for the scheme to work, but this in no way should be taken as criticism of those who are presently involved in the Commonwealth Employment Service.

I have stressed in my address the positive nature of the Government’s initiatives. I think that is the very important part of this Bill and of this debate. But the occasion ought not to pass without there being some cognisance of the negative criticism of the Opposition. I wish to make it very clear to honourable members opposite that we have not forgotten the very Utile that was done by them in relation to overcoming the manpower problems that emerged during their term of office. The only scheme initiated by the Labor Government which has remained is the National Employment and Training scheme. The Regional Employment Development scheme about which the honourable member for Cunningham spoke this afternoon was scrapped by the Labor Party in office. It was found to be wantonly deficient and the Labor Party itself recognised that.

Since then we have seen the modification of that NEAT scheme because we have ensured that it is not just a scheme to put people into expensive university-style courses, but actually to get people into employment where they receive practical training in areas in which they will continue to be employed. We have also initiated the Special Youth Employment Training Program- a very important initiative. We initiated the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training scheme. I have already mentioned the Community Youth Support scheme which was also an initiative of this Government. It also initiated the education program for unemployed youth and the relocation assistance scheme. The funding of the National Employment and Training scheme has risen from the 1976-77 appropriation of $36m to the appropriation for this year, 1977-78, of $85m.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

-One would have thought that even the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) would have learned a certain degree of humility from the intractable economic experience of his Government after 2Vi years not to have made the easy ghb reference that somehow this is a problem stemming from the administration of the Labor Government. One would have thought that Government supporters would have realised by now that the economic malaise that gripped the Western world in the middle 1970s, and engulfed the Labor Government, was something which is not easy to correct and is not simple in cause. I think most of us are now fairly tired of the glib explanation that it derived simply from the Labor Government. Indeed, I think it is necessary to remind the Government of just two points. It was elected to power in December 1 975 on the promise that within three years it would provide employment for aU those people in this country who wanted it. It is true that there are still six months left out of that three-year period but the Government certainly will not fulfil that promise. Secondly, the Government needs to be reminded that it has been under its administration that we have had the highest unemployment ever. I think it is important to recognise that the figure of 410,000 Australians now in unemployment is higher in absolute numbers than even at the depths of the Great Depression of 1929-34. Of course, the proportion now is certainly smaller but the absolute figure is greater. It suggests the dimension of the problem which we are now facing and with which I presume these measures are intended to deal.

Let me now turn to the Commonwealth Employment Service BUI 1978. As I think everyone is agreed that anything would be better than the present Commonwealth Employment Service, we must of necessity welcome this Bill. As Mr Norgard argued, the CES was a 1946 model organisation trying to cope with 1977 style problems. Let us be under no illusion that in this Bill the Government is providing a 1977 style organisation to cope with 1977 style problems; it is not. The Government in this Bill is providing simply a face lift for the CES. It is in fact a minimal solution to the maximal problems that this society faces. I argued in a debate yesterday that it is becoming increasingly difficult to understand why anybody bothers to write reports for this Government. I said that the Asprey report, the most comprehensive report on taxation since 1945, recommended the reform but retention of death duties. We know what happened to death duties yesterday under this Government.

Similarly, I believe that this BUI is in no way, as the honourable member for Dundas argued, an appropriate response to the Norgard report. Let me quote what Norgard wanted from reforms of the CES. The report states: . . that the CES must provide an improved service and an undertaking to support and strengthen the CES and its allied manpower activities. Without the political will and the investment of resources to make up for years of neglect, very little improvement can be expected or achieved. Lip service and token action will not be good enough.

Lip service and token action will not be good enough. Unfortunately in many ways this Bill is Up service and token action. The provisions of the BUI follows the departmental submissions to Norgard rather more than they do the conclusions of the Norgard report. Norgard rejected explicitly the proposal in this BUI to reorganise the CES within the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. Secondly, Norgard recommended a far wider set of functions for the

CES than are envisaged in this timid Bill. Thirdly, Norgard recommended that the CES should be given responsibility to devise manpower programs to relieve labour market ills. This Bill permits the Commonwealth Employment Service only to ‘promote and implement approved manpower programs’. Honourable members should note those words. In other words, the manpower policies will come from elsewhere. The notion of devising manpower policies as recommended by Norgard has been deliberately cut out of the Bill. I think the words I quoted are significant; we may hear an interesting explanation of them from the Minister later.

I refer next to the relationship between CES and unemployment and quote from another report which was written for this Government but equally taken no notice of, namely, the report of the Inquiry into Unemployment Benefit Policy and Administration- the Myers report. Myers recommended:

That new administrative arrangements be devised so that the CES participation in the administrative process is reduced, and a more active and more public role is taken by DSS in the delivery of income support to the unemployed.

Norgard followed that up by making much the same recommendation on this. He argued that: . . a start of the implementation of the new unemployment benefit procedure outlined by the working parry, whereby CES involvement in unemployment benefit matters is minimised should be made as soon as possible.

They are four major features of the Bill which run starkly counter to Norgard ‘s suggestions. It does seem to me that these inadequacies in this Bill, in relation to the Norgard report, are symptomatic of a total lack of a manpower policy- a total lack of any idea of how such a policy could be organisationally implemented in this country. Even if we accept the dubious thesis of the Government that curing inflation will reduce unemployment- a theory which still seems to be contradicted by facts- reducing the rate of inflation will not solve the problems of structural unemployment, which are clearly growing in this economy.

What answer has the Government to the problem of the over 50-year-olds who are cast out of the work force by structural changes and whose long-range prospects for future employment now appear bleak? What responses other than temporary band-aids, well illustrated by the honourable member for Dundas, has the Government to structural youth unemployment? Indeed, it seems clear that unless we have long-term policies in this field, even if the inflation problem is cured a distinct residue of youth unemployment will remain in our society. Again, what about the problem of the long-term unemployed and unemployable people, who are the features of any prolonged economic malaise such as we are now passing through?

We have urged upon this Government a positive manpower policy to face whatever long-term problems we fear confront this economy. We have been met with minimal ad hoc responses. We asked that this House take up the challenge of this major problem by setting up a committee to look at the problems of structural unemployment. That too was rejected by the Government. I think that for anyone who has any pride in his country one of the most disillusioning experiences is to read the contemporary literature and to see how negligent this country is in innovative responses to the challenge of structural unemployment. Indeed, Australia is scarcely mentioned in any of the international literature because it exercises very little imagination whatsoever in this field.

I take one field with which I am relatively familiar- namely, youth unemployment- and refer briefly to some of the innovative responses being made overseas. One answer is directly to create jobs for young people in the public sector through public works programs, as is being done in Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and the United States, but not of course in Australia. Going even further another answer is the actual creation of jobs within the Public Service. At least these experiments are being made. Jobs are being created, with young people being given priority in the public sector. In Canada, France, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States employment for young people is being created by local communities. Work is now being done in the Scandinavian countries to try to solve some of the problems of the transition from education to work by a part time pattern of work in education between the ages of 1 5 and 1 7.

The point already raised by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) about a flexible retirement scheme, as is operating in Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Norway, Spain, Sweden but not Australia, again will help to solve one of the problems at the other end, that is youth unemployment. Unless we begin to organise, not in the minimal way that we have been doing to date but with some vision and imagination, we will have these problems with us for a long time. In order to face up to those problems, we need an effective manpower organisation.

I return again to the Bill in relation to those sorts of criticisms. I want only to make two major points in this regard. They are points to which I have already referred but which I should like to follow up. One is the point that the CES should actually devise manpower policies, as is suggested by the Norgard Committee. It does seem that the Bill deliberately denies the CES this right, although I would like to be assured by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) that my interpretation of clause 6 (c), which refers to promoting and implementing approved manpower programs, also includes the notion of creating manpower programs. I am not sure where else we are going to get them created. Obviously, a revamped CES is the best place for this creation to take place.

I want to look also at the problem of the relationship of the CES to the Department of Social Security in relation to the payment of unemployment benefit. I would have thought that there is now near universal agreement- at least there is agreement in all the reports that the Government has had- that we have an excessively complex, cumbersome and duplicatory system involving, in an unnecessary way, both the CES and the Department of Social Security. First of all, the unemployed have to register with the CES. The work test administration, though not the work test judgment, is made by the CES. The claim forms have to go to the CES, which then forwards them to the Department of Social Security. The income statements have to be handed in each fortnight to the CES and then they have to be passed across to the Department of Social Security. We have an incredibly complex bureaucratic, and above all, negative apparatus. In many parts of Australia the CES is known as the Commonwealth Unemployment Service’ simply because it has got this negative image from its deep involvement with the Department of Social Security over the paying of unemployment benefit.

I would have thought a minimal reform that even this Government is capable of carrying out would be to follow through the Norgard Committee’s report and reduce or do away completely with CES involvement in the unemployment benefit program or, if that is not possiblethe Norgard Committee recognised that it might not be impossible- at least require only from the CES the initial registration with the CES and leave the unemployment benefit process in the hands of the Department of Social Security. In conclusion, we have before us a Bill which is not an appropriate response to the Norgard Committee’s proposals. It is better than nothing but it is not the sort of thing this country should expect as a major response in a period in which the absolute number of unemployed is greater than at any time in this society.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

-As has been said by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street), these Bills are designed to give legislative expression to the Commonwealth Government’s commitment to upgrade the Commonwealth Employment Service. It is important that there should be change in the CES. This is recognised by the Government. The honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) drew attention to the fact that a system designed in 1946 is trying to cope with the problems and difficulties that exist in the area of employment in 1978. 1 know that it is very easy to criticise someone else for not doing something, but I think it is worth reminding the Parliament that during the three years in which the Labor Government was in office it persisted with the 1946 system in regard to the CES. It had the opportunity during its term of office to do something about it. Criticism has been levelled at this Government about the advantage to be derived from calling for reports. I wonder what reports that Government called for.

I believe that members of the Australian Labor Party who now are so critical of this system might at least have found the time within the framework of their legislative timetable when they were in office to introduce legislation which might have been of advantage to the community at large. Certainly, Liberal and National Country Party governments used this system for a long time when they were in office. I am quite happy to concede that point. There is one factor which must be taken into consideration in relation to the criticism of this report. Indeed, it provides some answer to why we were perhaps able to live with this system up until the time that the Labor Government came to office. I refer to the fact that when we were in power, there was a great deal of stability in the economy.

The urgent need for a revision of our Commonwealth Employment Service and the great tragedy of the extent of unemployment which exists today and which we as a government are finding it difficult to cope with have arisen as a result of the galloping inflation that accompanied and was brought about by the policies of the Labor Government during the time it was in office. Many difficulties and problems flow from inflation. When labour costs rise at the rapid rate they rose during the years of the Labor

Government there is a great incentive to introduce labour saving devices into all sorts of industries. With this increasing tendency, it can be seen that inflation in itself and the problem that it creates in industry is accenuated. I will not elaborate further on that point but there are many other factors which I could mention.

I believe that while we may not have done a great deal to improve the structure of the Commonwealth Employment Service during our earlier years in office and perhaps it has taken us a couple of years to make these changes, the need for them was not nearly so great. But that need was very evident during the period the Labor Government was in office. We should not be prepared to accept from honourable members opposite the argument that we have taken too long to have this report made and to act upon it. lt is very easy for honourable members to make assumptions about how the recommendations of the Norgard report should have been implemented and about whether the legislation is the best result that could have come from that report Honourable members on this side of the House argue quite strongly that the legislation we are now debating in the House and which has been taken from the report will be of great advantage to the operations of our Commonwealth Employment Service. Certainly, there is no question about the need for the most effective employment service that we can have in this country.

Unemployment is a tragedy in a very severe sense in a great many homes throughout the country. Perhaps it is the greatest tragedy of all amongst our young people. An urgent need clearly exists for the development of the most effective Commonwealth Employment Service that we can possibly introduce. The Government has taken that responsibility on its shoulders. It called for a report and has introduced legislation which the Government and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations believe will go a long way towards making the Commonwealth Employment Service a modern type of structure which will serve the community and help to alleviate the problems of unemployment. It will do this by providing a type of employment service which will enable the greatest number of job opportunities to be made available to those people who are so urgently in need of them and who so keenly desire them. I feel that at times a great deal of criticism is made of unemployed people in this country who do not really want to accept employment. Perhaps that is true. Nevertheless, let us be fair and say that many people who are unemployed are very genuinely seeking to obtain employment and would do so if it were available to them.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr CORBETT:

– Prior to the suspension oi me sitting for dinner I was discussing the Bills which are the subject of this debate and the role that is being played by the Commonwealth Employment Service in endeavouring to provide the jobs that are so urgently needed by people in this country. It serves as a medium by which they can be placed in employment. A point that I think needs stressing is that the Commonwealth Employment Service is not just an avenue through which people can find work- that is one of its functions- but it also directs itself to finding the type of employee suited to the work that the employer offers. That is one of the important factors in enabling our unemployment figures to be brought down. If people are placed in occupations in which they have had experience or have a general capacity to cope with the requirements they are more likely to stay employed. They are more likely to give a degree of satisfaction and contribute to the enterprise in which they are engaged and so become more permanently established in that particular job.

Despite all that has been said in this debate about the restructuring of our Commonwealth Employment Service, about the advances that have been made and about the need for those advances, what must be constantly borne in mind- I recognise that the Minister made this point in his second reading speech- is the need for stability in the economy. It is of vital necessity to have a sound base for the provision and continuation of employment opportunities. Without that, all the most modern types of employment services cannot cope. It is within the private sector that some 75 per cent of job opportunities are available now. It is that factor, too, which aids the building of a sound economy.

I heard tonight of the need for funds to be made available for direct employment. That can be done and I am not denying that there is some place for it. But the basis of defeating the unemployment problem, the basis of getting the figures down and keeping them down, is a stable and prosperous economy. That can be achieved only if we defeat inflation. Despite the criticism of too much stress being placed on our counter inflationary measures, the fact is that under the present system we are moving into a position where more confidence will be instilled into the business community. That is the way by which we will get expansion and, through that expansion, will be provided with those job opportunities that are so earnestly desired in this country and which we so sorely need.

There are one or two factors to which I want to refer. They relate to my own particular area and similar areas and maybe also to other areas. It is something which I have come across and which I think is worth stressing. Due, to some extent at any rate, to unfavourable seasonal conditions and to low world prices prevailing in relation to primary industry in particular, there has developed a need for a new category of support for people on nil or very low incomes. This is becoming increasingly important. I refer to the landholder who, although presently in need of support, wants to remain on his farm or property and prepare land for crops or look after stock. If the crops are successful if the stock can be maintained and if those people can be carried overthere are a lot of ‘ifs’, but surely we can expect that prices will improve- those people will become self-reliant and will go off the labour market. Unless something of that nature is provided they will have to get out. They will not be able to remain and look after their interests but will have to move out and go on to the labour market. If they are capable of handling jobs, as many of them are, they will take jobs that should be available to other people. This matter should be looked at very carefully. Those types of people are presently entitled to register for unemployment benefits and if work is found for them they have to take it. That is understood, and I accept it. But the fact is that if they do that, as I have mentioned, they have to forgo the income which they have been trying to live on and which no doubt in the future, on the law of averages, will increase.

The household support scheme introduced by the Government goes some way towards coping with that situation, but it has its limitations. If a person looks to benefit through that scheme he has first of all to agree that he will phase himself out of primary industry. If he has not done that after six months, the money that he has received becomes a loan. That problem in itself is not impossible to overcome and in some instances it has been done. But the scheme is not working in the way that it ought to work. It is not doing the job that I believe it was intended to do. I urge the Minister and the Government to look at this situation. Perhaps the Minister, in conjunction with the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) or the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), could consider the possibility of preventing further unemployment through a scheme of that kind. I believe it would be well justified and I hope that the matter will be taken seriously. I have discussed such a scheme with other Ministers and I believe that there is a great need for it. It is becoming more apparent as time goes on that that sort of benefit, if it were to be provided, would be very worthwhile. In that way we would be able to keep people off the labour market, and it is just as important that they be kept off the labour market in the first place as it is to provide them with employment if they have to leave the land.

Mr Bourchier:

– A great speech.

Mr CORBETT:

– I think the honourable member is a very good judge and I commend his judgment. The Minister mentioned in his second reading speech the desire to have a decentralised Commonwealth Employment Service. I commend him for that, but I suggest that the CES offices should be located in a greater number of country towns. In some areas there is a long distance between the offices and in those places agencies are endeavouring to cope with the situation. If we had more Commonwealth Employment Service offices in our rural towns they would serve a dual purpose. The people in the area would get the benefit of qualified people assisting them to obtain employment, and many of the CES officers are doing a great job. We would also be able to keep the people in the towns. The establishment of more offices would serve the dual purpose of providing a decentralised scheme and contributing to decentralisation generally. This is a very serious problem that is affecting this nation greatly. I regret that it has not been possible to overcome the problem more rapidly, but I trust that the Government will continue to pursue the sort of economic strategy that it has been pursuing. I am sure that through that strategy and through that alone we will be able to return to the sort of employment figures that we deserve to have. The previous Government embarked on a scheme of providing direct employment but it did not work. It might have worked for a while but there was no continuity or final security. The first thing we have to do- the Government is attempting to do it- is to get our inflation trend even further down. Through that and through other measures that we are providing- export incentives and these sorts of measures- we will have a greater final and continuing effect on unemployment than will any much more costly effort made by providing more and more funds for direct employment, although, as I have said before, I do not condemn that approach.

