House of Representatives
16 August 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 2. 1 5 p.m., and read prayers.

page 343

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

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. 1) On 14th 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 recognizes 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 recognized 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.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred, Mr N. A. Brown, Mr Burns, Mr Jarman and Mr Roger Johnston.

Petitions received.

Royal Commission on Human Relationships

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

That because the Report of the Royal Commission on Human Relationships and especially its Recommendations-

  1. Have been widely condemned for it support of unAustralian, anti-family, anti-child behaviour and morals such as incest, promiscuity, abortion, pornography, homosexuality, prostitution and brothels, etc. (Note: Refer quotations reverse side)
  2. Have been strongly criticised by the medical profession for the absence of any medical practitioner on the Commission or on its staff of 3 1 persons, and for the Commissioners action in rejecting or ignoring relevant medical evidence.
  3. Have been discredited as irresponsible in adopting a new definition of the family, i.e., ‘a varying range of people living together in relationships of commitment’, which has effectively confused the real meaning and intentions of the Report where it refers to the ‘ family’.

Therefore the Parliament has a responsibility to the families of Australia not to adopt this controversial Report and its Recommendations.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Australian Parliament will-

  1. Simply receive the Report and not adopt its Recommendations,
  2. Set up a Select Parliamentary Committee along the lines of the New Zealand Select Committee to conduct a public inquiry into the ways and means of supporting and strengthening family life and providing adequate protection for children from physical and sexual abuse before as well as after birth in accordance with the U.N.O. Declaration of the Rights of the Child as part of Australia’s support for the Year of the Child.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will take no measures concerning the Royal Commission on Human Relationships Report that will further undermine and weaken marriage, child-care or the family which is the basic unit of our society.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Sir William McMahon, Mr Lionel Bowen, Mr Bradfield, Mr Fife and Mr Ruddock.

Petitions received.

Medical Benefits: Abortions

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 Bradfield, Mr Jarman, Mr Keith Johnson, Mr Charles Jones and Mr Ian Robinson.

Petitions received.

Medical Benefits: Abortions

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:

  1. Your petitioners desire to draw to the Government’s attention that removal of Section No. 6469 on Health Refunds would transgress a woman’s right to the rebate available via Medical Health Insurance.
  2. Furthermore, as Section 6469 on Health Refunds is the Item for abortion and to remove Medical Rebate for Item No. 6469 would be penalising thousands of women.

Your petitioners stongly oppose the removal of No. 6469 from the Medical Rebate list.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dawkins, Mr Falconer and Mr Yates.

Petitions received.

Family Allowance

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 any of the rumoured changes to Family Allowances will affect Australia’s living standards.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government reject any legislation that deprive Australian families of any form of Family Allowance.

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

Petition received.

Broadcasting and Television Programs

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

That because television and radio:

  1. a ) affect our social and moral environment,
  2. are family media watched and heard by many children at all times, and
  3. present too much explicit violence and sex,

They therefore need stronger control than other media and the existing standards need stricter enforcement in both national A.B.C., and commercial sectors.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Australian Government will amend the Broadcasting and Television Act, in relation to both national and commercial broadcasters, to legislate:

  1. for adequate and comprehensive programs in the best interests of the general public,
  2. for a ‘Dual System of Regulation’ enforced by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal by internal regulation and external control.
  3. for an independent consumer body to represent the best interests of the general public, and
  4. for immediate and effective penalties to be imposed for breaches of program and advertising standards.

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

Petition received.

Medibank

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

That, contrary to election promises, the Federal Government is progressively dismantling Medibank to the detriment of those most in need and, in the long run, at the expense of national health.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should: retain bulk billing: ensure that there be no decrease in refund rates; ensure that long term hospital patients be not penalised; continue refunds on termination of pregnancy; pledge that no further cuts in Medibank be made.

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

Petition received.

Medibank

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

That we believe the Federal Government changes to the health insurance system are unjustified, costly and artificially bureaucratic.

The planned abolition of bulk billing will place an unnecessary burden on the poor and the disadvantaged in our community. The decision to reduce the rebate paid from 85 per cent to 75 per cent of the scheduled fee is an attack on real wages.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government should reverse its decisions on these matters and develop proper consultation with the trade unions and the community.

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

Petition received.

Metric System

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

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

Petition received.

Convention on Status of Refugees

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

  1. Recognising the peaceful invasion in small boats by illegal immigrants describing themselves as ‘refugees’ and consequent abuse of Australian immigration laws.
  2. Recognising the objection to this invasion by many Australian citizens.
  3. Recognising the vulnerable situation in which Australia has been placed by the Whitlam Government’s ratifying the Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees.

Will immediately denounce the aforesaid Protocol as provided for under Article IX thereof.

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

Petition received.

Foreign Aid

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

That the estimated amount allocated to Foreign Aid (.47 per cent of the Gross National Product) is below that requested by the United Nations (.7 per cent of GNP) and also below that given in 1974-75 (.56 per cent of GNP).

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that your Honourable Government will make every effort to increase the amount allocated to Foreign Aid.

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

Petition received.

National Family Policy

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 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.

page 345

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 345

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Finance: Has he at any stage been asked by the Prime Minister or anyone else to write a letter declaring that certain evidence he gave to the McGregor Royal Commission was faulty because it was based on an uncertain memory? If so, what was the Minister’s response to this highly improper request?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-No one has ever suggested to me that my testimony be altered in any way whatsoever.

page 345

QUESTION

CONSTRUCTION OF ANTARCTIC BASE AT KINGSTON, TASMANIA

Mr HODGMAN:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for Construction: Is it correct that tenders have now been called for the $8m Antarctic Base to be constructed at Kingston, Tasmania? Will tenders close on 12 September? Will the said construction of the Antarctic Base employ directly and indirectly between 150 and 200 people between now and 1980? Will the Minister make an official visit to the site as soon as construction commences?

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The answer to the first three parts of the question is yes. As to the last part, yes, I would like very much to be invited to come down there.

Mr Lynch:

– In the next couple of days. While the House is sitting.