I commend the Minister and the Government on the introduction of these Bills. I only hope for the benefit of those people who are looking for and are deserving of employment that this scheme meets with the success that it certainly deserves. I support the Bills.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-I pick up the point made by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) in concluding his speech. The Government is so paranoid about the sacred cow of inflation that it clearly sets aside the issue of unemployment and the way in which people who find themselves in that situation live. The current circumstances of the economy have influenced that action. The Government has no real feeling for people who are unemployed. We hear only huffing and puffing from it. The Opposition has indicated clearly that it has no faith in the legislation. If the legislation were set on its proper course, if the Government were serious about getting the grass roots of this problem and looking at the issue of unemployment, its effects, and the rationalisation of industry together with the co-ordination of education programs for the purpose of achieving rationalisation side by side with retraining, and if the legislation had the scope to deal with population policies, the size and shape of population for the future and where those policies fit in with the immigration program and the availability of employment, we would -

Mr Roger Johnston:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr INNES:

– This is his maiden speech. All we hear from him are interjections -

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

Mr Roger Johnston:

– The honourable member for Melbourne is not talking about the Bill at all, sir.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There is no substance to the point of order. The Minister’s second reading speeches canvass the subject fairly widely.

Mr INNES:

– That is about the limit of the intelligence of the honourable member for Hotham.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will address the Chair.

Mr INNES:

-Can I get through to the honourable member for Hotham the point that it is absolutely necessary that we should seek and find a solution to the whole problem of job creation. I shall deal with that aspect in a few moments.

When the honourable member worked for Containers Ltd, or whatever it was, he saw the issues that were concerned with employment and automation in that industry. That he left the scene because he did not know anything at all about it says little for him. I revert to the point that I was making. If this legislation is to mean anything at all, its scope must be broad enough, must have the machinery, must involve experienced officers and must ensure that the bureaucracy through humbug will not frustrate what necessarily must be done not only now but also in the future.

The amendment moved by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) clearly suggests what is wrong with the legislation. With some exceptions the Opposition agrees with the proposition contained in the Bills and the machinery involved. But the legislation goes a long way further than that. I shall deal with some clauses in the Bills as I go along. Is this legislation once again simply another legislative facade, another cosmetic application of a number of words, that might mean something if the resources were applied? Is it just another exercise of huffing and puffing about people who are unemployed in this country now? If the Government proceeds to apply in the August Budget, a strategy similar to that which it has applied in the past, we will be looking at further increases in unemployment and further increases in the level of those permanently unemployed. The Bill is of such a critical nature that it needs to be examined very closely to see where the weaknesses he. The amendment which has been moved by the Opposition will have the effect of adding at the end of the motion for the second reading of the Bill these words: whilst not opposing the second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Commonwealth Employment Service as envisaged under this legislation would be grossly inadequate as a vehicle for an effective manpower policy.

When we talk about a manpower policy, we are not just talking about going through the exercise of talking to people about their job prospects. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) went through an exercise just before the last election. He talked about jobs and the processes available but jobs are not available. It was a complete farce which led people up the garden path. The Government has set up a Community Youth Support scheme. I am not entirely opposed to that scheme because at least it keeps some young people off the streets. It is supposed to get them job-motivated. Some of the kids in my electorate of Melbourne, aborigines, women who would like to enter the workforce and disadvantaged groups could become as job motivated as the Government likes but there still will not be jobs available for them unless we have a concerted manpower policy which creates jobs and which runs parallel with the schemes which are envisaged. Once again I put it to the Minister that any scheme of this nature must fall to the ground without such a policy.

Let us examine some of the issues involved and the extent of the problem. Hopefully honourable members on the Government benches appreciate the extent of the problem. Let us look at the figures in relation to disadvantaged youth, particularly females. According to the Austraiian Bureau of Statistics the unemployment rate for disadvantaged youth stands at 7.4 per cent of the total labour force, whilst according to the Commonwealth Employment Service it stands at 6.7 per cent. Those figures are appalling. The level of youth unemployment is worsening and is particularly bad in relation to young women, especially those born overseas. A paper produced by the Working Women’s Centre of Collins Street, Melbourne, discusses the situation. It outlines the grave difficulties being faced, particularly by people born in Australia in the age groups between IS and 19 years and 20 years and over, The figures provided by the Working Women’s Centre show that unemployed males in the first group represent 14.5 per cent of the work force, unemployed females represent 16.4 per cent of the labour force, and the total represents 15.4 per cent of the labour force. In the 20 and over age group, 2.9 per cent of males are unemployed, 4.5 per cent of females, and the total of the two represents 3.5 per cent of the labour force. We should examine carefully the figures relating to people who are in that category, particularly the female population. As I read the Bill, it talks about disadvantaged groups but women do not rate a mention. I could be corrected in that regard. Clause 6 (a) (ii) does not mention females.

Mr Hodgman:

– Under the Acts Interpretation Act they are included anyway.

Mr INNES:

– We have another legal eagle giving all the advice about the place, and generally it is all bad advice.

Mr Hodgman:

– I was only trying to help you.

Mr INNES:

– Who needs help from people like the honourable member for Denison when we have enemies all over the place? The point I am making relates to disadvantaged groups, women in particular. One can realise their situation if one examines the statistics and then looks at the problems that confront women in the work force. I am concerned about families who in the past have relied on the additional contribution of the woman in the work force. Surely to God, if we have a manpower policy then the advisory committees about which we are talking ought to include women to specifically represent the -

Mr Street:

– Do you not know about our Women’s Bureau?

Mr INNES:

– Your Women’s Bureau? My God, here we go again. That is about as effective as some of the other organisations the Government has set up. You are only giving Up service and indulging in a charade to overcome the weakness of your own position. The major reason for the high unemployment figures among young women is their lack of education and training. Fewer women than men in the work force hold qualifications. The 1971 census revealed that 80.7 per cent of women, compared with only 67.5 per cent of men had no qualifications; that only 1.9 per cent of women, compared with 20.3 per cent of men, held trade level qualifications. In addition, 94.6 per cent of the women employed as trade production process workers and labourers, as compared with 60.2 per cent of men in that field had no qualifications.

The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Roger Johnston) took the point that it was not relevant to look at the size and shape of the population. I would like to quote a statement by Dr Birrell, who is acknowledged as an authority on long term prospects for employment. He refers to the Green Paper that followed the Borrie report, and is critical of the immigration program, of the ideological commitment of the Liberal Party to pursue population growth policies. He calculates that between now and 198 1, a total of between 850,000 and 900,000 people, over and above those currently employed can be expected to be looking for jobs. Having examined the employment prospects in the government, manufacturing and tertiary areas, he goes on to say:

The overall conclusion has to be that when taking all three employment sectors into account there is no prospect of job creation in Australia sufficient to absorb the 900,000 potential workers available between 1976 and 1981, and every prospect of unemployment worsening.

If that is the case, unless you are going to have a manpower policy that is going to deal with such things as retraining and the possibilities of job creation you will be indulging once again in a cosmetic exercise. That is the truth.

Mr Hodgman:

– It is not true at all.

Mr INNES:

– It is true. The Government must do something to train and retrain people, to lay down a program for them from their development in school- until they enter areas of training- to accommodate the shortfall in technical fields. Unless we do that we have to confront a situation in which people will have to be retrained three or four times in their working life. The philosophy of the Government parties is to condition people’s minds to accept as the norm around 200,000 unemployed. In the manufacturing industry, according to the assessment by the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, about 120,000 jobs have disappeared already. Therefore, training and retraining are absolutely imperative. However, there is no specific government program directed to that end. Such a program would necessitate the involvement of other departments. There are key areas in respect of which consultation will be needed if such a program is to be laid down.

I have dealt very briefly with the area of women’s unemployment. There is not sufficient time to treat it more fully. The Working Women’s Charter Conference of the Australian Council of Trade Unions called for affiliates involved in traditionally male preserves to encourage women to move into trade and technical training in those areas. No doubt that is one of the matters that will be pursued by the ACTU. Once again, if the resources are not there to carry that through to its logical conclusion it tends to shut off another alternative so far as females are concerned. The report of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty and Education 1976 stated:

Females constitute the largest single group of disadvantaged persons in Australia. Their life chances are likely to be more limited than those of males due to low expectations and restricted scope for employment. The disadvantages suffered tend to become more and more cumulative with low skilled fathers and rural residences. It is also apparent that mothers tend to transfer their low expectations on to their daughters; in other words strong cultural forces operate in Australian society to keep many women in subservient roles.

People who are authorities on the matter- not like the honourable member for Denison who is an empty head- say that there will have to be a dramatic change in the policy of the Minister, as announced in this second reading speech, to accommodate the continuing problems involved.

I shall deal now with the difficulties and the problems faced by Aboriginals. This is one of the handicapped areas. Under the Queensland Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Act 1971 all persons employed on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island reserves are paid a training allowance. Wages paid range from $10 to $20 a week for juniors and from $60 to $70 a week for adults. The amount paid is always less than the basic wage and, in most cases, it is less than the unemployment benefit. In some Aboriginal communities the Federal Government has established a scheme known as the Community Employment Development Project which the community administers. Basically, amounts paid under the scheme roughly equate with the amount which is paid to eligible members of the community in unemployment benefit.

It is estimated that at least 40 per cent of the Aboriginal work force is registered as unemployed. Because of the complexity of the system many do not register for social security payments. These figures- the official version- are often misleading. It is possible that up to 70 per cent of the Aboriginal work force is unemployed. In some communities that figure is 90 per cent. I venture to say that in the electorate of Melbourne about 90 per cent or more of the Aboriginal community would be unemployed. The introduction of this legislation pays lip service to a situation which warrants far more direct and positive action. There is machinery available, but we are going through another exercise. This is like a number of other schemes. If it does nothing to train and re-train and to create job opportunities which are not available at present then the whole scheme is a facade, as I have pointed out.

Mr Hodgman:

– Do you not have a Community Youth Support scheme in your electorate?

Mr INNES:

– I have already indicated that that great scheme has not created one position. It has not created one job. What has happened is that people outside the scheme are specifically instructed that the philosophy of job creation is not the fundamental issue. There is plenty of evidence around to show that. We talk about preparing people for the work force, but we do not give any thought to possible changes in the mode of employment. We do not talk about lowering the hours of labour in order to make other job opportunities available. We do not talk about creating a situation under which a greater spread of people in the work force might be given further opportunities. No, because the economy will be affected by any move in that direction. The Minister acknowledges that. He could not care less whether 500,000 or 600,000 were unemployed, provided he got the inflation rate down by 1 per cent. There could be a million unemployed as far as he is concerned.

Unemployment continues to grow and every authority in this country has indicated that it will worsen in the future. What the Government has come along with is the grandiose scheme which is enshrined in this legislation and which provides for certain situations, but unless this grandiose scheme is provided with the resources it needs and unless the terms of reference of the advisory committee are extended to cover a whole range of areas of job availability for the future, the scheme will matter for nothing. There is no manpower policy involved in it. The report that has been bandied about today is once again a very fine report, but if the principles set out in it are not carried out to the letter the Norgard report will suffer the same fate as the Nimmo report.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member’s time has expired.

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

– in reply- I shall attempt to make some comments on the various speeches that have been made in this debate. The honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) led for the Opposition. The first point he made was that more resources should be provided for the upgrading of the Commonwealth Employment Service. I remind the honourable member that during the three years that his Government was in office it did nothing, absolutely nothing, to review the operations of the CES or to upgrade the services it provided. All that was done by this Government. The review was commissioned of and carried out by Mr J. D. Norgard and that resulted in a report which has received wide and favourable comment. I would like to make it clear that in accepting the major recommendations of the Norgard report the Government has publicly committed itself, through the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and me, to an expenditure of $16m over the next five years. That is $16m more than the Labor Government provided because it provided nothing- absolutely nothing.

The honourable member for Port Adelaide also made reference to the statutory authority referred to in the Norgard report. The Government decided against having such an authority. The structure now proposed will enable the CES to carry out the functions envisaged by the Norgard report. As usual, the Opposition seems to believe that we can solve all problems by setting up a statutory authority. I merely reiterate that that is not the attitude of this Government. I considered it the height of irony when the honourable member for Port Adelaide criticised the manpower programs of the present Government.

Mr Innes:

– You have not got one.

Mr STREET:

– Just wait a minute. I point out that this Government has done more in this area than any other government, particularly that of his own Party. Just listen to these figures. The number of people involved in the National Employment and Training scheme when we came to government was 7,700. The latest figure I have is that there are now 36,000 people involved in that scheme. A total of 94,000 people have now gained a skill which they did not have before this Government came to office. The Special Youth Employment Training scheme did not exist when the Australian Labor Party was in power. At the moment 23,000 young people are gaining skills under that scheme.

Mr Innes:

– Rubbish!

Mr STREET:

– Does the honourable member challenge those figures?

Mr Innes:

– Yes. You are talking about people getting a job.

Mr STREET:

– I am talking about them getting a skill which they did not have before. It was an opportunity they would not have had but for this Government. So far 40,000 young people have received assistance under that scheme. The Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Fulltime Training scheme was a totally new initiative of this Government. The intake of apprentices last year into that scheme was up by about 8 per cent and so far this year the figures are looking equally encouraging. There was no Community Youth Support scheme when we came to government and at the moment there are 31,500 young people participating in it. Since its introduction over 44,000 people have participated in it.

Mr Innes:

– How many jobs have you found?

Mr STREET:

– I have been waiting for that interjection. If the honourable member had taken the trouble to look at the better and more successful CYSS projects he would have found that in the better ones over 50 per cent of the young people participating in them get permanent employment while participating. I am sorry that he has not taken the trouble to inform himself better.

Mr Innes:

– They are filling in time waiting for jobs.

Mr STREET:

– Will you stop him, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson) - Order! The honourable member should realise that interjections are out of order.

Mr Innes:

– With all due respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister is being provocative and he has been directing his remarks to me when he ought to have been directing them through the Chair.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr STREET:

– I am sick and tired of him. He has had his go.

Mr Innes:

– And I am sick and tired of you too, misleading the people.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order.

Mr STREET:

– I ask for a retraction of that.

Mr Innes:

– Who is sick and tired of whom?

Mr STREET:

– I said: ‘I ask for a retraction of the statement that I was misleading the House’.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Minister has asked for a retraction of the words that the Minister is misleading the House.

Mr Innes:

– I do not propose to withdraw them.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member should realise that the Standing Orders provide that in those circumstances he should withdraw.

Mr Innes:

– With all due deference to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will withdraw, but I also ask the Minister to withdraw what he said as it is offensive to me.

Mr STREET:

– What was that?

Mr Innes:

– That you are sick and tired of me. That is offensive to me because I happen to be sick and tired of the Minister.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. In view of the honourable member’s request, I ask the Minister to withdraw those words.

Mr STREET:

– If the honourable member is so sensitive that he finds that offensive I will withdraw it. I now come to the question of the National Director of the Commonwealth Employment Service who will have, as is pointed out in the legislation and in the second reading speech, a considerable degree of independence in administering and implementing the CES functions. Let me give a specific answer to a question raised by the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) who asked whether policy, as distinct from administration and implementation, would be in the hands of the CES. I make it quite clear that the policy remains, as it should remain, in the hands of the Minister and his Department.

Amongst the special responsibilities of the CES will be the groups which for one reason or another are disadvantaged in the labour market. They are Aboriginals- I will be having more to say about them- migrants and young people, just to mention a few. Several honourable members have referred to the situation of women. The Government supports, as it always has supported, the principle of equal pay and the policy of non-discrimination. Through the very successful national and State discrimination committees, the role of women in the work force has been significantly protected. Also the advisory committees referred to in the legislation will encourage interested groups and parties to participate in the work of the CES.

But in a wider context I reiterate that the solution to unemployment will depend ultimately on reducing inflation and restoring the proper balance between wages and profits- in other words, the proper management of our national economic affairs. To assist in a better understanding of the manpower policy and requirements, the Government set up the Williams Committee into the relationship between education and training and the Crawford study into structural adjustment of industry. There is also the IMPACT project designed to give us more information on medium and longer term manpower requirements.

I compliment the honourable member for Casey (Mr Falconer) on a very constructive speech. I agree with him on the benefits to job seekers of competition in the market place between those in the business of placing people in employment. Obviously the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West) has not informed himself adequately on this subject or on the content of the BUI. I draw his attention to a statement I made at the start of my speech, that the Government has committed itself to a program of $ 1 6m over four years in the CES area.

The honourable member for Cunningham made an extraordinary statement that employers should be criticised for not taking on more people. I point out to him and to his colleagues on the other side of the House that members of the Australian Labor Party were directly responsible through their gross irresponsibility in government and through the wages explosion of 1974 over which they presided for putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work. By refusing to support the Government’s policies of wage restraint they are making it more and more difficult for those presently unemployed to get work.

The honourable member also talked in a totally uninformed way about the need for apprenticeship assistance. The honourable member clearly does not know about the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprenticeship Full-time Training scheme, known as the CRAFT scheme. I repeat what I said earlier, that this scheme worked out in conjuction with the State governments, employers and the unions has already resulted in a substantial increase in the apprentice intake.

The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) deserves the thanks of the House for setting out so clearly the wide range of Government manpower programs. He also devoted a considerable part of his speech to the very important area of Aboriginal employment. I would like to tell him and the House of the action taken in that respect since the Norgard report was presented. There has been a substantial increase in resources, both financial and physical, to the area of Aboriginal employment. There have been more funds provided for travel, more Aboriginal vocational officers and a significant upgrading of this section within the Department itself.

The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) referred to the very real difficulties of people in country areas, particularly those engaged in primary industry. The Government has acknowledged these special problems and has made provision for them. The honourable member also referred to the need for more Commonwealth Employment Service offices in country towns. I would like to expand that number, of course, as soon as possible and that will be done as finances allow. I take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the many CES agencies in country towns and districts throughout Australia. These agencies provide a most useful service, often under very difficult conditions.

I regret to say that the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) made a very negative speech. I remind him, as I have reminded the honourable member for Port Adelaide, that his Government did nothing for our national employment service. This Government has committed itself to a major improvement of the service which will be to the mutual advantage of those looking for labour and those looking for jobs.

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 Street) read a third time.

page 2294

RE-ESTABLISMENT AND EMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 5 May, on motion by Mr Street:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2294

QUESTION

SHIPPING FREIGHTS

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the Chair to correct an answer to a question that I gave in the House today.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson) - The Minister may proceed.

Mr NIXON:

– Today I replied to a question by the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) regarding the Australian Wool Corporation ‘s shipping arrangements to North America. I regret that I misheard the honourable member’s question and gave him information on a related matter. I had been advised that the Australian Wool Corporation had negotiated a 9.5 per cent increase in freight rates with the Australian-eastern United States of America Conference for pre-dumped greasy wool in parcel shipments of 5,000 bales or more for the 12 months from 1 August 1978 to 31 July 1979. The increase in 1978 negotiated by the Australian Shippers Council was 9.5 per cent for cargo other than wool and meat. In relation to these negotiations my answer was correct. However, the honourable member’s question related to a proposed shipment of wool at rates considerably below prevailing conference rates. I have no knowledge of any such proposals, but I shall have the matter examined.

page 2294

FISHERIES AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 3 April, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation.

Before the debate on this Bill is resumed I should like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Amendment Bill and the Whaling Amendment Bill as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the three Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– (Hon. Ian Robinson) -Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the three measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– This is a cognate debate involving three measures- the Fisheries Amendment Bill, the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Amendment Bill and the Whaling Amendment Bill. The Opposition indicates at the outset that in respect of” the Fisheries Amendment Bill we intend to move at the appropriate time an amendment in the terms circulated. Honourable members will notice that we do not intend to oppose the second reading of that Bill but we will suggest another matter. Also, we do not intend to oppose the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Amendment Bill. We will move at the appropriate time an amendment in the terms circulated to the Whaling Amendment Bill.

The Fisheries Amendment Bill, as outlined by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) when introducing the Bill, is a very important piece of legislation. It extends the jurisdiction of the Australian Government to an area 200 miles from the Australian territorial limits. The interesting point about that, and on which I propose to elaborate, is what exactly we mean in legal terms when we talk about territorial limits. Dealing with it in the context of what the legislation intends, it means that Australia would have control of its own fishing resources in respect of that area. This is a somewhat recent extension of Australian jurisdiction. It is a most welcome and a most important extension. We know, of course, that the Government had signalled its intention in this regard. These matters have been the subject of international discussion and agreement. It is well known that nations are very interested in maintaining control of the waters adjacent to their territory. This has been indicated in recent years by the fact that a number of major countries- including the United States, Japan, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, New Zealand, Canada and the member countries of the European Economic Community- have extended their fishing jurisdiction to this extent. All those major countries are already utilising their control over those areas of the sea.

We wish to emphasise certain matters. For example, we note what has been said about the need to keep a realistic assessment of the amount of fish which is taken from the waters. But we note that at the present time we are not aware of the quantity of fish that has been taken from the waters. Feasibility fishing operations should begin immediately. Obviously foreign fishermen are engaged and have been engaged for some time in both feasibility fishing and actual fishing. Under the legislation it is proposed that foreign fishermen will be required to provide information on fishery resources. We claim that this information should be sought immediately and in advance of any proclamation. Fishermen who want licences pursuant to the legislation ought to be able to furnish that information.

We repeat that exploratory fishing or feasibility fishing licences should be undertaken with restraint and we should keep in mind what Australians need to do in their own interests. In other words, we do not want too much pressure to be imposed on the fish resources. We do not want to convert exploration to exploitation. I repeat that, in spite of reservations about our fish resources, it is clear that there will be quite extensive opportunities for large investments. We hope that that investment in the fishing industry will be undertaken by Australians. What we need is a clear policy- a set of guidelines- to indicate to our fishermen what they can do either on their own initiative or by way of a joint venture.

It is recognised that throughout the world there has been rapid development of fishing resources. Large investments have been made by other countries in that type of market. Of course, in exploiting fishing resources we can perhaps overlook the problems of market forces. There could well be significant shifts in international markets. We do not want to see a situation in which, through massive investment in the fishing industry, the market becomes somewhat overburdened and the industry is destroyed. In other words, we do not want to have exploitation to the extent that our fishing resources and marketing efficiency are damaged. This has happened already in some areas, particularly in the beef market. I think it is very important then, when we are talking about control and licensing, that we look at the guidelines which I think were established at the time of the introduction of the previous legislation.

It is important that we look at joint venture guidelines and at our resources and to develop our resources. It is essential that we have feasibility surveys and it is most important that we have market surveys. The Opposition wants to see Australian ownership to its maximum advantage. We do not want to see anybody else being able to come in and utilise our resources. Might I say that at the present time anybody who takes even a slight interest in fishing is of the opinion that at times there is a fair amount of illegal penetration into our fishing waters, over which we are not able to have adequate surveillance. We want to be able to control those matters.

I am reminded that, for example, there are very lucrative operations of which we should be availing ourselves. It has been pointed out to me that the Japanese long line fishermen have an extremely lucrative enterprise fishing the southern bluefin tuna, whereas with the difficulties of Australia’s limitation, particularly with respect to fishing vessels, our operations are usually limited to within SO miles of the coast and we catch a somewhat different type of fish. I am told that juvenile tuna bring us perhaps $500 a tonne. The Japanese, with their skill, their expertise and their government backing, are able to operate further out. They catch much bigger tuna, for which they receive, I am amazed to learn, $4,000 a tonne on the lucrative Japanese sashimi, or raw fish, market. The Japanese, I am also reminded, operate a fleet of 350 vessels within and outside the 200-mUe limit which nets them 50,000 to 60,000 tonnes of bluefin tuna a year. The Aus.tralian catch currently fluctuates around a mere 10,000 tonnes.

It is also worth noting that at the present time we import, I think, some $70m worth offish. Yet in our view our fishing resources are very ample indeed. The difficulty is that Australia does not have the ability to exploit those resources the way other countries are now doing. Investment by foreign fishing companies for exploitation ought to be seen as an equivalent to foreign investment in any resource extraction industry in Australia. This means that we would expect a policy to require Australian participation in foreign fishery activities in the area. It is for that reason that we Will move the amendment which has been circulated which, in part, states: whilst not opposing the Bill, the House calls upon the Government to ensure that the guidelines determined by the Australian Fisheries Council in January 1977, to control foreign participation and give first priority to the local industry, are strictly observed.

We will be moving that amendment at the appropriate time. We want a spelling out of the policies in these areas. This matter is urgent because the legislation is before us. It is an essential requirement before we commence work to implement that legislation.

The Minister referred to the problem of sur.veillance and we are awaiting the Government’s review. The proposals reflecting conventional Service judgments and preoccupation with big ships and so on Will not necessarily be acceptable. Our resources for defence and surveillance run only so far. Up to the present time not too much has gone into the small number of highly priced items and not enough into the large number of the lower priced items that are involved. We are going to have to cut back in some other areas of the Services in order to meet our requirements in spending.

The BUI does not contain any jurisdiction to control pollution by tankers or other ships within the zone but that is obviously implied by our obligation, surely, to protect and to sustain our fish stocks within that zone. Other countries at present are addressing their minds to this problem and we ought to be doing that now. We should not be waiting for a disaster to overtake us. There is the Law of the Sea Conference but it is not altogether acceptable to say that such action must be delayed because it would prejudice the Conference. We are a little concerned about that particular Conference. We have heard frequently that there Will be most complex and difficult political, economic and legal exercises undertaken but let us put it on record that it also seems to be one of the slowest conferences ever and it seems to be failing. It may not be enjoying the success it deserves. We can go so far but we must also expect governments to consider necessary means to protect national interests now and in the event of the Conference failing which will not, in any case, come in one blow but over a period of time. Time already might be running against us.

I should like now to turn to some of the legal problems that are created by this type of legislation. I draw the attention of the House to what is deemed to be a definition of an Australian fishing zone. If we want to find out what the zone means we find that it means waters adjacent to Australia. Then we have to work out what type of water we have and where we commence the calculation. We see that it is the baseline by reference to which the territorial limits of Australia are defined. This is an interesting exercise. I am pleased to see that the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) is in the chamber now. He would be well aware of the situation. One of the matters that surprised lawyers in Australia was the Privy

Council’s recent venture into this area despite our view that our High Court had the ability, which it has, to determine all these matters. There was a recent decision by the Privy Council.

Mr Ellicott:

– Get the Labor States to abolish it.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-That is an excellent idea. My learned friend is asking the States to abolish appeals to the Privy Council. He knows our attitude on that. He knows the difficulties we ran into when we were trying to do the same thing. However, I should like to press my point. If we were to apply to this Bill the reasoning that the Privy Council applied in deciding that case, it would mean that clauses 13 to 23 of the Bill were beyond the constitutional powers of the national Government. I think that that must surprise people. I am referring to the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Oteri and Oteri v. the Queen. The case involved two Western Australians who were charged with having stolen crayfish, pots and tackle on the high seas 22 miles off the Western Australian coast. The distance of 22 miles is significant. The Privy Council did not even mention the decision of the High Court of Australia in the case of Bonser v. La Macchia which, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, was a New South Wales action. In that case, the High Court clearly implied and subsequently established by another case that the Australian Government had jurisdiction that distance from the land. As I say, that was confirmed in the case involving the seas and submerged lands legislation.

The extraordinary feature of the decision of the Privy Council was that it made no reference to the decisions of the High Court, nor did it make any reference to the fact that this Parliament had passed the seas and submerged lands legislation. The Privy Council solemnly decided that the best it could say was that the legislative power of the Commonwealth of Australia did not extend to criminal law. We do not accept that situation.

Mr Ellicott:

– That is not right.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-That is what they said.

Mr Ellicott:

– But it is not right.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-No, it is not right but it is the position the Privy Council adopted. No doubt, my learned friend will be able to talk about this later. But in my view and in the view of the Opposition, it is incredible that the judges of the Privy Council- Lord Diplock, Lord Hailsham and Viscount Dilhorne- could have shown such appalling ignorance of the Australian law.

Mr Shipton:

– Who are they?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-That is right. Who are they? They might be migrants so far as we are concerned. As I say, if they were correct it would mean that half of this Act is invalid. Of course, they were not correct.

Mr Ellicott:

– You have not read what they said. But under the Statute of Westminster we can ignore that.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The Minister for Home Affairs is interjecting. I have read the case of Oteri in which the judges of the Privy Council make no reference to the Australian Act. They make no reference to the decisions of the High Court and they applied some ancient British law which deemed this act to be theft on the high seas. The point I want to make is this -

Mr Ellicott:

– But under the Statute of Westminster we can ignore that. We have not done that. Do you follow?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I do not want to agree with the Minister at this stage. I would think that this case ought to instil into us a sense of urgency about this matter, with which I hope my learned friend would agree, in connection with the abolition of the by-pass route used by State courts to go to the Privy Council. There are constitutional difficulties involved but the problem is not insurmountable. I suggest to those State Premiers who are opposed to the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council, notably the Premiers of Queensland and Western Australia, that they read the position closely.

In the view of the Opposition, this legislation is valid. It is not based on the external affairs power as was the Seas and Submerged Lands Act. The basis of that Act is the Australian Constitution itself. Section 5 1 (x) of the Constitution states in specific terms that the Commonwealth has power to legislate with respect to fisheries into Australian waters beyond territorial limits. That is where we come into some difficulty. There is some doubt about whether the term ‘territorial limits’ applies to a State, Commonwealth or imperial territorial limits. But this legislation proceeds on the basis that it means Australian territorial limits which makes the argument about whether it is State, territory or imperial territorial limit somewhat academic. The legislation might not be able to be based soundly on the external affairs power as there is no international covenant applicable.

The proposed new section 4 is to be amended by inserting a definition of the term ‘Australian fishing waters’. The present term is somewhat ambiguous. It defines the inner limits of the fishing zone as being the base lines to which the territorial limits of Australia are defined for the purpose of international law. Article 1 of the convention of the territorial sea and the contiguous zone provides that the sovereignty of the State extends beyond its land territory and its international waters to a belt of sea adjacent to its coast described as the territorial sea. In other words we could say that the territorial limits of the country extend to the outer limits of the territorial sea. That is what one might expect from the words ‘territorial sea’. However, this raises a difficulty because in the case involving the Seas and Submerged Lands Act members of the High Court approached the matter on a different basis. Lord Macnaughtens dictum was that the territorial waters of Muscat were ‘as much a part of the Sultan’s dominions as the land over which he exercises absolute and unquestioned sway’. Sir Garfield Barwick said, in the course of that case, that Lord Macnaughtens expression did not support the submission that territorial waters are an extension of the territory of the coastal state.

The reasoning of Mr Justice Jacobs and Mr Justice Mason was that the Commonwealth had power under the external affairs power over the territorial sea because it was external to Aus.tralia that is, it was not within the territorial limits. There were two dissenting judges, namely Mr Justice Gibbs and Mr Justice Stephen. They took the view that the territorial sea formed part of Australia but that jurisdiction over that sea belonged to the States. However, I emphasise that those judges were in the minority. Mr Justice McTiernan took a view as to whether there was control by the national Parliament. It was a question of jurisdiction. He said that we did, in fact, have control. He said:

As a whole those regions- that is the territorial sea and the continental shelf- are an appendage of the continent.

His Honour Mr Justice Murphy appeared to take a similar view. One of the grounds of his judgment was that on Federation the Australian States lost any international status which they may have had and the territorial sea became part of the Commonwealth area. Of course, it was not a point for decision as to whether the territorial sea was within the territorial limit of Australia and, therefore, the statements of the High Court at this stage are only obiter dictum. However, we can say that there are clear divisions of opinion, with three judges going one way and four going another.

What the Government appears to have done in this legislation is simply to leave it to the court. It has not defined the territorial limits of Australia. It is simply saying: ‘We will leave it to the High Court. Perhaps it can work it out the next time the matter comes before it’. One might think that there was a justification in that attitude, in view of the differences. However, legislation passed in the Parliament ought to be certain in its terms, particularly legislation of this type. The Government is virtually asking the High Court to do the work for it.

The Whaling Amendment Bill is also the subject of this cognate debate. If we look at the amendments to the Whaling Act we see that they make provision in relation to waters- I emphasise the word ‘waters’- as follows:

  1. within the territorial limits of the Commonwealth or of a Territory; or

    1. within . . . the Australian fishing zone . . .

The interesting thing about the use of the word or’ is that if the fishing zone commences at the low water mark, then the territorial sea and the fishing zone will share a 12-mUe limit. However, the amendments to the Whaling Act seem to proceed on the basis that the territorial limits include the territorial sea and that the fishing zone commences outside that area. So technically we could have a 212-mile extension. As I have already pointed out, this is a view shared by Mr Justice Murphy and Mr Justice McTiernan.

There is also a difficulty, from our point of view, with clause 8 of the Fisheries Amendment BUI which provides that certain waters which have been proclaimed to be waters to which the Act applies may be excepted by a further proclamation. The Minister’s second reading speech leaves us in the dark as to the reason for this provision. If in fact we have jurisdiction over the whole of the zone for 200 miles, and if the purpose of the Act is to give certain fishing licences or certain rights, we would surely still have jurisdiction over the residue. It is somewhat mystifying to find that we would be excepting an area of sea. We seem to be excepting it altogether from any jurisdiction. There would be no need to except it, because if a licence were issued in respect of the areas that we want to use the residue would be there under our own jurisdiction. This raises the question that if we except it, are we taking it out of our jurisdiction altogether; are we losing control? The Minister made this ambiguous statement:

The concept of excepted waters provides the Government with the flexibility to delay or exclude the establishment of the Australian fishing zone in certain areas. In such cases, the proclamation may provide for continuation of the existing jurisdiction in the specified area.

I make the point that that does not seem to convey any benefit by way of explanation. It means nothing. We have a situation where waters will be proclaimed to be waters to which Australia’s jurisdiction will apply- that is what this is all about, and I am saying that that would cover the whole of the sea in question- and then a later proclamation that Australia’s jurisdiction is not to apply. The Opposition does not follow that. We do not follow why the Government would want to be accepting that position. Apart from the fact that it seems to be ridiculous, a more important consideration is involved. Clause 8 gives the Government a wide, in fact unlimited, discretionary power the purpose of which is explained neither in the legislation nor in the Minister’s second reading speech. We would therefore like the Minister to provide us with real reasons for the insertion of this provision.

The second matter, which is of no real contention, is the amendment to the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act. The amendment will close a loophole by which people could escape conviction by claiming that they had removed what are called sedentary organisms on the basis that they were for their own use. That is usually done by fishermen claiming that the organisms were removed to provide food for their crew or their families. The onus of proving the removal was with the prosecution, but this legislation reverses that and provides that from now on the onus will be on the people who have removed the organisms to justify having in their possession these types of fishing resources. The Opposition takes the view that even though the onus is reversed it appears to be justified in this case and does not constitute any infringement of civil liberties.