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– It has been suggested, Mr Speaker, that I should go while the House is sitting. The position is that the tender will be let in, I think, October. The time of construction will be approximately 2 years for the stores complex and just over 2 years for the administration building, and the laboratory should be completed in April 1981.

I understand that there have been some suggestions in the Press in Tasmania this morning that the job has been deferred. I say that is simply untrue. Suggestions that it has been deferred or that only some nominal amount of a few thousand dollars will be spent on it are untrue. I expect that this financial year probably about $3m will be spent on the project. At this moment I would like also to make the point that total Commonwealth funds for Tasmania this year have been increased from $479m to $502m and that the untied funds have been increased from $3 15m to $34 lm, which is an increase of 81/4 per cent. This is at a time when the rate of inflation is running at 7.9 per cent. If one thinks ahead to next year when the rate of inflation will be running at 5 per cent, one can see that that is a very significant increase to Tasmania.

In conclusion, I mention that the amount of Commonwealth funds spent on construction in Tasmania this year will be about $9m. Last year about $4m was spent, so that in itself is a significant increase. I also acknowledge the work of the honourable member for Denison and other honourable members from Tasmania whose persuasion had something to do with this appropriation.

page 345

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Is the Prime Minister aware of a report published in the Bulletin today claiming that he asked his colleague the Minister for Finance to state in writing that certain evidence the Minister had given to the McGregor Royal Commission was unsound because it was based on uncertain memory? Did this evidence relate to a meeting in the office of the Prime Minister on 17 January at which certain matters which the Prime Minister can no longer remember were discussed with Senator Withers? Will the Prime Minister defend himself against this grave accusation?

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

-Everything that needed to be said on this subject was said yesterday.

page 346

QUESTION

AURUKUN AND MORNINGTON ISLAND ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES

Mr RUDDOCK:
DUNDAS, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs whether there has been any result yet from the legal action brought in Queensland by the chairmen and the shire councils of Aurukun and Mornington Island?

Mr VINER:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am able to inform the honourable member that shortly before I came into the chamber I was advised that a judge of the Queensland Supreme Court this morning granted an interim injunction to each of the Aurukun and Mornington Island councils restraining the Administrator of Queensland from proceeding with a dissolution of the two councils and the appointment of an administrator.

page 346

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Mr HAYDEN:

-I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Was a letter delivered to the Prime Minister’s -

Honourable members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Honourable gentlemen will realise how difficult it is to speak at the table if there are interjections. I ask that the Leader of the Opposition be allowed to ask his question in silence and I suggest that whoever is answering the question might likewise answer in silence.

Mr HAYDEN:

-I ask the Prime Minister: Was a letter delivered to the Prime Minister’s office last Friday by a member of the staff of the Bulletin’! Did the letter ask whether the Prime Minister had requested the Minister for Finance last week to write him a letter saying that the Minister’s evidence to the McGregor Royal Commission about events on 1 7 January was not a perfect recollection because it was based on uncertain memory’? I ask: Why did the Prime Minister fail to reply to that letter before publication of this most serious allegation in today’s issue of the Bulletin”!

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

– I am interested to know that the Leader of the Opposition has turned into an agent for the newspapers.

page 346

QUESTION

FUEL FREIGHT SUBSIDY DIFFERENTIAL SCHEME

Mr FISHER:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. The implications of increased fuel prices for country people, particularly those involved in essential transport services and productive industry, are serious. This applies particularly to people -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will ask his question and cease giving information.

Mr FISHER:

-Yes, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister indicate when the second stage of our fuel freight subsidy differential scheme will be introduced so that the impact of our policies to conserve vital energy resources will not bear unfairly on rural activity?

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

– In answer to the question asked by the honourable member for Mallee, I would remind the House that the first stage of the Government’s policy in relation to the fuel freight subsidy scheme applied throughout Australia as from 1 July this year. It is important to keep in mind that some States were in a position to pass on this very beneficial subsidy to the consumers within their States well before 1 July. On a national basis it has applied since 1 July this year. It will be recalled also that the Government indicated that the full scheme would be implemented during the life of the present Parliament. No decision has been taken as to when the second stage will be introduced but I want to assure the honourable member for Mallee and other honourable members that the matter will be kept under review and will be implemented as soon as possible.

The scheme provides for a subsidy on the freight component of petroleum products. So far as petrol is concerned, the freight component of its cost throughout Australia will not be more than 4c per gallon as from now. This is a very beneficial subsidy scheme. People living or travelling in remote areas are benefiting from the scheme now.

page 346

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. I refer the Minister to the political analysis of the Queensland distribution prepared by the Chief Australian Electoral Officer and tendered as an exhibit in evidence to the McGregor Royal Commission. Will the Minister arrange to table later today this and all other similar research papers analysing the distribution proposals of the other five States which were sent to the Chairman of each Distribution Commission?

Mr VINER:
LP

-With regard to the Queensland distribution, that material was before the Royal Commissioner. I will refer to the Minister the honourable member’s request to table other such analyses and report to the honourable member.

page 347

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA-INDONESIA BORDER

Mr NEIL:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Minister read reports of incidents on the Papua New GuineaIndonesia border? What are the facts regarding these incidents and what is the Government’s attitude towards them?

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

-Stated succinctly, Australia’s attitude obviously is to have a positive and understandable interest in the maintenance and development of good relations between Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. We would be concerned to see them impaired by problems relating to the border between the two countries. The Australian missions in both countries have been instructed to keep in close contact with both governments to encourage consultation and understanding between them. The Indonesian response has been to stress the good relations it has with Papua New Guinea as well as the importance it attaches to them, and Prime Minister Somare has indicated that Papua New Guinea will continue to maintain a dialogue with the Indonesian authorities over the border. The Australian Government naturally welcomes these indications. In regard to speculation and reports on the matter, it is of interest to note that Mr Somare when addressing the Papua New Guinea Parliament on 14 August about the border situation emphasised ‘that far too much is being made of the whole issue’. Those are his words, not mine. While we have not been in a position to check the accuracy of all the media reports which have appeared on this matter in recent weeks, it appears that some of them may have been somewhat exaggerated. Quoting Prime Minister Somare again, because this is a matter related to his own country, he also said in the Papua New Guinea Parliament on 14 August:

This country’s security has never been greatly threatened nor is our security seriously threatened now.

page 347

QUESTION

BUDGET DEFICIT

Mr WILLIS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– Has the Treasurer seen reports alleging that the blow-out of last year’s Budget deficit by 50 per cent above the estimated level resulted from either gross miscalculation of the key Budget variables or the deliberate falsification of the Budget figures so as to improve the acceptability of the Budget and disguise the revenue impact of politically motivated tax cuts? Can the Treasurer advise the House which of these explanations is correct? Is he able to assure the House that the estimates contained in this year’s Budget are more reliable than they were last year?