I deal now with the third measure, which is an amendment to the Whaling Act to extend the Australian Government’s jurisdiction to the resources of whaling. This matter has been of great concern to the Australian nation and was the subject of keen discussion during the last election. I understand that a poll conducted as recently as December indicated that no less than 66 per cent of Australians believe that the killing of whales should stop, and I think many of us would share that view. We recognise the connection between what might be done by Australia and what needs to be done throughout the world to conserve the whale species. Nevertheless, we must have regard for the fact that there is a wide and influential body of international opinion that regards Australia as being one of the few countries which continues to endanger the whale. The Opposition is glad that the Government has established an inquiry into whales and whaling. We note that the inquiry will not begin hearings until August. We hope that does not mean that the inquiry will not actively pursue its investigations in the meantime. In fact, we hope that there will be an early report. The inquiry’s terms of reference include an examination of the consequences for Australian employment and industrial development. That needs to be much more precise and positive. The Opposition proposes to move an amendment, which I have already foreshadowed, in these terms: the House calls upon the Government to alter the Frost Royal Commission terms of reference, requiring the Commission to submit positive proposals to guarantee increased marine resources employment in the Albany region, prior to declaring a moratorium on whaling.

Mr Cotter:

– You could not do that in legislation.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– Yes, you could do it very easily. My time is running out. However, for the benefit of the honourable member who interjected, I was referring not to legislation but to the terms of reference of an inquiry.

Mr Cotter:

– But you were talking about amending the Bill.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-No, I was not. I will read it again to the honourable member. He must be getting a bit deaf this evening. The amendment calls upon the Government to alter the terms of reference of the Frost Royal Commission. I hope the honourable member understands that. I do not have enough time to discuss minor matters, such as his deafness.

The extension of the Australian fisheries jurisdiction provides an excellent opportunity for a review of alternate marine source activities based at Albany where Australia’s sole whaling operation, the Cheynes Beach Whaling Co., is established. We are pleased that this company was able to achieve some improvement in profitability and we are concerned that whatever is done in relation to whaling should have regard for that company and its employees. If the Government fails to respond it will be because once again it is maintaining artificial and damaging views on the separation of the public and private sectors. As I said, the extension of the fisheries zone provides a great help for adjustment. We hope that in considering the granting of fishing licences in areas adjacent to Albany the Government will leave room for adjustment of Cheynes Beach whaling activities into fishing resources if that should be the recommendation of the royal commission. In other words, in our view that company ought to be given priority in respect of that area.

It is not clear to the Opposition why the Government has proceeded as it has to recognise the status of the International Whaling Convention. Undoubtedly there is for the moment some administrative simplicity in simply exempting conventional whaling from the provisions of the Whaling Act. That may be satisfactory for a time while activities in the fisheries zone, by the present agreement, can be carried out only by Australia. The legislation will be inadequate in future if Australia should withdraw from the Convention or if the parties should set quotas to which we are not prepared to adhere. There is no reason why the Government could not do what it wished to now by using the provisions of the Fisheries Act to apply to all the whaling, making such provision as would be consistent with the Convention. The legislation should be reviewed again as quickly as possible after the royal commission reports. That is the Opposition’s case. Because this is a cognate debate, as provided for within the Standing Orders I now move as an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: whilst not opposing the Bill, the House calls upon the Government to ensure that the guidelines determined by the Australian Fisheries Council in January 1 977, to control foreign participation and give first priority to the local industry, are strictly observed ‘.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– (Hon. Ian Robinson)- Is the amendment seconded?

Dr Jenkins:

– Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I second the amendment.

Mr DRUMMOND:
Forrest

– I should like to speak firstly about the Whaling Amendment Bill and particularly comment on the amendment proposed by the Opposition. I think it is noteworthy that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) while speaking on this subject did not even pronounce the name of the town involved as the people in Western Australia do. He called it All-bany; people in Albany or in Western Australia call it Albany. I suggest that he knows as much about the whaling industry as he knows about how to pronounce the name of the town. He may not be aware that a great deal of activity is going on within the fishing industry in the area of Albany. He suggested that just by making another amendment which proposes to guarantee increased marine resources, employment in the Albany region would be improved. He overlooks the fact that today a very large fish factory, supported by three trawlers that have come out from Great Britain, is almost commissioned. That represents a total investment of some $1 1.5 m. This does not necessarily take up the unemployment in this regional town. We cannot say that because we Will do this, therefore the unemployment situation is solved.

In response to the proposed amendment I should like to say a few words about the whaling industry in Western Australia. While the Whaling Amendment Bill may be basically of a technical nature it necessarily raises an issue of basic concern to Albany and the electorate of Forrest. A viable, responsible and vital industry in the town of Albany has come under increasing threat from outside pressure that is well-intended but invariably Ul-informed. I suggest that that is the case with the Australian Labor Party. I remind honourable members that the Cheynes Beach Whaling Company is the second largest single employer of labour in Albany. Of its 105 employees only 10 are engaged on a casual basis. Directly or indirectly over 100 families depend for their livelihood on the whaling industry. If it is forced to close down, there is no absolute guarantee of immediate re-employment of those people.

Another aspect of the fishing industry is the local cannery. It is in some difficulty at the moment. It has been suggested that the anticipated development of deep sea trawling will solve the employment problem. This ignores the essential difference between trawling and whaling. With trawling men can be at sea for up to 50 days, whereas with whaling the catches work on a daily basis. The people of Albany made their feelings very clear when expensively equipped protesters from interstate and from overseas tried to disrupt the whaling operations last year.

On April 24 of this year the Albany Advertiser reported that the Albany Conservation Society had deleted from its platform all reference to the phasing out of whaling, principally because of concern for workers in the Albany region but also perhaps because they live a little closer to it and they understand the proposition that the International Whaling Commission and the whalers put forward. It is unfortunate that other conservation bodies choose to ignore the conservation of jobs. That is an overlooked but vital factor in preserving the quality of life in rural areas. The conservation movement must learn to develop a social conscience. Also it is not helpful to suggest that the Cheynes Beach whaling installation can be converted into a marine laboratory when scientists have declared the site to be unsuitable and when adequate laboratory facilities already exist in Western Australia and throughout Australia generally.

Whilst the importance of whaling to the people of Albany is obvious, the general economic significance of the industry is worthy of comment. The chief products derived from whaling are sperm oil and fish meal. Very little of the animal is wasted. Sperm oil has a vital use in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, and in high temperature/pressure situations it is a necessary additive to fossil fuel oils to produce viscosity. No matter what is said, no other oil is produced which has the range of sperm oil. Some oils produced have one-third of the range, but no other oil produced in the world has the range of sperm oil in pressure/temperature situations. Oil from the jojoba bean is not, for economic reasons, a viable substitute, as stocks will be used rather as a substitute for more expensive materials. As a protein source, whale meal is an important stock and poultry feed supplement, supplying some 10 per cent of Western Australia’s needs. To substitute fish meal would be to divert a valuable food source away from human consumption- an action of questionable morality in an undernourished world.

Despite the validity of these arguments, it would be hard to justify whaling if indeed the operations of the Cheynes Beach company were leading to the destruction of sperm whales as a species. But the facts must be seen in perspective. The company operates under the stringent conditions laid down by the International Whaling Commission, whose very objective is to control over-exploitation of the whale. Endangered species are protected, and other species, notably the sperm whale, are harvested under the principle of maximum sustainable yield. Maximum sustainable yield is related to the number of young males and females which may be taken without preventing the natural increase in the numbers of the species. Whales smaller than 9 metres or larger than 13.6 metres cannot be taken, and are not taken.

Mr Cohen:

– Who polices it?

Mr DRUMMOND:

-International inspectors. At Cheynes Beach whaling station there is a young man from America who is a member of the International Whaling Commission, although America is not a whaling nation. However, the American Department of Agriculture sent an inspector to Albany. He has oversight over everything that is done at the Albany station. The maximum sustainable yield concept protects both young whales and the mature adults of reproductive age. The initial depletion of stocks a generation ago has resulted in larger food reserves, which in turn has resulted in more rapid reproduction and maturity, with more young animals entering the population. It is worth noting also that the harvesting of more numerous species assists depleted and endangered varieties by reducing pressure on food resources.

The main purpose of the Bill is to enable the Commonwealth Government to police the conventions of the International Whaling Commission within the new 200-mile fishing zone. It therefore enables Australia to play its full part in a process of responsible environment management. Under the terms of the IWC conventions, so long as member nations abide by its strict conventions, such fishing zones are open to whaling fleets of those nations.

Criticism is often made of the killing methods used in whaling, yet an explosive harpoon causes a death that is almost instantaneous. Even if a second harpoon is necessary, the whale does not suffer for more than a few minutes. It seems inconceivable to criticise methods that are just as humane as are those used in abattoirs around the country. Indeed, the whale does not have to endure the smell of blood and the sense of panic that sheep and cattle may experience in an abattoir. Nevertheless, research, with Australia in the forefront continues towards finding yet more humane methods of killing whales. Nature is itself cruel and does not allow animals, in their wild state, to decline into peaceful old age.

Finally, it would be futile to debate the question whether all killing of whales, endangered or not, is immoral. Attitudes to the subject are usually determined on an emotional rather than on a factual basis. I would merely state that those who claim that whales have an immensely high intelligence have yet to prove their point scientifically. It is my belief that whales are a valuable natural resource, to be studied, respected and responsibly harvested for the benefit of mankind. The Bill enables Australia to continue to play its part in the environmental management program of the IWC and to continue to foster an industry that, although it has a small effect on whale stocks, is of considerable importance to the southwest of my State.

Turning to the other major Bill that we have before us tonight, the Fisheries Amendment Bill 1978, 1 have quite a deal of sympathy with the amendment that the Opposition has moved to it.

The only difficulty I have is that it seeks to amend the motion for the second reading by substituting for all words after ‘That ‘ the following words: whilst not opposing the Bill, the House calls upon the Government to ensure that the guidelines determined by the Australian Fisheries Council in January 1977, to control foreign participation and give first priority to the local industry, are strictly observed.

I know that the guidelines determined by the Council form a valuable document but I am not sure what input there was to its decision of January 1977 to adopt them. I suggest that if the Council were to have an opportunity to review the document it would have a lot more to contribute to it. To tie the Government down to strictly observing the guidelines in that document appears to me to be somewhat restrictive. The Government will certainly make its attitude known, but at this time the Opposition’s proposal would appear not to be acceptable.

I turn now to the amendment to the Fisheries Act. I trust that the creation of a 200 mile Australian fishing zone will herald- a great new era for the Cinderella fishing industry of Australia. The fishing industry has not enjoyed steady or substantial government support. It has not attracted the attention of private banks and the lending institutions to any marked degree. There has been little incentive for Australians to venture to new fishing areas not yet proven. That situation is changing rapidly since new markets, at home and abroad, have begun to emerge and since the 200 mile economic zone declarations in other areas of the world have reduced the available fishing areas for some of the high consuming nations.

Speaking of markets, I point out that Australia imports fish products worth $70m a year. So, there is a great deal that our industry, with a little bit of encouragement, can gain in this country. This situation is a great challenge to the Australian fishing industry and to the Commonwealth Government to see that this vast new area of responsibility is developed and managed sensibly to the basic benefit of the Australian fishing industry and, of course, to the Australian people. Our industry and government will have to assess the resources of the Australian fishing zone and determine the total allowable catches of those resources. It is our responsibility to manage these resources to ensure that they are conserved for optimum use of mankind, now and in the future. It is a massive undertaking. The urgency of the task is demonstrated by many reported submissions from countries or organisations wishing to have fishing rights or joint ventures established in our area of responsibility. I recommend that we hasten slowly in making arrangements involving fishing personnel from other countries. At all times we should effectively canvass our own industry for its assessment of the implications and decisions which are made.

With some forms of practical encouragement by the Government, our industry may be able to utilise different areas. Practical assistance has been demonstrated by the Government in the recent announcement by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) in conjunction with the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) that a relaxation of present vessel import policy will enable Australian fishermen to obtain large, second-hand fishing vessels from overseas for developmental work in Australia. I would like to see this policy expanded. For too long the fishing industry has been subsidising the shipbuilding industry of Australia which has been retarding the growth of what could be a wealth producing primary industry and which will, in the future, employ many hundreds of people. To prop up an industry which, by any international standards, is inefficient is not my idea of good economic management.

There are obvious gaps in the finance which, in the coming period, will work to the detriment of the local industry. Funding by the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia and by the Primary Industries Bank will provide substantial assistance which has not hitherto been available and which will be critical to the development of the fishing industry in its new found responsibilities. There are many other aspects of interest in the amendment and in the whole question about the Australian Government taking the responsibility to create a 200-mile fishing zone around Australia. I am conscious of the fact that further speakers on this Bill from the Government side of the House will be covering these matters and enlarging on some of the comments which I have made in my brief speech tonight. The honourable member for EdenMonaro (Mr Sainsbury) who is listed to speak later in the debate is chairman of the subcommittee of the rural committee of back bench members of the Liberal Party. He, with other members of the committee, has investigated and made a fact finding study of this matter. I am delighted that he will be speaking later in this debate because he will have the opportunity to cover the areas that I have not been able to cover. The honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) is a well known authority on the fishing industry and on surveillance problems and he will be covering those subjects on behalf of Government members as the debate proceeds.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-I rise to support the Bill and also to support the amendments because I think they are constructive and logical amendments. I shall confine my remarks to the Fisheries Amendment Bill. With Australia’s 20,000 kilometre coastline being the second largest coastline of any country, the Australian fishing industry welcomes this amendment to the Fisheries Act to extend Australian jurisdiction over foreign fishermen to 200 nautical miles from the Australian coastline. It is a move which has been taken already by other nations and it could lead to the eventual declaration of a full resource zone giving Australia control of off-shore oil and natural gas reserves. It is a move which will highlight the appalling inadequacies of the Australian defence system and the inefficiency of the long-ignored Australian fishing industry.

In spite of our immense coastline Australia does not rank among even the first SO fishing nations and its catch amounts to only about onethousandth of the total world catch. The Australian fishing industry employs about 18,000 fishermen which is about 0.4 per cent of the total work force. It is characterised by coastal and commonly localised operations. Development seems to be controlled by marketing and demand problems and, very noticeably, by the scarcity of large vessels capable of working on the high seas. Of the 9,000 commercial vessels in Australia, 70 per cent are less than 9 metres in length. Only 2 per cent are more than 2 1 metres in length. The greater part of the new region consists of deep oceanic waters.

There are just over 150 registered land-based processing plants, 80 per cent of which have a throughput of less than 1,000 tonnes and employ basically or predominantly casual labour. In 1975-76 the Australian fisheries catch was valued at about $150m. It is estimated that the gross value of fisheries production for 1976-77 was in excess of $200m. Over the decade from 1965 to 1976 the value of fisheries production grew by 1 1 per cent annually, or twice the rate of the growth in the rural industries. Although nearly all ‘swimming’ fish caught by Australian fishermen are consumed domestically there is still a considerable gap between the Australian catch and domestic requirements and in 1976-77 fish imports were valued at $ 113m. The extension of the 200-mile zone is estimated to save Australia about $20m in fish imports and will substantially increase exports which in 1976-77 were valued at $144m. The current Australian catch is estimated at just over 1 10,000 tonnes live weight. It is calculated that foreign fishermen take off a further 50,000 tonnes in Australia’s prospective 200-mile zone. However, if Australia’s catch were to increase drastically, obviously the cost of production would have to be kept to a minimum if we were to effectively penetrate export markets.

As the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) stated in his second reading speech, Australian coastal waters are not ideally suited for fishing. Nevertheless there are substantial new fish resources within the 200-mile zone. The existing in-shore fisheries are already almost fully exploited but the demersal fisheries of the shelf provide substantial opportunities for expansion, particularly in northern waters. In addition, the fisheries of the pelagic and mid-water species of the shelf seem capable of expansion. However, even in anticipating a doubling of the Australian fish catch, which is quite likely, once the 200-mile zone is introduced, the industry will still be unable to harvest the allowable catch. The United Nations Law of the Sea convention states:

Where a coastal state does not have the capacity to harvest the entire allowable catch it shall through agreements or other arrangements, give other states access to the surplus of the allowable catch.

This means that Australia will inevitably have to grant fishing rights to other nations, working under Australian control and conditions. Whether one regards this aspect as an opportunity for Australia to strengthen its trade bargaining power with other nations which rely heavily on their fishing industries and which will seek to fish in our waters or whether it is to be used as a source of revenue through the issuing of licences, the fact is that it creates a serious problem. In deciding conditions under which other nations should be permitted to fish within the zone, three main conditions are involved: Firstly, support for the Australian economy and assistance to the industry in developing the capability to utilise these resources; secondly, proper management of the resources; and thirdly, assistance in acquiring the knowledge necessary to establish good management practices.

Perhaps the best solution would be for our fisheries to enter into joint ventures with those countries that can provide technology and expertise, which would in time enable our industry to take over the venture itself. An example of this is to be found in the northern prawn fishery which started in 1 968 as a number of joint ventures between Australia and Japane.se companies. The fishery is now wholly operated by Australians but the prawns continue to go to Japan. However there is a major problem in implementing any of the above considerations as our authorities possess very little knowledge of Australian fish resources. In fact other nations such as Taiwan, Japan and Soviet Russia have more accurate estimates of fish stocks within the Australian 200-mile zone than we have. I suggest that that places those countries in an advantageous position when negotiating with us over fishing rights. Furthermore, it would be difficult for us properly to manage fish resources if accurate information as to what resources exist were not available.

At present about 100 scientists are engaged in fisheries research and investigation, of which about 75 per cen work with the management of inshore State fisheries. The total amount spent on fishing research by government and industry is only about $6m, or just over 3 per cent of the $200m catch landed in the year ended June last year. Obviously if Australia is to obtain the knowledge which will be needed for proper management of this extended zone it will be essential that the following steps are taken: Firstly, the number of scientists should be substantially increased; secondly, adequate and reliable catch and effort data, facilities for work, and technical staff on board should be required of vessels taking part in the fishery; thirdly, a properly planned program of exploratory fishing should be undertaken; and finally, the provision of one or more properly equipped fisheries research vessels capable of undertaking deep water cruises should be put in hand immediately.

These provisions will require the additional expenditure of at least 50 per cent to 100 per cent of that already spent on fisheries research, but it is an expenditure that the Government must bear if we are to have the knowledge needed to provide a basis for the management of an extended zone. Unless proper controls can be imposed from the beginning, serious over-fishing could easily occur before sufficient knowledge has been built up to place the catch limits on a sound scientific basis. This is particularly so as since World War II there has been substantial overinvestment in the fishing industry on a world wide basis which has led to too many vessels chasing too few fish and fleets ranging far afield in an attempt to recoup investment.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations estimated in 1976 that the world harvest of aquatic animals and plants reached about 72 million tonnes with stocks, of some species of fish having been seriously depleted. One example of this is the North Sea herring which countries were warned to stop catching over two years ago because the research institutions feared stocks were at a state where they might not be able to recover from further depletions. This practice was not stopped, regrettably, and only a British ban in the United Kingdom 200-mile limit forced the European Economic Community herring fishers to follow. The warnings are now out that it may not be safe to resume fishing in that area before 1 979.

Canada has also faced problems from foreign water fleets of large high capacity factory and freezer stern trawlers fishing into stocks of cod, haddock, redfish herrings and mackerel off its coast outside the 12-mile limit. To the Canadian fishing communities this was what they termed raid fishing’. Describing the pattern Le Blanc, the Canadian Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, said:

In a consistent pattern one stock after another has been fished down. In each case the sequence began with an explosive increase in fishing effort by overseas fleets, resulting first in rapid increase in catch but followed invariably by a drastic decline. At this point the fleets shifted their attention to other fish working their way through the traditional species to less desirable and therefore previously untouched stocks.

The Government should take any necessary action to ensure that a similar situation does not occur within our fishing waters.

The Soviet Union is seeking a fishery agreement with us and has made specific overtures to participate, alone with Australian partners, in fishing within Australia’s proposed 200-mile zone. The Soviet fishing fleet is by far the largest in the world. It is almost six times as large as the next biggest fishing fleet- the Japanese. Might I suggest to the Minister that my assessment is that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is probably interested more in obtaining access to Australian ports than in gaining the right to fish within our fishing zone. I believe there is a very good reason for that. Port facilities should enable the Soviet fleet to fish over an extensive area of southern waters by enabling vessels to be serviced and crews to be rested and rotated. It is highly possible that exploitation of krill by the Soviet fleet would be greatly facilitated by access to Australian ports. I believe it will become clear that they want to exploit krill in Antarctic waters.

I now wish to turn to the problems associated with the surveillance of our 200-mile zone. Whilst the Minister reassures us in his second reading speech that the Government is currently developing proposals to upgrade our coastal surveillance and enforcement effort, I am not perhaps as confident as he is that this will be so. If surveillance is to be carried out thoroughly a major upgrading of Australian coastal defences obviously is required. The Minister has given no definite assurance in this matter. His statement that ‘The Government is currently developing proposals to upgrade our coastal surveillance and enforcement effort’ tells us nothing as to how this will be done, whether the proposals will be adequate and whether we can expect any such upgrading. At present Australia does not even possess the facilities to patrol adequately its 12-mile zone, and once this legislation is enacted there will be an extra area almost the size of Australia to be patrolled.

It is all very well for this Government to talk about increased penalties for foreign boats caught poaching inside Australian waters, but there is little value in such penalties if we do not have the means by which to enforce such laws. I will not utilise my knowledge as a member of a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence which is looking at Australian territorial boundaries including Antarctica. I think it would be unfair of me to do so. Suffice to say, that the sub-committee went to Darwin to take evidence. We went on board some Taiwanese boats that had been impounded in Darwin. One thing struck me as being urgently needed. I believe the officer in charge of the Royal Australian Navy in Darwin would support my proposition.

I regret to say that what I am concerned about is absent in this legislation which is concerned with the establishment of a 200-mile fishing zone. Under present procedures- this may not be known to many honourable members- more often than not the arrest of a foreign fishing boat takes the arresting Royal Australian Navy patrol boat out of patrol duty whilst it is escorting the fishing boat to the nearest port where there is a magistrate and in many cases, regrettably, it is out for the duration of the court proceedings. The commander of the patrol boat is required to give evidence in person in the Northern Territory and Western Australian courts, although in Queensland a written deposition is sufficient. Australia has only six patrol boats to cover the entire Australian coast from Geraldton to Townsville. So their detention in Port for lengthy court proceedings can reduce their patrol activity to almost nil. The Government ought to apply itself to that problem. Also, the practice of selling forfeited fishing boats back to Taiwanese owners at low prices lessens the deterrent effect of arrest. We badly need less cumbersome arrest and detention procedures if we are to have an effective surveillance system, particularly in our northern waters.

The arrest on 6 February of this year of the Japanese squid trawler, the Eikyu Maru, for operating within the 12-mile limit off the northern coast of Tasmania indicates that surveillance must be maintained all round Australia. Obviously, the waters most vulnerable to foreign encroachment are those between Geraldton and Townsville. These areas are already being exploited by fishermen from Taiwan, South Korea, Indonesia, Japan and the maritime province of the Soviet Union, even in areas inside the 12-mile zone where the waters are generally less than 200 metres deep and contain the valuable demersal fisheries. Even after this legislation is passed, certain difficulties may be experienced with Taiwan in view of Australia’s lack of diplomatic relations with that country. But I suppose that we could overcome that.

Already Taiwanese fishing boats are responsible for most of the infringements of Australia’s 12-mile fishing zone. They catch in excess of 80,000 tonnes per year in northern waters. As most foreign vessels operating in northern waters pass through either the Makassar or Manipa Straits, it would appear obvious that cooperation with Indonesian marine traffic authorities will be paramount. At present the equipment used by the defence forces for surveillance is designed primarily for other military purposes. The Defence Force personnel rightly regard such duties as a diversion from the role for which they were trained. The question of surveillance of the 200-mile zone surrounding Australian territories, particularly the Antarctic where surveillance presently is virtually non-existent, is also one which will have to be examined. We have yet to introduce enabling or proclaiming legislation concerning the Antarctic.

Just what steps need to be taken to upgrade our surveillance and patrol methods is a matter which should be thoroughly investigated, and for which practical solutions ought to be implemented. With the passing of this legislation, this will be necessary not only to protect our fishing resources but also to control illegal immigration and smuggling. The development of the 200-mile fishing zone may not be costless, as many people seem to assume, but I believe that it will be of considerable national benefit, provided that the Government provides the necessary assistance for Australia to take full advantage over the area to which this Bill gives it jurisdiction. I support the legislation and I support the amendment.

Mr SHIPTON:
Higgins

-I speak tonight in support of the legislation before the House, namely, the Fisheries Amendment Bill, the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Amendment Bill and the Whaling

Amendment Bill. The Fisheries legislation extends the Australian fishing jurisdiction to 200 miles beyond the low water mark by creating a 200-mile fishing zone. This is a totally new development for Australia. The idea and concept of a 200-mile fishing zone is part of the development of international law on 200-irrile zones. I believe that the legislation before the House tonight is the first step towards Australia ultimately declaring a 200 mile exclusive economic zone covering living and non-living resources. The exclusive economic zone concept is an important one and emerges from the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. The informal composite negotiating text of the Sixth Session in aU probability Will be the basis upon which nations declare these zones in the future, even if there is not ultimate international agreement to that convention.

The concepts raised go beyond the fisheries legislation which we have before us tonight: For instance, they extend to the question of the exploitation of petroleum and other hydrocarbon resources- manganese nodules, perhaps, and the seabed extraction of minerals. Perhaps in the fullness of time amendments to other legislation Will be necessary, such as the Seas and Submerged Lands Act, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act and the Whaling Act, for which an amending Bill is before us tonight, as is an amending BUI to the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act. Perhaps this will extend even to the Coral Sea Islands Act.

At an international level this fishing legislation will involve negotiations with a number of neighbouring countries because, in aU probability, we will have overlapping zones. Currently the Government is negotiating with Papua New Guinea concerning the Torres Strait border and economic zones and fishing zones wil be a part of those negotiations. We Will need to negotiate with the Solomon Islands, with Indonesia and with France concerning New Caledonia and the New Hebrides. I am confident that these will be amicable and successful negotiations but, remembering the history of boundaries, we know that one has to protect one’s national interests to the ultimate. I look forward to the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) on the current state of negotiations with Papua New Guinea on the Torres Strait border, which I think is due to be presented within a fortnight.

Currently Australia claims only a three mile territorial sea. This is a matter of history. Initially nations claimed three miles because the old range of a cannon shot from a sailing warship was three miles. Now it is commonly accepted at international law that 12 miles is a proper claim of territorial seas. It is my view that Australia should forthwith and immediately make a claim of 12 miles of territorial sea. I shall be very interested to see the outcome of negotiations with Papua New Guinea concerning the Torres Strait area because I believe that Australia clearly has the right to claim a 12 mile territorial sea around its islands, both inhabited and uninhabited, in that area. The question of where to draw the base lines- the lines from which the 200 miles extend- is important to this legislation, to the petroleum legislation and to the seas and submerged lands legislation. I believe that we ought to be adopting a fairly progressive approach rather than a conservative approach to the question of where we draw those base lines.

A number of matters need to be considered. The Commonwealth has power to declare historic bays, I think under the Seas and Submerged Lands Act. I believe that we ought to consider declaring Shark Bay in Western Australia such a bay, as well as the Spencer Gulf and St Vincent Gulf. Where we draw the closing lines of this is important.

Mr Hodgman:

– Hear, hear!

Mr SHIPTON:

-I hear the honourable member for Denison supporting what I have to say. It might interest him to know that a fairly conservative decision was made in relation to Tasmania, where the Maria Island in Great Oyster Bay was excluded from the drawing of a base line. In fact, the internal waters of Tasmania were lessened by that decision. I believe that we have to take the maximum that we can under international law in such claims and, perhaps, even redraw that particular base line. The new informal composite negotiating text will allow us to take these generous interpretations. In fact, so far as Western Australia is concerned, it will enable us- because of the definitions concerning reefs near islands- to claim parts of the Scott Reef that we presently cannot claim under international law. Honourable members might remember that some time ago a Russian ship was illegally in that area. There are parts of that area over which perhaps we do not have jurisdiction. The progressive interpretation of the base line rules wil enable us to claim jurisdiction.

Another area where the question of base lines is vital is in the Great Barrier Reef area of north Queensland. Whilst at the present time there is a 12-mUe fishing zone, part of the Reef itself still is, as I understand it, in international waters. Whilst there is an International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil concerning and covering the Great Barrier Reef, there are probably still parts of the Reef- whilst the islands and keys come under the Queensland Coast Islands Act- over which we do not have jurisdiction. I doubt that all the Reef area is in fact pan of Queensland and part of our territorial sea at the present time. So, therefore, we have to decide whether to draw a base line around the Great Barrier Reef or on the eastern side. I believe quite frankly that we have to make the maximum claims possible under international law. The Great Barrier Reef must be within the exclusive jurisdiction of Australia. We must make, as I have said, the maximum possible claims.

The foreign policy implications of this fishing legislation and the ultimate zone legislation that, in the fullness of time I trust will follow, are quite enormous. The world is looking at us. It is worth reflecting that the rest of the world sees us, and particularly our near neighbours, as a European enclave in the Asian region of the globe. Those are the facts with which we must live and which we must understand. We must recognise our responsibilities. The world is looking at us: It is looking at the resources that we have and at the fish that we have. The honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), who I thought made a sensible contribution to the debate, talked about the other nations that are fishing in the area already. The world is sharing our resources at present. We need to determine our approach to them. I must admit that I disagree with the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) because I believe it is totally unnecessary. I wonder whether the honourable gentleman in fact has read the second reading speech of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). In his amendment, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, states that first priority should be given to local industry. If he reads the Minister’s speech, he will find that the Minister stated:

  1. . Australians are unable or perhaps do not wish to harvest all of the total allowable catches, we will be under an obligation to allow other nationals to take that surplus.

He stated further:

Accordingly, we will have the right to determine who fishes these surplus stocks and under what terms and conditions.

But the most important point is that only when Australians are not in a position to exploit a fishery will recourse be had to foreign expertise. That is why I wonder why the Deputy Leader of the Opposition moved his amendment. Of course we will have maximum Australian participation. He asked the Government to spell out its policies.

Well, the policy is in the Minister’s second reading speech. It is there for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to read and to understand. Incidentally, I thought I noted some conflict between what the honourable member for Hawker and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said about joint ventures. I thought that the honourable member for Hawker took a more liberal and, quite frankly, a more sensible interpretation. I wonder whether he really supports the amendment.

The foreign policy implications to which I have referred are wide. We need to be outwardlooking. We need to look out towards the world. We have a responsibility to provide to the world these resources- these fish- in our sea. We cannot be selfish. Some honourable members who have spoken in this debate have said that these resources are part of the common heritage of mankind. Whilst I do not adopt that definition necessarily, I believe that we must be aware of our responsibilities in this area, in the same way that we are aware of our responsibilities in relation to uranium, coal, iron ore, et cetera. We have a moral responsibility in this continent and in this part of the world. Australia has a small population and it is rich in resources. As I have mentioned, it is an enclave of Europeans in the Asian region. We have a moral responsibility to sell to the world on fair terms and conditions what we have. We must recognise our international obligations and responsibilities as well as protect our own interests. We must remember that the history books are full of cases in which people went and took things that others would not sell them on fair terms. That is why I believe that Australia needs to be outward looking.

We must also remember the position in relation to our negotiations with the European Economic Community. I think that the EEC, with its attitudes to trade and its protective barriers, is becoming inward looking. It is looking back towards the middle ages. Europe is starting to look inward rather than outward. If this happens in Europe, Austrafia must provide an example in relation to our resources offish in the 200-mile off-shore area and share those resources with the world. We seek access to markets in Europe for our agricultural products and want the Multilateral Trade Negotiations to include them. We must allow other countries to fish off the Australian coast on fair terms and conditions, and as the Minister recognises, we must protect the Australian fishing industry. However, we must recognise also that that industry has a responsibility to grasp the challenge before it, the challenge now made available to it to exploit these resources. It is important that the industry does this in the national interest.

The honourable member for Hawker referred to the question of surveillance. At this stage, surveillance is vital. If Australia is to claim jurisdiction over this area, we must have the ability to survey the area and to enforce that jurisdiction. The honourable member mentioned a patrol in which he took part in the Northern Territory. I was on that patrol with him. In fact, I think that at one stage the honourable member even took control of the helm of the boat and distinguished himself in that task. In all seriousness, I believe that we must upgrade in a major way what we are doing in regard to air and sea surveillance. I understand that at present in the north of Australia we have one Dakota aircraft- on the day we were there one engine on that aircraft was inoperative and another one had to be flown from Sydney- and three Tracker aircraft, I think.

Mr Neil:

– That would be the maximum.

Mr SHIPTON:

-The honourable member for St George tells me that that would be the maximum number of Tracker aircraft. Probably one of the aircraft would be out of service all the time. We also have two or three Navy patrol boats. That is a totally inadequate force to service our national interest in the north of Australia, and it must be upgraded.

Mr McLean:

– What are you recommending?

Mr SHIPTON:

– I would recommend as a minimum a doubling of the 15 patrol boats which have been ordered, and in conjunction with that we must buy aircraft that can coordinate and co-operate in a tandem operation with these patrol boats in air and sea surveillance. That is vital.

Mr McLean:

– How much will it cost?

Mr SHIPTON:

-The cost is unimportant. We must protect Australia ‘s national interests.

Mr McLean:

– That is what the Treasurer told me.

Mr SHIPTON:

-The Treasurer (Mr Howard) must realise, as we all must realise, that we must protect Australia’s national interest. I believe that this can be done at a modest cost. I am glad to have the support of the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) and the honourable member for Perth (Mr McLean). In the time remaining to me, I would like to comment on some of the points made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) in regard to the case of Oteri and Oteri v. the Queen. The honourable member is a knowledgeable gentleman and most of what he said tonight showed that we can have a bipartisan debate in this Parliament. I challenge the members of the Press gallery listening to the debate to report in the Press tomorrow that there has been, in fact, a bipartisan debate in this Parliament, and that both parties can agree in part. I refer to his comments on Oteri and Oteri v. the Queen. He was talking about that in relation to the jurisdiction of the Privy Council on appeals from State courts.

I do not think that is the issue concerning that case. I think the issue is that the Government needs to take a look at the situation of the Admiralty jurisdiction. In that case as I recall- I stand to be corrected- the Privy Council held that a 1958 United Kingdom or British statute, the Theft Act, applied in the Australian Admiralty jurisdiction and that was because of previous legislation. To me that is totally unacceptable. I believe that we must look at the basis of the Admiralty jurisdiction in Australia; we must examine the situation whether the State and Federal courts and which of them have jurisdiction and, if need be, negotiate with the States and act under the Statute of Westminster to enact Australian Admiralty jurisdiction. I refer the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to the Statute of Westminster which is clear. It says in section 3:

  1. . that the Parliament of a dominion -

That is, Australia:

  1. . has full power to make laws having extra-territorial operation.