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

-The answer to the first part of the question is yes. Last year’s deficit did blow out to the order of about 50 per cent. That represented an error of 4 per cent in relation to revenue of about $25 billion. I do not think it profits anybody to try to apportion blame. I and the Government have confidence in the integrity of the advice that we receive from the Department of the Treasury and the Australian Taxation Office.

page 347

QUESTION

PETROL PRICES

Mr GOODLUCK:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

-Is the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs aware that there is a grave disparity in the price or petrol sold to consumers throughout Australia even taking into consideration the recent fuel subsidy plan? Will he advise the House when he will announce the findings of the oil industry conference, specifically those relating to the marketing and pricing of petroleum products in Australia?

Mr FIFE:
LP

– I am aware of the disparity in fuel prices throughout Australia referred to by the honourable member for Franklin. The honourable member and other members of this House will be aware that early this year, as a result of an undertaking given by the Prime Minister prior to the last election, I convened an oil industry conference which was attended by a large number of people from all sections of the oil industry, and particularly by service station proprietors who have been hard hit in recent times by marketing conditions within the industry. The conference met in three sessions and as a result reports were prepared indicating areas where agreement had been reached between the parties and also areas where agreement had not been reached. The reports of the conference are now public documents. The position that was arrived at by that conference is being considered by the Government. I have prepared a detailed submission on all the representations that were made and discussions that took place at that conference. I hope that within the very near future it will be possible for Cabinet to give consideration to that document and to my recommendations, following which of course Government decisions will be announced.

page 348

QUESTION

PEACEKEEPING FORCE IN NAMIBIA

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

-I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Has a formal request been received from the United Nations for the provision of support troops for a United Nations peacekeeping force in Namibia? If so, has the Government responded to the request, and in what terms?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

-Stated shortly, the answer is that a formal request has not been received. The United Nations Secretariat has made an informal inquiry as to whether Australia could provide elements of an integrated logistics unit for the proposed United Nations Transition Assistance Group in Namibia, to be known as UNTAG. This group, which is provided for in the proposals of the five Western members of the Security Council for a peaceful transition to majority rule in Namibia, would have civilian and military components. Its central task would be to make sure that conditions are established to allow free and fair elections in an impartial electoral process. I stress that no formal request has yet been received. The inquiry obviously raises a number of issues that will require the closest examination by the Government. The Government is currently considering all the factors relevant to a possible Australian contribution. However, further details -

Mr Holding:

– Send Reg Withers; he can help them out.

Mr PEACOCK:

-The contribution from the honourable member for Melbourne Ports will have to be a little more precise and a little heavier than that; otherwise he will be destined for the same fate as he was in Victoria. Further details of the proposed deployment and methods of operation of the force and its likely mandate will be required before a final decision can be taken, and these details will not be available until the Secretary-General’s representative concludes the investigation that he is currently undertaking in Namibia.

page 348

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TOURIST COMMISSION: INCREASE IN BUDGET ALLOCATION

Mr JULL:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– The Minister for Industry and Commerce will be aware of the welcome reaction from the travel industry to the increase in funds for the Australian Tourist Commission in the Budget. Can the Minister tell the House whether the ATC staff level will be held at the present numbers? Will the increase be used for domestic as well as overseas promotion? What is being done to improve statistical help for the tourist industry?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– The Government is determined to encourage development of the tourist industry, and one of the reflections of this encouragement and the Government’s recognition of the great significance of the tourist industry to Australia has been the increase in the Australian Tourist Commission’s appropriation from $3.1m to $4.24m this financial year. This increase in funds will enable the Commission almost to double its expenditure on marketing activities and to undertake increased market research. The lift in the ATC’s appropriation is very significant. It is the most significant lift in funding for the ATC in any year since it was established. Funds also have been provided in the Budget for the Bureau of Industry Economics to commence a detailed study of the economic significance of tourism in Australia. The funds provided to the ATC will not be applied to domestic tourism which traditionally has been regarded as the province of the State governments. They will be utilised to seek to bring more travellers to Australia. To round out the question, I mention that the Government has accepted in principle the application of the Export Market Development Grants Scheme to the tourist industry and details of that, I expect, will be before the Government shortly.

page 348

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask a question of you, Mr Speaker. You would have noted the information given to this House by the Minister for Finance yesterday that he stood by his evidence to the McGregor Royal Commission. I draw your attention to an article in today’s issue of the Bulletin headlined ‘Robinson’s memory faces a test’, which claims that the Prime Minister requested the Minister for Finance to write a letter casting doubt on the accuracy of his evidence to the Royal Commission. In view of answers given on this matter earlier today, I ask you, Mr Speaker, if you will consider the question of whether a prima facie case exists for breach of privilege in that improper pressure -