In sub-clause 2 there is clear provision for power to repeal in this case the Admiralty jurisdiction or amend any such Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. So, what he said I believe is incorrect inasmuch as we clearly have the power; it is a matter of sitting down and working out that jurisdiction. I am pleased to support the legislation before the House.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

-Before I speak on the Bills, I thank the honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis) for very kindly stepping aside to allow me to speak tonight. He was scheduled to speak but, as I will not be here on the next Tuesday when this Parliament sits, and as the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) has assured us that this debate will continue then, the honourable member for Grey who is very interested in this Bill because of the interest in his electorate in fishing, will be the first speaker for the Opposition when the debate resumes on that day. I personally thank him very much for this kindness.

In speaking on these Bills, I concentrate my remarks on the Whaling Amendment Bill. In recent years there has been considerable interest and controversy concerning whaling and Australia’s continued participation as a whaling nation, so much so that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has announced that an inquiry into the whaling industry will commence in Albany on 3 1 July.

However, there is no question where the majority of the Australian peoples’ sympathies lie in relation to this question. An Australian National Opinion Polls survey conducted in December last year showed that 66 per cent of Australians were opposed to whaling, 19 per cent were in favour and 15 per cent were unsure. Even in Western Australia where the sole remaining whaling station in Australia is located, those ‘for’ and ‘against’ were evenly divided, 39 per cent against and 41 per cent in favour of whaling. Even on a party political basis there was virtually no difference. Sixty-four per cent of Liberal voters were against whaling and 68 per cent of Labor voters were against whaling. I am not one of those people who believe that a public opinion poll should necessarily be the final arbitrator on a government action. If it were we would not need to have elections but simply conduct opinion polls and act accordingly. However there are times when the public may not have the technical know-how or the full range of information necessary to form a considered opinion, and there are occasions when governments have to take actions which are unpopular and hope that those actions, whilst unpopular are in the best interests of the nation.

I have a lot of sympathy for the position of the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond). It is in his electorate, at Albany, in Western Australia that the sole remaining whaling station is located. He has spoken out strongly in support of the whaling industry and on behalf of the hundred-odd families who depend upon whaling for their livelihood. I do not doubt his sincerity, I do not blame him for being a strong advocate in support of the welfare of the workers in the industry and for the general welfare of the town of Albany. The Australian Labor Party is equally committed -

Mr Shipton:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it proper for the Opposition spokesman on the environment to speak on Bills such as these and on the uranium Bills, as he did the other day, when he has not been either to Albany or to the Ranger uranium site?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Order! The honourable member will be aware that it is quite appropriate for a member of this Parliament to speak on any Bill before the

House. The honourable member is aware that his was not a valid point of order. I ask that in future he not take points of order that do not have some element of validity in them.

Mr COHEN:

– That is the son of stupid interjection we expect from some of the new boys over there.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Instead of answering interjections the honourable member for Robertson will address himself to the debate

Mr COHEN:

-When they have been in this place a little longer they will start to understand that that sort of behaviour is childish. If they want me to interject every time somebody over there -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable member for Robertson to address himself to the debate and not to answer interjections.

Mr Neil:

– Wasting time.

Mr COHEN:

– Yap yap is on again. Do you want to speak in this debate or do you want to carry on with inane interjections?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for St George and the honourable member for Robertson will stop making exchanges across the floor of the House. I have called the honourable member for Higgins to order, and I ask the honourable member for Robertson to address himself to the debate.

Mr COHEN:

-The Australian Labor Party is equally committed to seeing that Australian workers do not suffer economically or socially from changes that may occur because a nation, for a variety of reasons, decides that it wishes to discontinue an industry. I am not referring to the normal ebb and flow of prosperity that occurs in every industry from time to time. I am referring particularly to situations such as those that have occurred at Albany and on Fraser Island. The overwhelming majority of Australians, supported by the Government, came to the view that the activities being pursued in those regions were detrimental to the environment.

I can understand the resentment of workers who suddenly find that they have lost their jobs or are in danger of losing their jobs because another section of the community, which is not directly affected financially, demands that an industry be closed down. It is easy to ask somebody else to make a sacrifice that many people would not be prepared to make themselves if the roles were reversed. That is the dilemma in the vast majority of environmental disputes that occur. It is particularly true where an industry exists as distinct from debate about where a new industry is to be started up. We are talking about people who, with their families, have settled into an area and often have been there for many years. They have built a home, they have their children settled in schools, they have made friends and generally become part of a settled community. It is very natural for people who suddenly find that their whole way of life and their financial security is threatened to resent bitterly the actions of those whom they see as being responsible for their predicament.

It is absolutely essential for the debate about the environment to be rational and free of the abuse and vitriol that has been evident in recent years, and for both environmentalists and the Government to assure workers that they will not be disadvantaged financially by any decision to cease the operations of the industry in which workers’ occupations are threatened. Any decision to cease operations should be accompanied by a total plan for reconstruction and not by vague promises. I have not had the pleasure yet of visiting Albany but I hope to remedy that in the near future, in the same way as I will be visiting Fraser Island on the weekend after next. However, from what I have heard of it, Albany is an extremely beautiful region with an enormous potential for tourism, which is another area for which I am responsible on behalf of the Opposition. I would not be so presumptuous as to suggest remedies from this distance. However, there are a wide variety of measures that could be introduced- I am not referring here only to Albany but to other areasincluding substantial redundancy payments, the creation of alternative industries, job retraining or job relocation. For example, I understand that some 100 families are involved in Albany. If we had made a $20,000 non-taxable payment to each of them it would have cost less than $2m and it might have been worth it. If we have a sensible approach to the problem- and we may have to have this debate in the future- perhaps that is the answer. I do not know.

I am not so presumptuous as to suggest that I know the answer sitting here in Canberra or in Gosford from where I come. I cannot believe that people are totally committed to whaling per se; they are committed to being employed and providing for their families. I feel sure that if we can assure them that they will be adequately looked after they will be willing to sit down rationally to discuss the future of the industry. It is my aim over the next few years to try to find these sorts of solutions to the problems that have emerged in the progress versus environment debate.

In the debate about whaling of course there has been considerable disagreement about what has happened in the past and what is happening at the moment. One can accept that any figures cited must be subject to a considerable degree of inaccuracy. One can only accept or reject the figures of the scientific experts regarding the decimation of the whole population over the past 100 years. I shall quote- I am probably being selective in my quoting- from an article in the National Geographic by Victor B. Scheffer, Ph.D. in zoology, Chairman of the United States Marine Mammal Commission from 1973 to 1976, and a man who has devoted 40 years of his life to studying the whale. The article, which appeared in the December 1976 issue, stated:

Not till the dawning of the age of environmental awareness in the late 1960s did the public begin to see clearly the consequences of abusive whaling. It had fragmented the population of seven great whales- the blue, fin, grey, humpback, sei, right and bowhead. Today, world wide acceptance of that dismal fact is arousing new interest in cetacean research. Suddenly the whale has become a supreme symbol in a new campaign to preserve nature.

I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table of figures on whaling.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Mr COHEN:

-I thank the House. The blue, humpback, right, bowhead and grey have been so decimated that they are now protected species. There were some interesting points in the article that are worth noting. It pointed out that whale populations are estimated by zoologists by analysing kills by size, age, sex, season and hunting area. It has been found that in a declining population the catch- per unit of whaling effortalso declines as does the average age of the animals killed and the older whales become fewer. As I said before, it is difficult to assess who is telling the truth from the vast array of claims and counter claims regarding the threat to the world ‘s whale populations.

Mr Hyde:

– Different whales.

Mr COHEN:

– I am not disagreeing with that, but there are various claims on all the different types of whales. However, I think one has to look at the motives and bona fides of the major adversaries in this debate. Firstly, let us look at the International Whaling Commission which was established in 1948. There are 16 member nations of the IWC- Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, South Africa, Great Britain, the United States of America and the United Soviet Socialist Republic. Of these, only Australia, Brazil, Denmark, Iceland, Japan, Norway and the USSR are whaling countries. To put it bluntly, the IWC is primarily an organisation which acts as spokesman for the industry. Its object is ‘the conservation, development and optimum utilisation of the whale resources’. It has no teeth and cannot enforce its own regulations. Foreign observers are supposed to be situated at every whaling station on every factory ship, theoretically to see that the Commission’s rules are obeyed. Their reported infractions have decreased since the introduction of the use of observers.

However, there are major weaknesses. Russia and Japan exchange observers but both countries are interested in maximising yields. No mechanism exists to enforce quotas. Member countries which disagreed with IWC decisions have merely to lodge objections within 90 days to free themselves of any obligation to abide by such decisions. Australia is currently acting on this escape clause with regard to the IWC decision to restrict the season for sperm whale hunting.

I wish now to quote the words of some people who are not wild or radical but who are fairly conservative and who belong to very conservative organisations, one of which, incidentally, has just had the approval, the imprimatur, of the Prime Minister who is now I think a sponsor of the World Wildlife Fund. At the 1975 meeting of the IWC, Sir Peter Scott, Chairman of the World Wildlife Fund, spoke out strongly for a moratorium. He said:

Through your courtesy, Mr Chairman, and that of the Commissioners, I and my conservation colleagues are allowed to come here, year after year, to express in five minutes flat, the deep concern we share with millions of other people all over the world about the future of the great whales. Once more we’re here putting our case for responsible conservation. We know that most of you agree with it, and that only a few do not. But when the results of your deliberations are made known, we find every year that the intransigent minority has once more prevailed. Yet already today we have heard several complacent comments about the Commission’s conservation achievements. Gentlemen, the track record does not bear this out.

I now wish to quote from articles which appeared in a few of Australia’s newspapers, none of which are what one would call radical newspapers. In June 1977 the Sydney Morning Herald published an article to which I wish to refer in order to take up the point which the honourable member for Forrest mentioned before when he was talking about the maximum sustainable yields system. The article in the Sydney Morning Herald stated:

The Commission bases its quotas on the maximum sustainable yield system propounded by Australia. But this system has been seriously challenged by conservationists supported by independent scientists from the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.

The FAO study has found that it is almost impossible to estimate whale numbers accurately as claimed by the commission, and says there are grave doubts about the whale reproduction rates assumed by the Commission’s scientists. These serious doubts about whether man is hunting the whale species to extinction are sufficient cause for the commission to call a halt to whale killing throughout the world.

The Melbourne Age of 30 November 1977 had this to say:

The United States has taken a lead in the struggle to save the whale by closing down its whaling stations, banning the import of almost all whale products and pressing for a 10-year international moratorium on whaling. Australia’s official attitude has so far been equivocal.

On 2 June 1977 the Sydney Morning Herald had this to say:

Australia’s little-known position as one of the last major whaling countries will also be demonstrated to the world.

Australia, then, has a unique opportunity to continue its leading role in whaling councils. Having been instrumental in establishing a control system for whale-killing, Australia should now take another step by supporting a ban, or at least a 10-year moratorium, on whaling. This would require a major revision by the Federal Government of our policy towards whaling. So far Australia has opposed US moves for a moratorium. But now is the time for Australia to reverse its stand and lead the way by declaring that it proposes to end its own whaling operations at Albany, Western Australia.

The station is privately owned and there should be fair compenstion paid. As an industry, whaling contributes little of economic consequence to Australia. It earns a small export income from the sale overseas of sperm oil, whale meal stock feed and ambergris for scent manufacture. It employs about 90 people in a town which normally offers other employment opportunities. These insignificant benefits to the country will be made this year at the expense of slaughtering up to 624 of the most magnificent creatures of the animal kingdom. A great deal of scientific research suggests that whales are of high intelligence, perhaps second only to man in creation. They present no threat to man or to his other ocean resources.

I could go on quoting chapter and verse, but I would like to conclude with one small quotation from an article in the National Geographic. That article quoted the words of a Mr David Hill. I do not know that he is a person of great significance himself, but what he had to say was significant. Of the whaling industry itself this gentleman, who is a well-known conservationist, said:

It is like leaving a rabbit to guard a lettuce patch.

Debate interrupted.

page 2312

ADJOURNMENT

Accident on Stuart Highway- Royal Flying Doctor Service- Tasmanian State Government- N.S.W. Permanent Building Society- Workers Compensation: Sickness Benefit Payments- Visit by Minister to Overseas War Cemeteries and Memorials- Transport Services to Tasmania- Advertising Industry- Customs

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr (Mr MillarOrder! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

-On a number of occasions in this House I have raised the question of the Stuart Highway, that shocking piece of road, the main road to the Northern Territory, which runs from Port Augusta to Alice Springs. But it is not mainly about the road that I want to speak tonight. I want to refer rather to an incident that happened on that road yesterday afternoon. It was an accident such as people in that area, because of the increased number of tourist buses going through that area to Alice Springs, feared would happen. They were concerned that a bus would be involved in a major accident a long way from assistance. Honourable members may have heard over the radio or read in the newspaper this morning what happened. The Adelaide Advertiser described it as: ‘One dead- 20 hurt in bus-semi crash’. The accident happened yesterday afternoon in a very isolated locality. Coober Pedy is about 390 miles northwest of Port Augusta by road. Mount Willoughby, where the accident happened, is another 100 miles further on. Between Port Augusta and Alice Springs there are only two places where any medical attention is available- at the Woomera rocket range near Pimba and the Coober Pedy opal field, where there is a small hospital and medical centre.

I raise this matter tonight to pay tribute to the work of the Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia. The report by the Adelaide Advertiser of the accident reads:

There were 45 passengers in the bus.

The chartered Greyhound bus rolled over after hitting the jack-knifed semi-trainer.

The accident happened about two kilometres south of Mount Willoughby station about 1 . 30 p.m.

That is approximately half way along the road between Alice Springs and Port Augusta and is in a very isolated situation. The report continued:

The alarm was raised by outback radio from the station and the Royal Flying Doctor Service was alened at 2 p.m.

An RFDS aircraft was at Tarcoola, about 300 kilometres south of Mount Willoughby, and flew to the station immediately.

Dr S. Hammond, from Port Augusta, reached the scene about 3 p.m. and called for extra aircraft.

A second RFDS plane from Port Augusta and two St John Ambulance aircraft from Whyalla also went to help.

Dr Hammond stabilised the seriously injured at the scene while the aircraft flew five of those needing hospital treatment to Coober Pedy.

The seriously injured were then flown to the Whyalla Hospital, where specialised facilities were available.

The first of the two RFDS planes, a twin-engine Beechcraft Baron, arrived at Whyalla Airport at 10.30 p.m. with the seriously injured driver of the semi-trailer and a girl with a broken arm.

That will give honourable members an idea of the way in which this service operates and why it is important to the people of that area. The outback area of South Australia is served by a Royal Flying Doctor Service at Port Augusta, with the back-up service of St John’s Ambulance at Whyalla. The St John’s Ambulance service was called in to fly to the scene, but I understand that the Flying Doctor aircraft were themselves able to handle the situation. People who have lived in the outback, as I have, along the east-west railway line realise the reliance that one must place on these aircraft, which are available when someone becomes sick. That service is especially appreciated when an accident occurs in a remote area where medical attention is not readily available and has to be flown in hundreds of miles. One can appreciate just what a magnificent job the Royal Flying Doctor Service does in the bush.

Two books have been written about the Service. One, I remember, was Mantle of Safety. The name of another that I read quite recently slips my memory, but it was published to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the establishment of the Service. The extent of its assistance to people in isolated areas has been increasing. Certainly for them it provides a mantle of safety. They know that if something does go wrong they can call on it for assistance. There have been two occasions in my own life when I have had to take advantage of it. One instance quite recently involved illness and fortunately an aircraft was available. In one case a relative of mine was flown to Adelaide. Luckily, as we found out, he was not in a very serious condition. It is certainly a comfort for people in the outback areas to know that that service is operating. It certainly deserves the respect and support of everybody in Australia. While the people in the cities may not fully appreciate the service that is provided, the people in the country certainly do.

Mr BURR:
Wilmot

– I was absolutely astounded to read in this morning’s Mercury newspaper from Hobart a report about the Tasmanian Treasurer and Acting Premier, Mr Batt. I can only interpret his remarks as a blatant admission that he is totally inefficient in his administration, as is the State Government. According to that newspaper report Mr Batt stated:

I have been astounded at how some Government departments have sent me little chits saying sorry we have overspent our budget by $2m this year, and expect me to smile.

I can understand Mr Batt not being too happy. From the Commonwealth Government’s point of view, all Mr Batt and his State colleagues can do is appeal to it for more and more money to cover up for their inefficiencies. So often in Tasmania, whenever any capital construction work needs to be done, the only defence the State Government has is to say: ‘We have not got enough money from the Commonwealth’. Yet here, in effect, Mr Batt is saying that he is inefficient and misusing taxpayers’ money. The State Government which he leads at the moment needs to be exposed for its inefficiency and bungling. But what have we seen over the time the State Government has been in office? I ask honourable members to bear in mind that Mr Batt is saying that this situation has been going on for some years. The State Government came to office in 1972. One can only conclude from Mr Batt’s statement that this waste of taxpayers’ money has been going on for some years while the Labor Party has been in office.

There was an agreement this year between the two governments that there would be a dollar for dollar subsidy to construct the Launceston General Hospital. At the last minute the State Government said: ‘We are sorry, but we cannot fulfil our obligations because we have run out of money. ‘ Yet this sort of waste is going on within the State Government administration. Honourable members may ask what happened. The $1.5m which was available from the Commonwealth Government could not be spent on the hospital and it could not be re-allocated to any other hospital in Australia.

Mr Hodgman:

– That is a public scandal.

Mr BURR:

– It is a public scandal, as my colleague from Denison has said. Members of the State Labor Party Government must be exposed to the public for the incompetent rabble that they are. Let us look at the State Government work which is going on in Tasmania. As my friend from Denison (Mr Hodgman) well knows, our roads urgently need repair. But what does the State Government say when we ask for some State highways to be reconstructed or to be put into usable order? It replies that it does not have the money and that it has to get more money from the Commonwealth. Does the State Government want more money from the Commonwealth so that it can pour that down the drain through inefficient administration? It wants the money to cover up its own admitted inefficiencies. The State Government is appealing for all this money and yet urgent public works are going untended. Mr Batt stated:

At the moment we have guaranteed $10m, and loaned $10m.

That is where the money is going. It is a disgrace.

Mr Hodgman:

– It is like the Derwent Clipper.

Mr BURR:

-That is dead right. Public works in Tasmania are in urgent need. Some examples are the Launceston General Hospital, State highways, schools that are not being built, the Launceston ring road which the State Government says it cannot build and the second bridge over the Derwent River in Hobart. These are all urgent works, but the State Government says it does not have the money and that Canberra will not give it any more money. The State Government allows its departments to waste money, to pour it down the drain, and then appeals to the Commonwealth for more money. If the State Government departments are so inefficient, according to Mr Batt’s own admission, it is high time that he called for the resignation of some of his Ministers who are obviously failing in their administration to a large degree and wasting taxpayers’ money.

Mr Hodgman:

– He ought to resign himself.

Mr BURR:

– He should resign as State Treasurer, as the honourable member for Denison has said. However, his crowning glory came right at the end of this article where, to underline his inefficiency, the report states:

Mr Batt called on the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce to offer advice on the best ways of raising revenue through taxation.

If that is not an admission of inefficiency by a State government, I do not know what is. If the Tasmanian Government is so bereft of ability it should resign and allow the people of Tasmania to make a judgment on whether this inefficient rabble should continue in government wasting public money the way it is. It should resign and allow the people to make that decision rather than continue in office wasting money that has been raised from and made available by the taxpayers.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I will not reply to the Laurel and Hardy team from Tasmania. The matter I raise concerns much more money than the amount they have spoken about in relation to Tasmania. I refer to the $700m invested in the New South Wales Permanent Building Society Ltd. To preface my story I refer to a company called Vam Ltd which was delisted by the Sydney Stock Exchange in 1 97 1 and is now in receivership. Each year about a month before the meeting of creditors stories are floated suggesting that the company is about to strike oil, gold, uranium or some other bonanza. This never eventuates but as a result of these stories the company has been getting yearly extensions from the creditors. To indicate what is happening in relation to the NSW Permanent Building Society I wish to quote extensively from an article which appeared in the Australian Financial Review. The article reads in part:

All the signs are evident that the differing factions within the NSW Liberal Party are going to be fighting ruthlessly over the control of the NSW Permanent Building Society.

The establishment within the party will be attempting to keep the society out of the hands of the right wing, while the rightists will be throwing their weight behind certain selected candidates who have nominated to fill board vacancies.

The venue for this ruction will be the forthcoming annual general meeting of the NSW Permanent, when three of the five board vacancies are up for grabs.

There the bitter struggle going on within the Liberal Party will be opened up for public display while the NSW Permanent with its $700m in assets regrettably becomes the rope in the tug-of-war.

The meeting has to be held some time before the end of August.

These are some of the latest developments to bear in mind: Mr Stanley Eskell, the chief executive officer of Vam Ltd, and a member of the NSW Upper House, has taken legal advice on certain aspects of the rules of the society.

Sydney solicitor William Lander and Partners have provided the advice, and it is understood that it concerns the meaning of the society’s rules 99 and 104.

These rules provide that if numerous joint accounts are opened, all having at least one common name, then the depositor who is classified the ‘primary joint holder’ can register a vote on behalf of all his partners.

The article goes on to show that one person could control 4,000 votes at that meeting by being one of the names in numerous joint accounts. The article then continues:

One of the leaders of the right-wing within the NSW Liberal Party, Mr Lyenko Urbanchich, is actually employed within the Vam Group.

Both Mr Eskell and Mr Urbanchich were present at the adjourned annual general meeting last year and the right wing was in evidence conspicuously opposing Sir John Pagan ‘s re-election and supporting Or Gwen Fitzpatrick.

Mr Urbanchich says he has been concerned about the management of the NSW Permanent Building Society and had given some thought to the problem.

I do not blame him for having had some concern about the NSW Permanent Building Society because we know that the Society granted significant loans to Sir John Pagan, a director of the Society. The article continues:

But it is understood that discussions and preparations for an assault on a few retiring directors have been under way for some time and that signatures have been arranged for the opening of numerous joint accounts.

Funds are also being organised.

The article then goes on to show who are the retiring people, who the new people will be, which candidates are sponsored by the so-called moderates in the New South Wales Liberal Party and which are sponsored by the so-called right wing of the New South Wales Liberal Party. We can all remember that last year a man named Puplick, who I think will be replacing Senator Sir Robert Cotton when he retires, successfully organised the so-called moderates at the last annual meeting of the New South Wales Permanent Building Society. With the help of numerous Queen’s Counsel he was able to persuade the courts that Sir John Pagan should stay in control.

If I had to choose between Sir John Pagan and people such as Eskell and Urbanchich, not necessarily for their political beliefs but for their association with a very shonky company, Vam Ltd- which, as I said earlier, is in receivership- I would certainly support Sir John Pagan. I have some money deposited with the New South Wales Permanent Building Society. I sincerely hope that Vam Ltd will not get control of the Society which has assets of $700m. I hope that the Treasurer (Mr Howard) will take steps to protect the assets of the depositors.

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

Mr SHACK:
Tangney

-I want to raise a matter tonight which has been drawn to my attention on several occasions by some of my constituents. It is not necessary for me to relate to the House the details of each individual case but it is certainly important for me to draw attention to the common problem. It certainly caught people in my electorate and no doubt it has been commonly experienced throughout the country. The problem involves workers who through injury are entitled to and receive workers compensation payments under various State workers compensation Acts while they are off work. An injured worker receiving such payments is also entitled to apply for social security sickness benefit but commonly there is no entitlement or only partial entitlement to receive such benefitas distinct from applying for it- because the rate of workers compensation payment is too high.

I have no objection to compensation payments being taken into account when determining sickness benefit entitlement, and with up to 100 per cent workers compensation, injured employees are financially well provided for. However, the point I wish to make is that workers compensation payments are also taken into account when determining entitlement to and rate of sicknes benefit after workers have opted for, as they are entitled to do, a lump sum settlement. Thus we have the case many times multiplied of an injured worker with no short-term prospect of returning to work opting for a lump sum workers compensation payment in redemption of all future workers compensation entitlements. A lump sum is commonly a large amount, and the problem arises when the injured beneficiary uses the received cash to meet other commitments quite innocently- for example, in paying off his car or his house. Consequently, when this lump sum is exhausted or at least significantly reduced and the innocent worker subsequently applies for sickness benefit he finds out that he is not entitled to it or at least to only a portion of it. As I have mentioned, this is because the Department of Social Security still takes into account the full amount of his lump sum payment, averaging it out as if it were still being paid in weekly or fortnightly instalments. His entitlement to receive sickness benefit may thus be many years away.

Unemployment benefits may be unavailable to the worker if he is unfit for work, and invalid pension entitlements will not be available if he is less than 85 per cent incapacitated. The injured worker may thus be destitute because he has innocently exhausted his lump sum reserves. I repeat that I do not raise this issue to argue against the policy of the Department of Social Security. However, I urge all involved in the process whereby an injured off-work employee converts his workers compensation entitlement to a lump sum- I urge union representatives, employers and State insurance office officials- to inform the worker of the facts. They all have a responsibility to explain the situation fully to such people. In many cases this is not being done, and before he is in a position to ask the right questions, the hapless injured worker may have unwittingly put himself into a destitute position. With a full explanation of the facts the resulting hardships may well be avoided.

The second point I raise is that the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) and I are extremely interested in the recent overseas visit by the Minister for Special Trade Representations and Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Garland) and his inspection of war graves. On behalf of the honourable member for St George, I ask the Minister to report to the House on this matter for the benefit of all ex-servicemens organisations.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I want to talk about advertising. But before I get onto that subject, I cannot help responding to the contribution of Mr Interlocutor and Bones earlier on when they were talking about Tasmania and its transport problems. There are just four points that ought to be made to the House. First, the Liberal Party and Tasmanian members tried very hard to escape from the Tasmanian Railways and Australian Railways agreement. Secondly, they are obviously going to abolish the service of the Tasman Limited -

Mr Burr:
Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-We will see. Thirdly, the Australian Trader has been removed from service. Finally, Tasmanian members have never put a case here for Tasmania on urban public transport. I turn to the question of -

Mr Burr:

– I rise to take a point of order. What the honourable member is saying about the Tasman Limited is blatantly wrong. He should know that the -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-The Australian Government ought to be encouraging and persuading the advertising industry to provide more information and not less for consumers. Remember the long fight before date stamping was accepted for perishable commodities such as milk? Well, the fight to have ingredients listed on the packaging is not yet won. Marketers tell us: ‘The public don’t want to know; the information would only confuse them’. Let me give some examples. In the United States of America, chloroform has been banned since 1976 as an ingredient in pharmaceuticals on the ground that it is carcinogenic. In Australia it still remains as an important ingredient in 10 out of 41 popular toothpaste brands recently tested. I would like to be informed when I go into a chemist or supermarket which tube has the cancer. Am I entitled to know? I say: ‘Yes’.

It is clear that fluorocarbon aerosol propellants are hallucinogenic and have contributed to many deaths among ‘Pure ‘n’ Simple’ sniffers- a growing group among the young. Should the packages contain a warning so that the majority of purchasers can force fluorocarbons off the market, simply by applying market pressure, or would the information simply attract more deviant users? The matter needs very careful consideration, in addition to the possible harm to the ozone layer from fluorocarbons which are currently being used in the United States.

For many years I have wanted advertisement to contain a code supervised perhaps by the Prices Justification Tribunal or the Industries Assistance Commission indicating relative value for money. For example, one such code should indicate the cost of packaging relative to the cost of the basic ingredients, Clearly the cost of aerosol packaging is far greater than the cost of fly spray or ‘Pure ‘n’ Simple’ if purchased in bulk, but customers ought to be able to choose, for example, between a 3: 1 ratio of package costs to ingredients costs and a 5:1 ratio if they are to make a rational market judgment. Similarly, such a code could indicate the relative cost in car manufacturing of the motor, steering, brakes, chassis and safety features compared to the costs of styling, trim, accessories and cosmetic features. Obviously people are paying far more for the cosmetic features in cars than they are paying for the actual work- and they ought to be informed of the relative cost.

It is also very difficult for the lay purchaser to determine the relative efficiency of the heating and cooling devices. As the American Physical Society pointed out in its important study entitled ‘The Efficient Use of Energy’ many appliances have an efficiency in inverse proportion to their sophistication- electric cookers, space heaters or swimming pool heaters being good examples. We could have, I suggest, an ITE- an index of thermodynamic efficiency- rating to suggest how much energy value consumers are receiving for their energy dollar. The present listing of ‘wattage’ is useless, indicating how much energy is chewed up but not how much is given back to us in usable form.

I believe that doctors and lawyers ought to be able to advertise in a limited way. For example, a couple of weeks ago I was stuck in Canberra for the weekend. I felt ill. When I tried to call a doctor there were several inhibiting factors: Doctors Everingham, Klugman, Cass, Jenkins and Grimes had all gone home. I did not have a telephone book, but even if I had, the yellow pages would have told me nothing. If I had rung at random, I might well have dialled a gynaecologist, a thoracic surgeon, an ear, nose and throat man, an eye specialist or a Medibank syphoner before I found a friendly or available general practitioner. I think that each telephone entry for doctors should have a number or letter code indicating their expertise or even their limitations. For example, Kelly, Edward; G.P., NHC- that is, a general practitioner who does not take house calls.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr BIRNEY:
Phillip

-The Federal seat of Phillip while not embracing Sydney airport lies very cose to it. As the Federal member, I have received complaints from several of my female constituents almost immediately after they have been processed through customs. The serious complaint is that they have been required by customs officers to strip whilst both an external and an internal search is made of their person in search of drugs. Some time ago I made a complaint to the then Minister in charge of customs on behalf of one of my constituents and eventually received an apology. The same kind of search happened again recently so I decided to research the Customs Act and, in particular, the section that purportedly gave customs officers this power.

The relevant section is section 196 which states that if any officer of customs or of police shall have reasonable cause to suspect that any person is unlawfully carrying, or has any goods subject to the control of customs, or any prohibited imports, or any prohibited exports secreted about him, the following consequences shall ensue: Firstly, the officer may detain and search the suspected person; secondly, before the suspected person shall be searched he may require to be taken before a justice or the Collector of customs; thirdly, the justice or collector may order the suspected person to be searched or may discharge him without search but females shall only be searched by a female searcher appointed by the justice or collector.

In the course of my career as a lawyer I have never come across, nor indeed have I ever heard of, any legal authority for the proposition that the word ‘search’ is an all embracing term to permit of an indecent assault on a citizen. Searches have been carried out on many of my female constituents, and no doubt on many female constituents of other members of the House, by customs officers who justify this type of indecent assault by relying on the provisions of section 196 of the Customs Act. On a proper reading of this section, I believe that that proposition is untenable although customs officers innocently believe that this right is held by them. It is my firm belief that the word ‘search’ does not bestow on a customs officer the right to require a citizen to strip and to be both externally and internally searched.

There can be no doubt that what has happened is that an indecent assault, an indictable offence under the criminal law, has occurred. People must realise their rights. Customs officers only have rights bestowed upon them by a parliament. Despite holding an honest and reasonable belief in the lawfulness of their actions, if they perform actions for which they are not given power they are guilty of an offence. As I said, these officers perform their task diligently and honestly but there is not the slightest doubt that these types of searches have not the imprimatur or stamp of approval of an Act of Parliament and therefore are illegal. It follows naturally that they themselves, however innocently, are committing an indecent assault on those whom they detain and search in the manner to which I have referred.

I give the following advice to members of the community who find themselves being requested to submit to a search at an airport or shipping terminal: Demand to be taken before a justice; and demand in the presence of the justice that he require the officer to nominate the source of his reasonable cause for suspicion. If this latter requirement cannot be satisfied, and I doubt whether it would be in many cases, then that person should demand his immediate release from custody.

I am not oblivious of the fact that drugs are coming into this country in substantial amounts and are being secreted internally by wrongdoers. This type of smuggling activity must be stamped out for the protection of the whole community. The whole situation is fraught with danger and difficulty and in many cases leads to denuding the person of their self-respect. The whole situation calls for the immediate attention of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) so that the position can be clarified and the right to search given to a customs officer only on proof of reasonable suspicion being shown to the satisfaction of a justice. Even if such proof is provided, intimate searches of the kind to which I have alluded should only be performed by a medical practitioner.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! It now being 1 1 p.m., the debate is interrupted.

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs · Curtin · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I require the debate to be extended to enable me to reply to a matter raised during the debate. I am sorry if I take some small time from honourable members, but this might be the only occasion for me to report on recent visits to Australian war cemeteries and to respond to the comments made by the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack). I advise the House that as Minister for Veterans’ Affairs I visited the war cemeteries and Australian war memorials at Ypres, Zonnebeke and nearby sites on 2 March 1978, and those at Villers-Brettoneux on Anzac Day two weeks ago. There I took part in the Anzac Day ceremony and other ceremonies and laid wreaths at other memorials.

In Belgium I visited the Tyne Cot cemetery at Passchendale and the Australian Fifth Division memorial at Polygon Wood, the memorial at Hill 60 and the war museum at Ypres town hall. With the Burgomaster of Ypres I laid wreaths at the Belgium war memorial and at Menin Gate, where the last Post is sounded every day. I made a presentation to the Burgomaster of Ypres, who has received Australian visitors kindly for many years. I also visited the small cemetery at Birr Crossroads, where my mother’s brother is buried. I met Mr R. G. Wall, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission representative in North West Europe, and other War Graves Commission officers in London. During my visit in April to France I took the opportunity to spend Anzac Day at Villers-Brettoneux, in whose liberation Australian forces played a major part 60 years ago. There is one of Australia ‘s major war memorials in Europe, where many Australians are buried. It is a site of great symbolic significance for Australia and its friends. The memorial has been restored after having been extensively damaged in World War II.

Although many years have elapsed since the Great War battles, the Australian soldiers have not been forgotten. At each site I visited I found the graves and memorials very well tended and cared for and the people greet Australians with real warmth and friendship. Australians visit the Villers-Brettoneux memorial each Anzac Dayindeed, throughout the year- and each year the local people take part in the commemoration of Anzac Day. They helped to create a museum which is very impressive and moving. On behalf of Australia I made some presents of 1917 photographs and road signs to add to their collection. A party of 70 French school children -

Mr Morris:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The honourable member for Shortland may take his point of order.

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

– The Opposition is behaving disgracefully.

Mr Morris:

– I would like the honourable member for Diamond Valley to withdraw that remark.

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

– No. The Minister is making an important statement.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Shortland will take his point of order.

Mr Morris:

– My point of order is not based upon the remark just made by the honourable member for Diamond Valley. The Minister is making a statement. As I recall the Standing Order, the provision for an extension of time beyond the adjournment time of 1 1 o’clock relates to the situation where a matter of substance has been raised clearly in an adjournment debate. The key note of the debate which led to that change of the Standing Orders was that it should be a matter of substance.

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

– It is for a Minister to respond.

Mr Morris:

– When the honourable member for Diamond Valley is the Deputy Speaker I shall ask him for a ruling. In the meantime, I ask him to be quiet.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will address himself to the Chair.