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. If the honourable gentleman’s question concerns a matter of privilege, I suggest to him that it should have been canvassed immediately after the last question was responded to; if not, it should have been raised at the beginning of the proceedings today. The whole question of privilege in this place traditionally has relied on the immediacy of the matter being raised in the Parliament. I would suggest therefore that this is not really a matter of privilege; it is a matter of political opportunism. For that reason I believe that it should be dismissed.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will hear the completion of the question before I rule.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I will complete the last part of the question. In view of answers given earlier today on this matter, I ask you, Mr Speaker, whether you will consider the question of whether a prima facie case exists for breach of privilege in that improper pressure may have been used to influence the Minister for Finance in the performance of his parliamentary duties. I am asking you, Mr Speaker, whether you will consider this matter. I think it is quite a reasonable proposition.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The way in which the honourable gentleman has brought up this matter is unusual in the sense that when I called him I thought he wanted to ask a question but he raised a matter of privilege. I will consider the matter of privilege and rule on it. I remind the honourable gentleman that the point made by the Leader of the House is correct, that is, that a matter of privilege must be taken up at the first available opportunity. I will consider that aspect in terms of time and I will consider the question of whether the issue of privilege arises.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– On that matter, Mr Speaker, I had thought that the Leader of the Opposition would have understood the meaning of the reply given by the Minister for Finance. Let me say only that, so far as any knowledge that I may have is concerned, the reply of the Minister for Finance is completely and absolutely accurate.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, perhaps I could respond to that. The Minister for Finance said that no one asked him to alter his testimony, which is completely different from being asked to suggest that his memory was hazy.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition has raised the issue of privilege. I allowed him to do so out of context in the sense that he raised the matter during Question Time, so as not to prevent him from raising it at the first opportunity. I permitted the Prime Minister, as a matter of extending proprieties to him, to make his point. I do not wish the matter to be debated at this stage. I will rule on it later.

page 349

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Mr Martin proceeding to address a question to the Prime Minister-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s question is out of order.

page 349

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Mr Lusher proceeding to address a question to the Treasurer-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s question is out of order.

page 349

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr YOUNG:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Does the Prime Minister recall that prior to the last election he made a statement that unemployment would start to fall in February and continue to fall? I now ask: In the light of the Budget and the economic situation that will exist for the next year, what are the Government’sestimates for unemployment in early 1979?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I point out that the prediction I made before the last election has to this point proved to be completely and absolutely accurate. I think it is worth noting that since the last election we have received additional information concerning the movements of wages and prices. Average earnings for the 12 months to June grew at a greater rate than the consumer price index. In the Government’s view, if wages are to continue to grow at that rate reductions in unemployment certainly will be prejudiced. Indeed, if wages grow at an undue pace there is no possibility of getting the kind of reduction in unemployment that this Government would certainly want. I suggest that the honourable gentleman is well aware of that.

The growth projections of the Government over the next year are modest but it ought to be noted that whereas over the last two to three years Australia’s performance was better than the average of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, excluding the three major countries- that is, the United States of America, Japan and West Germany- we are now moving into a position where our performance on inflation and growth looks like being better than the average, including those three countries. That is very considerably to the credit of the economic policies that the Government has pursued.

I suggest that the honourable gentleman could do a great service to this country and to the labour movement if he were able to persuade labour leaders to accept the view, as is certainly the case, that they have a choice in relation to wage claims. They can argue for high and irresponsible wage increases, as they now do, to the benefit of those now in employment and to the detriment of those now unemployed, or they can argue for a lesser rate of wage increase and for some degree of moderation which has not yet been seen in the wages arena, to the advantage of those who are now unemployed so that there will be a greater capacity to establish the kind of employment situation that all Australians and certainly this Government would want.

Let me make one other point in relation to unemployment. I am prepared to concede- I doubt whether honourable gentlemen opposite would- that all members of this Parliament are concerned and have a compassion in their hearts for those who are unemployed and who want jobs. But the argument within this place is about how to overcome this problem. The Australian Labor Party says on every point: ‘Spend more money. It does not matter if you have to tax for it. It does not matter how big the deficit is. If you do not have enough just print it and if the printing press does not have enough capacity, go and buy another printing press’. We have seen time and time again how that policy, when pursued by Labor in this country and when pursued by some governments overseas, has led to high inflation, higher interest rates and high and rising unemployment.

Those who look to a stimulus within the Australian economy should look not just to money that might be spent by governments which they first have to take from taxpayers- if they want to be honest about it- but they should look to other policies of government. Let me say most categorically that the best possible stimulus that can be provided for industry and for employment in this country at this time is a further moderation in the rate of inflation leading to a sustained and further reduction in interest rates. Whatever the critics of the Budget might say, they have in no way said that the Budget will not lead to a further reduction in inflation. The Treasury estimates of inflation for the middle of next year are 5 per cent by June or earlier. That will put Australia’s rate of inflation below that of most of the major trading countries with the exception of West Germany and, I would imagine, Japan. That will then lead to a very much improved trading position for this country and for Australian industries. Consequently that must have an impact on the general employment situation.

Also, with the further projections of the movement down in inflation which comes out of the nature of this Budget, the prospects for further, sustained and increasingly significant reductions in interest rates which will flow right across the whole community obviously are coming much nearer than they would otherwise be. These two factors- reducing inflation and reducing interest rates- provide the best possible incentive for all Australian industry, for home owners, for exporters, for farmers and for businesses, be they large or small, and that is the best course for this nation.

page 350

QUESTION

USE OF PARLIAMENTARY POSTAGE PAID ENVELOPES

Mr BOURCHIER:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. Is the Minister aware of a letter that is being circulated to various councils in Victoria and, no doubt, to other States by a Councillor Healy of Fitzroy City Council on behalf of a group called Medibank Action Coalition and that this letter is being posted in a postage paid envelope restricted for the use of members of Parliament. If he is aware of this action will he undertake to call for an inquiry by the Commonwealth Police of the honourable member concerned?