Mr Morris:

– I want to ask whether you could please elaborate on the relevant Standing Order for the benefit of the House because it seems to me that what is occurring is not in accordance with that Standing Order. The Minister is making a ministerial statement which may in some very minute way be related to what occurred during the adjournment debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Standing Orders provide for a Minister to require that a debate be extended until 1 1.10 p.m. to enable a Minister to speak in reply to matters raised in the preceding adjournment debate. I take the point of the honourable member for Shortland, but technically and in accordance with the Standing Orders the Minister has the right to speak on a matter raised by the honourable member for Tangney in the adjournment debate.

Mr Holding:

– I take a point of order. Could you indicate, Mr Deputy Speaker, the specific points raised by the honourable member for Tangney which require this somewhat long and elaborate explanation by the Minister?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Chair is not in a position to determine the nature of the Minister’s remarks. They are in accordance with the Standing Orders.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.

Mr GARLAND:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, if the Opposition has this objection, I am perfectly happy to cease my remarks.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The debate is concluded. The House stands adjourned until Tuesday, 23 May next, at 2.15 p.m., unless Mr Speaker shall, by telegram or letter addressed to each member of the House, fix an alternative day or hour of meeting.

House adjourned at 11.6 p.m.

page 2319

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Consulate-General, Los Angeles (Question No. 435)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 8 March 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What were the nature and cost of the arrangements to dispose of the premises and assets of the Australian consulate-general in Los Angeles when the decision was made to close it (Hansard, 25 March 1976, page 1001; 19 October 1976, page 2005 and 29 March 1977, page 709).
  2. What will be the nature and cost of the arrangements to acquire premises and fittings for the consulate-general now that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has persuaded the Government to reopen it. (Hansard, 2 March 1978, page 348 and 8 March 1978, page 505).
Mr Street:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The arrangements resulting from the closure of the Los Angeles consulate-general are as follows:

Continuing Liabilities

The total amount of rent paid since the closure of the Los Angeles office to the end of February 1978 is $A1 13,000. About half of the office space has been sub-let since November 1976; total revenue received from this sub-lease to the end of February 1978is$A37,000.

  1. The estimated accommodation costs in 1978-79 of opening the post in Los Angeles are:

It is planned that the vacant portion of the former consulate-general office will be re-occupied when the post re-opens.

Purchase of Newspapers and Periodicals (Question No. 470)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 1 4 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 Lynch:
LP

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

I refer you to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 468, Hansard, 4 April 1978, page 978.

Public Servants: Employment after Retirement (Question No. 710)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 16 March 1978:

Were absolute propriety and unquestioned integrity, which he claimed in his broadcast on 12 March 1978 as a hallmark of the Menzies years, exhibited by (a) Sir Harry Brown when, on resigning as Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs under the first Menzies Government, he became chairman and joint managing director of British General Electric, (b) Sir Harry Brown’s successor, Sir Daniel McVey, when, on resigning, he became chairman and managing director of Standard Telephones and Cables Pty Ltd, (c) Sir Percy Spender when he held a directorship in an Americanowned company while Minister for External Affairs and Minister for External Territories in the fourth Menzies Government and while ambassador to the United States under the fifth and sixth Menzies Governments (Hansard, 5 April 1978, page 1078), (d) Sir Giles Chippendall when, on retiring as Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs under the sixth Menzies Government, he became a director of Telephone and Electrical Industries Pty Ltd (Hansard, 10 September 1958, page 1115) and of a commercial radio station, (e) Mr M. R. C. Stradwick when, on resigning as DirectorGeneral of Posts and Telegraphs under the seventh Menzies Government, he became general manager for the Far East, Pacific and Australia for International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation, (f) Dr A. J. Metcalfe when, on retiring as Director-General of Health under the seventh Menzies Government, he became a consultant to Lederle Laboratories (Hansard, 5 September 196 1 , page 793; 12 September 1961, page 1083 and 4 October 1961, page 1648), (g) Sir Tasman Heyes when, on retiring as Secretary of the Department of Immigration under the seventh Menzies Government, he became a director of a shipping company tendering for the carriage of migrants and (h) Sir Harold Raggatt when, on retiring as Secretary of the Department of National Development under the eighth Menzies Government, he became consultant geologist to the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member ‘s question is asfollows:

The honourable member may care to recall the praise given by his predecessor as Leader of the Opposition, the Rt Honourable A. A. Calwell, to the high standards of conduct of the Menzies administration as reported in the Melbourne Herald of 20 January 1966 as follows:

. every one of Sir Robert Menzies ‘ Ministers, led by himself, has always been above reproach in this respect.

For any Prime Minister to have held power for 16 years at a time when rapidly growing Federal revenues made strict Parliamentary supervision of expenditure not always possible, without a breath of financial scandal touching any of the Departments of State, is an achievement worthy of mention and praise.

Federal politics in Australia have been notably free from corruption, largely because of the personal integrity of our Prime Ministers, Ministers and Departmental heads.

It is no exaggeration to say that on the Federal level we have the most honest administrative system in the world, and that includes Britain. ‘

Appointment of Deputy Liberal Party Whip (Question No. 922)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 12 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did he state following the appointment of the honourable member for Petrie as Deputy Liberal Party Whip in the House of Representatives that the member for Fadden had not been dismissed, but rather had not been re-appointed to that position for the Thirty-first Parliament.
  2. If so, will he ascertain to whom the salary for Deputy Liberal Party Whip was paid in the period of the 3 1st Parliament prior to the appointment of the honourable Member for Petrie.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Clerk of the House of Representatives has informed me that the salary for the Deputy Government Whip in the House of Representatives was paid to the member for Fadden up to and including 1 5 March 1978. The honourable member had held that position prior to the General Election of 10 December 1977. The honourable member having been returned at the election, payment of the salary of that office was continued, in accordance with long standing practice, until the nomination of a successor.

Income Security Review (Question No. 935)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 13 April 1978:

Did the Income Security Review report on the National Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme covering injuries pursuant to its terms of reference which I announced on 8 September 1975.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

The Income Security Review provided advice to Ministers within its terms of reference and having regard to Government policies. Advice to Ministers from officials is not generally a matter of public record.

Minister for the Northern Territory: Overseas Travel (Question No. 1019)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 3 May 1978:

Has he travelled overseas since 1 1 November 1975.

Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

Yes.

Minister for the Northern Territory: Overseas Travel (Question No. 1020)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 3 May 1978:

Has he travelled outside Australia by aeroplane or ship since 1 1 November 1975.

Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

By aeroplane.

Commonwealth Health Laboratories, Port Pirie (Question No. 1036)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 4 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What are the plans of his Department with regard to the Commonwealth Health Laboratories at Port Pirie, South Australia.
  2. Will he give an undertaking that at least the present scale of operations of the Port Pirie laboratories will continue.
Mr Hunt:
Minister for Health · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The honourable member will be aware that the Task Force on Co-ordination in Welfare and Health recommended that negotiations be commenced for the transfer of the laboratory at Port Pirie to South Australian administration. However, further consideration is to be given to this matter by the Government and at present my Department has no plans for such a transfer to take place in the near future.
  2. Whilst the laboratory remains a Commonwealth facility it will continue to operate at its present level and to provide a high standard of service to the people of Port Pirie and surrounding areas.

Minister for Transport: Journey from Mt Isa to Mornington Island (Question No. 1069)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) By what means did he travel from Mt Isa to Mornington Island recently in the company of the Deputy Prime Minister.
  2. What was the purpose of the trip.
  3. What were the costs of travel, and by whom will they be paid.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Charter aircraft.
  2. (a) Private; (b) A personal appreciation of living conditions of and present assistance arrangements for the Aboriginal community at Mornington. We met the management and staff, leaders and members of the Aboriginal community at Mornington and inspected the town and its facilities.
  3. The cost of the charter aircraft has been paid by the Deputy Prime Minister and myself.

Australia Post: Purchase of Land at Gold Coast

Mr Staley:
LP

-On 4 May 1978, Mr Les McMahon asked me the following question, without notice:

I ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications: What is the purpose for which land bought at Bundall, Queensland on 4 February 1977 by the Australian Postal Commission is to be used? For how long prior to the purchase had the Commission been seeking land in the Bundall area? What departmental officers or Government members were aware of the Commission’s interest in acquiring land at Bundall?

The results of my inquiries are set out below.

The former Postmaster-General’s Department and Australia Post had been continuously seeking land in the Gold Coast area since 1974 to be used as the site for a mail centre. After much searching Australia Post indicated to the Department of Administrative Services in March 1976 that the Bundall area was one of its preferences.

Over this period there would have been many officials in Australia Post and the Department of Administrative Services aware of Australia Post’s interest.

On 23 August 1976, Australia Post was informed by Watkins Limited that they had for sale at $240,000, a piece of land on the corner of Crombie Avenue and Upton Street, Bundall. On 25 August 1976, Australia Post advised the Chief Property Officer, Department of Administrative Services, Queensland, that this land met all of its requirements and to concentrate on an early acquisition.

On 1 5 October 1 976, Australia Post learnt that the Bundall land had been sold to Ron McMaster Pty Ltd for $240,000 or $248,000. Australia Post expressed concern to the Department of Administrative Services that what had appeared to be a straightforward acquisition, and most attractive to Australia Post, failed at the last moment due to the initiative of another purchaser and delays in the purchasing process.

Because the land was so ideally suited for postal purposes, Australia Post asked the Department of Administrative Services to pursue negotiations with the new owner.

Initial negotiations were carried on with Ron McMaster Pty Ltd from October to December 1976. During this period the vendor moved his asking price down from $350,000 to $3 10,000. On 9 December 1976, the Australian Postal Commission decided to defer the matter pending careful examination of the facts surrounding the sale to Ron McMaster Pty Ltd and on 17 December 1976, the Commission decided not to proceed with the acquisition and to release Ron McMaster Pty Ltd from the offer of $3 10,000. This decision was taken because the Australian Postal Commission was concerned that the vendor was in a position to make a considerable capital profit.

The Department of Administrative Services, Queensland, advised Ron McMaster Pty Ltd on 20 December 1976 that the Commission did not wish to proceed with the purchase.

In making this decision, the Commission had before it a final valuation on the land by the Australian Taxation Office of$360,000.

During the period of these negotiations the then Minister for Post and Telecommunications was asked, entirely at the initiative of the Commission, whether the proposed purchase, which would take place in his electorate, would be an embarrassment to him. The then Minister indicated that he would have no difficulties if the Commission were to purchase property in his electorate even if the Commission’s ultimate decision was to purchase at a profit to the present owner.

After receipt of the letter of 20 December 1976, Mr McMaster made immediate representations to his local Member, the then Minister for Post and Telecommunications, questioning the decision notified by the Department of Administrative Services, and indicating that he believed that the Australian Postal Commission was still keen to buy the property.

The Minister rang the Acting Chief General Manager of the Australian Postal Commission on 30 December 1976, and made it clear that he did not want to be associated with any negotiations but that for the purpose of dealing with the representations from Mr McMaster it would be helpful if the Minister knew the Commission’s attitude so he could tell Mr McMaster where he stood in the matter.

The Minister asked that the Managing Director contact him on 4 January 1977 and indicated that he would delay answering Mr McMaster’s representations until after he had spoken with the Managing Director.

When the Managing Director contacted the Minister on 4 January 1977, the Minister confirmed the substance of his conversation with the Acting Chief General Manager. The Managing Director informed the Minister that the Australian Postal Commission would very much like to acquire the site but felt strongly its public responsibilities and would not contemplate a substantial profit being made by the vendor.

The Managing Director also indicated to the Minister that if Mr McMaster were prepared to consider a lower figure than $3 10,000, he should contact the Chief Property Officer, Department of Administrative Services, Queensland, and the Manager, Planning and Technical Services, Australia Post, Queensland.

The Minister indicated that he would pass on to Mr McMaster the Managing Director’s advice.

Mr McMaster subsequently entered into negotiations with the Department of Administrative Services on 7 January, 1 977. The property was purchased from Ron McMaster Pty Ltd on 8 February, 1977 at a cost of $280,000, which was $80,000 below the Taxation Valuation.

On 8 May, 1978,I contacted the former Chairman of the Australian Postal Commission, Mr J. J. Kennedy and the Managing Director, Mr A. F. Spratt, to seek their recollections of the matter.

Mr Kennedy has written to me as follows: 8th May, 1978.

The Honourable A. Staley, M.P.,

Minister for Post and Telecommunications,

Parliament House,

Canberra, A.C.T 2600

My dear Minister,

In response to your telephone call, I confirm that I have a very clear recollection of the events surrounding the purchase of land at the Gold Coast by the Australian Postal Commission, which I understand is now the subject of an investigation by your good self.

The Commission negotiated strenuously for this most suitable site for a mail sorting centre, and although it was valued at about $350,000.00, in the event was able to purchase it for $280,000.00, after prolonged negotiations.

I understand there has been a suggestion that the then Minister for Post and Telecommunications, the Hon. Eric Robinson, was in some way involved in influencing the Commission to purchase the property, so that the vendor would make a profit of some $40,000.00.

I do not wish to get involved in any political controversy, but I must state that, to my knowledge, no pressure or influence, implied, implicit, direct or indirect, was brought to bear by the then Minister, The Hon. Eric Robinson, in the Commission’s deliberations on the matter. The Minister made it quite clear to me that any decision on the purchase of the property at the Gold Coast was a decision that was entirely up to the Postal Commission, and he was particularly concerned, following a breakdown in the negotiations, that any re-opening of negotiations was entirely up to the Postal Commission.

The Minister made no attempt to influence the Commission ‘s decision to purchase the Gold Coast land. The land was purchased at a fair price below valuation, and was the most suitable land for the purpose. Less suitable land was available at a higher price, and this was taken into account in the Commission’s decision.

Yours sincerely,

page 2322

J.J.KENNEDY

Mr Spratt has by minute informed me as follows:

page 2322

PURCHASE OF SITE FOR MAIL CENTRE ON THE GOLD COAST (FEBRUARY 1977)

On 4 January 1977 after conferring by telephone with our State Manager, Queensland and our Chairman, I contacted by telephone the Minister for Post and Telecommunications further to his discussions with our Acting Chief General Manager on 30 December 1976.

The Minister confirmed as he had said to our Acting Chief General Manager on 30 December 1976 that he, the Minister, had been approached by Mr R. McMaster, seeking information whether the Australian Postal Commission would still be interested in the purchase of his, Mr McMaster’s, property if the asking price were reduced.

In discussion with the Minister I made the following points:

The Commission would very much like to acquire the site under sale to Mr McMaster but felt strongly its public responsibilities and could not contemplate an exorbitant profit being made by the new owner- in other words the Commission being ‘taken for a ride and ripped off’. The Commission was also sensitive to the fact that the site was located in the Minister’s electorate.

The Commission would not consider dealing at the asking price of $3 10,000 but if Mr McMaster is prepared to come to a lower figure and talk, he should contact the Chief Property Officer, Department of Administrative Services, Queensland and the Manager, Planning and Technical Services, Australia Post, Queensland.

The Minister indicated that he would pass on to Mr McMaster my advice that we would be prepared to reopen negotiations at a lower figure if Mr McMaster were to initiate contact with the relevant Queensland officers.

My contact with the Minister for Post and Telecommunications on 4 January 1977 was the only occasion on which we discussed the proposed purchase. My clear impression from our Acting Chief General Manager and from the Minister is that the initiative had been taken solely by Mr McMaster. Furthermore, there was no suggestion by the Minister, either direct or implied, that we should reopen negotiations, nor was there any indication that the Minister had any involvement or wish to intervene other than to respond helpfully to Mr McMaster’s inquiry to him.

A. F. Spratt

Managing Director 8 May 1978.

The purchasing procedures which are set out in the Land Acquisition Act are there to protect the public interest. There must always be some risk that a private person or organisation will step in and purchase a property, although active negotiations are being pursued at a time by the Government authority and the vendor. In this particular instance it is unfortunate that the proposed acquisition by Australia Post was not finalised when the offering price was $240,000.

On 22 February, 1977, the then Minister, Mr Robinson, wrote to the Minister for Administrative Services referring to the Lands Acquisition Act requirement that property transactions be conducted through the Department of Administrative Services. Mr Robinson said this requirement created difficulties for Australia Post obtaining properties quickly. The first example of delays which was quoted was the delay in purchasing the Bundall site on the Gold Coast.

Wheat Shipments (Question No. 858)

Mr Hyde:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 5 April 1 978:

  1. What was the average freight advantage of wheat shipped from Western Australia over the average freights of wheat shipped from all Australian ports in each of the (a) 1973-74, (b) 1974-75, (c) 1975-76 and (d) 1 976-77 pools.
  2. What is the expected average freight advantage of wheat shipped from Western Australian ports from the 1977-78 pool.
  3. What was the tonnage and destination of wheat shipped from each Australian port from each of the (a) 1973-74, (b) 1974-75, (c) 1975-76 and(d) 1976-77 pools.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question, according to information supplied by the Australian Wheat Board, is as follows:

  1. 1) The average freight advantage of wheat shipped from Western Australia over the average freights of wheat shipped from all Australian ports was as follows:

    1. 1973-74 season-$0.86per tonne
    2. 1974-75 season-$ 1.08 per tonne
    3. 1975-76 season-$ 1.10 per tonne
    4. 1976-77 season-$1.47per tonne
  2. The freight advantage of wheat of the 1977-78 season shipped from Western Australian ports is expected to be $1.25 per tonne.
  3. The tonnage and destination of wheat shipped from each Australian port from each of the 1973-74, 1974-75, 1 975-76 and 1 976-77 seasons is set out below:

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 11 May 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1978/19780511_reps_31_hor109/>.