Mr VINER:
LP

– I thank the honourable member for his question because if his information is correct, it is most disturbing to find that an honourable member of this House should be using or allowing to be used parliamentary postage paid envelopes for a purpose not connected with his own parliamentary business. I understand that the address provided by Mr Healy is 200 Lygon Street, Melbourne. I do not think any honourable member on our side of the House has his parliamentary office at that address. I believe that is the address of the electorate office of the honourable member for Melbourne. Judging the matter seriously, as I do, I will report it to Senator Durack, the Minister for Administrative Services, to see what inquiries are necessary to be undertaken.

page 350

QUESTION

INDEXATION OF PENSIONS AND UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Does the Prime Minister recall his assertion in last year’s Liberal Party policy speech that his Government had, to use his words, ‘taken politics out of pension increases by linking them automatically with the consumer price index’? If so, how does he reconcile this statement with his Government’s decisions in last night’s Budget to remove the automatic six-monthly indexation of pensions and unemployment benefits for those people without dependants?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-I think the honourable gentleman is quite unaware of what has been happening. When the rate of inflation was running at 16 per cent or 17 per cent, in order to protect pensioners it was clearly necessary to index their pensions twice a year because of the rapid rate of” inflation induced and caused quite directly by Labor policies. In those circumstances, that is what was done. But with the rate of inflation approaching the 5 per cent mark, as outlined in the Budget forecasts- with that objective clearly in our sights and within our reach- it is very plain that indexing pensions once a year with that level of inflation leaves pensioners much better off than indexing their pensions twice a year with Labor’s rate of inflation. I hope that the honourable gentleman can understand that.

page 351

QUESTION

RESERVE FORCES DECORATIONS AND MEDALS

Mr ALDRED:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Defence. Will the Government give consideration to an early resumption of the award of Reserve Forces decorations and medals, retrospectively dated to their suspension in February 1975?

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

– The short answer is yes, and I do not propose to ruin the answer by saying anything further.

page 351

QUESTION

SALINITY CONTROL IN MURRAY RIVER

I hope that when I have their report I shall be able to make recommendations to the Government on what can be done in the way of urgent remedial work.

In view of the now very critical situation, can the Minister inform the House what urgent remedial work has been decided upon and when the remedial work will commence?

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

-The reply that I gave the honourable member for Riverina earlier is correct. An amount of money- I think it is about $2. 6m- is allocated in the Budget for that purpose. I will be making announcements about how that money will be spent on urgent remedial work. As regards the rest of the report, I expect it to be finalised by May next year. We will be taking further action after the report is finalised.

page 351

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA’S MOTOR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– In what way does the Minister for Industry and Commerce believe that the Budget will assist employment prospects in Australia’s motor manufacturing industry? In particular, in what way could it affect employment opportunities in Adelaide?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– I thank the honourable gentleman for his question which relates to the Budget which the Treasurer brought down last night. One of the most significant reflections of this Government’s determination to provide adequate protection for manufacturing industry in Australia is the very decisive move to reduce sales tax on passenger motor vehicles from 27Vi per cent to 15 per cent. That decision has been welcomed by consumers and manufacturers alike. It certainly will serve the purpose which the honourable gentleman posed in his question. It will provide a very timely and significant stimulus to all sections of the passenger motor vehicle industry. It will have substantial flow-on benefits to the level of economic activity in general. I should mention here that I think it will allow a reduction of some Vh per cent in the price of cars to the consumer with a consequential beneficial effect on the consumer price index. The cost to revenue, and hence the potential saving to consumers, in a full year is estimated to be about $200m. The Government has a total expectation that this will be passed on in full to consumers. I have had correspondence with my colleague, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, to ensure that if this action is not taken then such procedures as are available to the honourable gentleman through the Prices Justification Tribunal and the Trade Practices Act will be the subject of examination by Ministers.

The action which the Government has taken brings the level of sales tax which formerly applied to passenger motor vehicles down to the level which covers light commercial vehicles. Quite apart from the significance of this to the industry, it therefore removes an anomaly which has existed for some considerable time. The whole of the industry has applauded the Government’s decision. As I mentioned earlier, I think this action is a reflection of this Government’s determination to provide adequate protection for manufacturing industry.

page 352

QUESTION

BUDGET: PUBLIC RELATIONS KITS

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-My question is directed to the Treasurer. Did the Treasurer authorise a briefing on the Budget last week for members of the Liberal Party Federal Secretariat? If so, on what basis was this briefing carried out, and on what terms and conditions? If not, can he explain how the Secretariat was able to produce by last night printed public relations kits designed, presumably, to sell this Budget to the Australian public?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– The answer to the first part of the question is no. I did not authorise any Budget briefing of any official- State or Federal- of the Liberal Party. I give that categoric assurance to the House. Is the honourable gentleman referring to an information kit on the Budget that was available for collection from the Government Party room at 9.30 p.m.?

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes.

Mr HOWARD:

– That was prepared in my office.

page 352

QUESTION

HEALTH CARE COSTS

Mr BRADFIELD:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Health aware of some confusion in the community regarding the newly announced subsidy covering personal medical care? Is the Minister aware that some members of this Parliament are telling people that the Government will pay only 40 per cent of medical charges or $20? Is this correct?

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

– It was brought to my attention this morning that the Leader of the Opposition, either deliberately or accidently, confused the issue on an Australian Broadcasting Commission radio program by suggesting that the new universal Commonwealth medical benefit will cover only $20 for any medical service. This is absolute nonsense. He should know better than that. The new universal Commonwealth medical benefit will cover 40 per cent of the schedule fee. It will ensure that no patient will pay more than $20 for any medical service rendered by a doctor who charges the schedule medical fee. It is a lot of rubbish to suggest that the Government is trying to diddle the people, as the Leader of the Opposition has sought to make out. I repeat that in the case of a service costing, say, $100- I did say this on a radio program this morning- the Commonwealth medical benefit will cover $80 of that fee and the patient will pay $20 if he is not insured for the gap.

page 352

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Mr WEST:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in the Senate on 4 November 1977 the former Minister for Administrative Services said:

I have never telephoned . . . about the naming of electorates.

I have been asked why the names were changed.

Mr Bourchier:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does this question come within the Standing Orders?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am not sure yet whether it is in order. I will hear some more of it before ruling on that.

Mr WEST:

– Why did the Prime Minister not take immediate disciplinary action against the former Minister for Administrative Services for grossly misleading the Senate on 4 November 1977, since the Prime Minister stated to this House yesterday -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman -

Mr WEST:

-. . . that he was aware not later than 17 April -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. Because the honourable gentleman persisted in continuing to speak while I was calling him to order I did not hear the end of the question. I was going to tell him that unless he put his question in order I would make him sit down. Now that he has sat down I tell him that the question is out of order.

Mr West:

- Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to rephrase the question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have ruled the question out of order.

Mr Young:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We seek an explanation from you as to why the question is out of order. It refers to matters that took place in the Senate of which the Prime Minister is aware.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question was in order until the honourable gentleman started to argue. I was trying to draw his attention to the fact that he would make the question out of order if he argued. He would not listen to me. He kept speaking. So I ruled the question out of order, and properly so.

Mr Young:

- Mr Speaker, on a number of occasions you have ruled in this House that when a person starts to argue that is the finish of his question. The person to whom the question is directed is then given the opportunity to answer that part which is a question. I see no reason why you should not rule accordingly on this occasion.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have ruled in this way because it is one of the few methods of discipline I have to make a member cease speaking when I want to draw his attention to the Standing Orders. I have ruled the question out of order and continue to do so.

Mr Stewart:

– Rafferty.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Grayndler will withdraw that remark.

Mr Stewart:

– I withdraw, Mr Rafferty.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I name the honourable member for Grayndler.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the honourable member for Grayndler be suspended from the service of the House.

Mr Young:

- Mr Speaker, I think that the honourable member for Grayndler ought to be given an opportunity to reconsider the matter. As you know, people on this side of the House were upset at your ruling. The honourable member for Grayndler has been in this House a long time and he ought to be given the opportunity of dealing with you directly on this matter before that question is put.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am willing to allow the honourable member for Grayndler to withdraw and apologise.

Mr Stewart:

- Mr Speaker, I withdraw and apologise.

Motion- by leave- withdrawn.

page 353

POULTRY RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Poultry Research Advisory Committee for the period -

An incident having occurred in the Gallery-

Mr SPEAKER:

-The House will come to order. The House was at a point where papers were being presented by Ministers. I did not expect it to produce that shower of paper. I ask the right honourable gentleman to see whether he can present a paper without the same result.

Mr SINCLAIR (New England-Minister for Primary Industry)- Mr Speaker, with a somewhat less dramatic flourish, for the information of honourable members I present the report of the Poultry Research Advisory Committee for the period 1 July 1975 to 30 June 1977.

page 353

REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL REVIEW

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

Pursuant to section 8 of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1 973 I present the Remuneration Tribunal Review 1978.

page 353

UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the Australian National Paper for the United Nations Conference on Science and Technology for Development 1979.

page 353

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE OF AUSTRALIA

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– Pursuant to section 147 of the Defence Act 1903 I present the report on the Royal Military College of Australia for the period 1 February 1977 to 3 1 January 1978.

page 353

LAW REFORM COMMISSION

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– Pursuant to section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973 I present a supplementary report of the Law Reform Commission entitled ‘Complaints Against Police’.

page 353

COMMONWEALTH SERUM LABORATORIES

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

For the information of honourable members I present the report of an independent inquiry into the operations and capital works program of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. This report is tabled in substitution for the paper of the same title tabled on 3 1 May 1978.

page 353

HOMELESS PEOPLE AND HOMELESS PERSONS ASSISTANCE CENTRES

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

For the information of honourable members I present a report entitled ‘A Place of Dignity’, which is based on a survey of homeless people and homeless persons assistance centres.

page 353

DARWIN CYCLONE TRACY RELIEF TRUST FUND

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

– For the information of honourable members I present two monthly reports of the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund, for May and June 1 978.

page 354

NATIONAL HIGHWAY: BRISBANE AND DARWIN BARKLY TABLELAND REGION

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a report on the national highway linking Brisbane and Darwin Barkly Tableland Region.

page 354

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the reports of the Industries Assistance Commission on ball and roller bearings; wheat stabilisation; brassieres: rate or rates of duty outside quota; domestic refrigerators appliances, et cetera; copper ores and concentrates; light commercial and four-wheel drive vehicles and heavier commercial vehicles and components; and an interim report on hoists, pulleys, tackles and winches. Also, pursuant to section 30 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973, I present two reports of the Temporary Assistance Authority on insulators and on hoop, strip, sheets and plates of iron or steel.

page 354

NORFOLK ISLAND

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · Wentworth · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the Norfolk Island annual report for the year ended 30 June 1977.

page 354

ENVIRONMENT (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) ACT 1977

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

– Pursuant to section 6 of the Environment (Financial Assistance) Act 1977 I present four agreements made under the provisions of that Act relating to New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria.

page 354

STATES GRANTS (NATURE CONSERVATION) ACT 1974

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

– Pursuant to section 11 of the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974 1 present a supplementary agreement in relation to the provision of financial assistance to Western Australia for land acquisition for nature conservation purposes 1976-77.

page 354

URBAN AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) ACT 1974

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

– Pursuant to section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974 I present six agreements made under the provisions of that Act relating to New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia.

page 354

NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) ACT 1978

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · Bass · LP

– Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978 I present two agreements made under the provisions of that Act, one in relation to the provision of financial assistance to New South Wales for the mitigation of flooding on coastal rivers 1 977- 1 978 and the other in relation to the provision of financial assistance to Queensland for the construction of the Gin Gin channel and associated works in the Bundaberg irrigation scheme.

page 354

SALINITY CONTROL IN MURRAY VALLEY

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · Bass · LP

- Mr Speaker, in answer to the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Fitzpatrick) I gave an incorrect figure. I wonder whether I could take the opportunity to correct that figure.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Indulgence is given.

Mr NEWMAN:

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. I gave the honourable member a figure of $2. 6m, out of which projects would be met for those urgent works. In fact, the figure should have been $2.26m.

page 354

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the House has indicated to me that he wishes to make a personal explanation.

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

– At page 2795 of Hansard of 31 May 1978, in an answer to a question from the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond), I said that it had been brought to my attention that the representative we sent on behalf of Project Jonah to the International Whaling Commission meeting in London in June was neither an Australian citizen nor an Australian resident. I have since been advised that the advice I received on that occasion was not completely correct. I am advised that the principal nominee was in fact born in Australia and although married to a United States citizen had retained her Australian citizenship; and that she lived in Australia for approximately three years but departed from Australia to reside abroad in 1978.

page 355

AVIATION SAFETY IN AUSTRALIA

Ministerial Statement

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– by leave- As the Minister for Transport, I regard it as my duty to make a statement to the House today concerning aviation safety in Australia. All honourable members will be aware of a number of allegations and charges made in recent weeks through the media concerning aviation safety- allegations and charges that have little foundation in fact. It is of course not necessary for me to defend Australia’s air safety record which on the basis of aviation accident statistics alone is exemplary. Australia has one of the best aviation records in the world. There is a need however for me to set out the actual record of those in my Department, such as flight service officers, rank and file air traffic controllers and our highly trained pilots, and others in the aviation industry who have been denigrated by many of the recent statements and Press stories. There is also a need to reassure the people of Australia who have been caused quite unnecessary concern by these irresponsible statements.

Let me say right at the beginning that it is the Government’s policy to maintain aviation safety at the highest possible level. However, aviation safety is for experts to maintain; it is not for politicians, journalists or laymen to determine. As Minister I, of course, rely upon the advice of my Department and the industry on all aviation safety matters. I never have, and will not, make arbitrary personal judgments on aviation safety matters, but will continue as always to rely on those experts in my Department and in the industry itself who can and do advise me.

Let me give one example of the sort of allegation and the sort of media headline that have caused a totally incorrect picture of the level of aviation safety in Australia to be presented to the Australian people. I refer to an incident concerning two domestic airline aircraft near Brisbane on the seventh of this month. The Sydney Daily Telegraph on Monday of this week carried the headline: ‘Mid Air Near Miss for Three Jets’. The story quoted a so-called departmental spokesman saying the three jets were only seconds from collision and went on to quote the

Vice-President of the Civil Air Operators Association, Mr Gosling, as saying:

It is a very serious incident.

The Melbourne Herald carried an extravagent front page story but, so far as I can ascertain, no check was made with responsible officers in my Department. Other newspapers carried similar stories and headlines claiming that my Department had covered up the incident.

Now let us look at the facts. An interim report by my Department indicates that there was no danger of collision between any aircraft. The incident concerned only two aircraft, not the three reported in the newspapers. The incident involved only a marginal breakdown in the standard separation of five miles. The report indicates that the aircraft were flying in the same general direction about four miles apart instead of five and were also separated by 1,000 feet in height when the situation was recognised by the air traffic controllers themselves and appropriate action taken. What is even more disturbing is that the departmental spokesman quoted in the paper was not a departmental spokesman, a fact later acknowledged by the journalist himself. I would like to have incorporated in Hansard a statement I made on this matter.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

NO DANGER OF COLLISION

An interim report by the Department of Transport’s Air Safety Investigation Branch indicates that there was no danger of collision between a TAA 727 and an Ansett 727 at Brisbane last Monday.

The incident involved a marginal breakdown in the standard separation of five miles, a Departmental spokesman said today.

The aircraft were estimated to be about four miles apart and separated by 1,000 feet in height when this situation was recognised by Air Traffic Control and appropriate action taken.

Both aircraft were approaching Brisbane and were being sequenced by Air Traffic Control for landing at the time.

A third aircraft which had been mentioned in media report was not involved in the incident.

Some reports had included a statement by a so-called ‘Departmental spokesman’ who was quoted as saying the margin was ‘extremely dangerous’ and the aircraft were ‘only seconds from collision’.

Both these statements were not attributable to the Department and were not the opinion of the Depanment.

Canberra 14August 1978

Mr NIXON:

– Of equal concern is a report in yesterday’s Courier Mail quoting the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) saying that the Department’s view of the incident appeared to conflict with information provided by, ‘an air safety official’ on Friday. The honourable member for Shortland was even quoted as saying that a spokesman from my office confirmed the view that the incident was a near miss and attributable to pilot error. There was no spokesman from my office, and there has been no suggestion that pilot error was involved. The honourable member for Shortland clearly does not want to believe the facts. He is prepared to say anything in order to get a headline and denigrate officers of my Department, including air traffic controllers and airline pilots.

The honourable member for Shortland has made recent public calls for a public enquiry into aviation safety. My statement this afternoon rejects entirely the need for the expenditure of public moneys on the undertaking of such an enquiry. The honourable member for Shortland would be contributing far more to aviation safety in this country if he were to support and be constructive, rather than try to undermine the activities of those involved in safety matters in the aviation industry. It is clearly necessary for me to present the true position of aviation safety in Australia to defend our pilots, our air traffic controllers, and other officers of my department, men and women who, I believe, are doing a difficult job magnificently, maintaining our aviation safety standards as perhaps the best in the world.

Let me take the incidence of air accidents as a beginning. That our scheduled airline safety record is beyond reproach cannot be denied. Since 1968 there has been only one fatal accident in scheduled airline operations. That accident occurred in 1975 with the loss of 11 lives. The safety trend of general aviation is best established by the consideration of accident rates, that is, the ratio of accidents to hours flown, and over relatively long periods. In practice, the rates are established over each year and the preceding two years. Examination of these statistics up to and including 1977- the most recent year of complete figures- shows an improving safety trend until about 1973 and, from then on, a relatively stable accident rate. There is no evidence to suggest that this pattern has since changed.

This conclusion is in no way varied by the fact that in early July there was a series of fatal accidents, two of which occurred on successive days, one causing the deaths of six people in a Melbourne suburban home. I can assure all honourable members that in putting these accidents into their proper perspective, I am not seeking in any way to diminish or gloss over tragedies. However there have been other instances of a cluster of fatal accidents, of three accidents in three days, and they were in May 1978, in July 1977, and back in 1969, to quote examples. These clusters do not in themselves provide any basis for conclusions about safety levels.

In 1969 there was a total of 236 accidents of all kinds in general aviation, that is, in operations other than airline and gliding. This occurred in a year when a total of over one million hours were flown by general aviation. In 1977- the last year of complete record- there were 224 accidents despite a huge increase in hours flown in general aviation in Australia to a total of nearly 1.5 million hours. The number of accidents has actually fluctuated from 236 in 1969, to a high of 245 in 1970 and then to a low of 182 in 1972. Yet during this period there has been a dramatic upsurge of some 42 per cent in the number of hours flown by general aviation aircraft.

During this period of increasing activity the number of fatal accidents in general aviation has moved from 16 in 1969 to 18 in 1974 and to 19 in 1977. Although there have been 17 fatal accidents out of a total of 133 fixed wing accidents in general aviation in the first seven months of this year it is not possible to make any meaningful comparisons with previous years. I could point out, for instance, that in the first seven months of 1974 there were 16 fatal accidents out of a total of 132. A real comparison can be made only at the end of the year when we can measure the total accidents against the total hours flown. What can be said is that the number of fatal accidents in any one year is relatively small and certainly in terms of rate the Australian record compares more than favourably with the record of most other countries. One needs only to contrast this record with the appalling carnage on the roads to put it into some sort of perspective. So statistically our safety position has improved rather than deteriorated. The plain fact is there is no tangible evidence of a deterioration of aviation safety in Australia.

As well as the charges in recent weeks about so-called near disasters, there have been allegations of cover-ups of aircraft incidents by my Department. Yesterday my Department made a statement which explained the incident reporting system and I table a copy of that statement and seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

AVIATION INCIDENT REPORTING AIDS SAFETY

The public was being confused by recent unofficial accounts of ‘near misses’ of aircraft and allegations of a decline in aviation safety standards, a Department of Transport spokesman said today.

Many media reports had exaggerated the danger of incidents which were being investigated by Departmental aviation safety investigators.

There was a well-established reporting system which encouraged operational people throughout the industry to report incidents to enable them to be investigated in the interests of improved aviation safety.

Departmental aviation personnel were required to report as an incident any departure from the Department’s operating standards.

The incident reporting system was additional to the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) system whereby pilots were given instructions or were advised of circumstances which had a bearing on flying safety.

The Department made available to media enquirers on request the basic details of aviation incidents, but could not comment beyond the factual circumstances while the incident was under investigation.

While such incidents were always treated seriously, the degreee of actual danger was often more potential than actual.

The real value of the incident reporting system lay in proper and full investigation of incidents by experienced invetigators with the aim of taking initiating action to prevent recurrences.

Exaggerated, incorrect and emotionally-written media reports were causing unnecessary public unease.

Yet Australia’s aviation accident rate- and there were millions of aircraft movements each year- still remained among the world ‘s best.

The Department was nevertheless not complacent about Australia’s record and continued to take steps to improve it further.

The incident reporting system was a vital part of the machinery to enable this to be achieved.

Canberra15 August 1978

Mr NIXON:
LP

– Essentially the aviation incident reporting system is an aid to safety. There are several thousand incident reports submitted to the Department each year. For instance, in 1974 there were 8,198 incidents reported, 7,051 in 1977 and 3,160 in the first seven months of this year. The majority of the reports are related to occurrences such as communications or weather problems and these reports are used essentially for monitoring effectiveness of departmental facilities and services.

Obviously my Department cannot be expected to put out a public statement every time an incident is reported. When an incident occurs which does have significant safety implications, however, my Department provides factual information when requested to do so. I might add that the system of notification of incidents to the Department has not changed significantly in over 20 years. There is not, there has not been, and there cannot be any ‘cover-up’. The fact, however, that these incidents- and I emphasise the word ‘incidents’- are reported and fully investigated is indicative of the high standards we maintain. It is a well established fact that the

Australian incident reporting and investigation system is one of the most comprehensive in the world. It is now being adopted as a model by some other countries. I make the important point, however, that it is implicit in that system that it attracts reports where danger or the potential for danger can be seen, however remote the real probabilities of disaster might be. The intent is that the proper investigation and reporting of these occurrences will point to lessons which can make the probabilities even more remote.

The recent charges and claims orchestrated through the media would appear to be part of a campaign- a campaign designed to cause concern in the minds of the travelling public, a loss of morale of those in the safety areas of the aviation industry and political gain for those behind the campaign. But sadly for those concerned the campaign has no basis of fact; it is clearly not supportable. For instance, the Manager of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, Mr Coysh- in case there is lack of knowledge of the matter by the public I point out that he is not a pilot himself, but a paid industrial officer- has made claims about the alleged breakdown of navigational aid facilities and used the Department’s notices to airmen system, known as NOTAMS, to try to demonstrate his point. Mr Coysh ‘s allegations were all investigated and were all rejected on the facts as providing evidence of any deterioration in the Department’s safety standards. For the information of honourable members, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard two statements I issued on 14 and 1 8 April dealing in detail with these allegations.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

Statement by the Minister for Transport, the Honourable P. J. Nixon, M.P.

The Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Nixon, said this evening he had made a thorough investigation of all the allegations made by Mr Coysh of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots concerning aviation safety yesterday.

On the reports submitted to me by my Department today there is no basis of truth in the allegations made by the AFAP, Mr Nixon said.

In releasing details concerning each of the specific allegations made by Mr Coysh, Mr Nixon said he was satisfied that all the proper procedures had been followed in rectifying and servicing navigational aids and other equipment.

In all cases concerning the breakdown of specific navigational aid facilities there were appropriate back-up facilities available. ‘

Mr Nixon reiterated that he would not allow air safety to be prejudiced.

There has been no cut back in funds but rather an increase in funds for the provision and maintenance of navigational aids’, Mr Nixon said.

Mr Nixon said the appropriation for the maintenance of airways had risen from $5m last year to $5.2m this year while the appropriation for capital equipment had risen from $5.5m last year to $6.4m this year. Similarly the appropriation for airport fire fighting services had risen from $920,000 last year to$ 1 .9m this year.

Mr Nixon pointed out this was a substantial increase on the appropriations under the Labor Government three years ago.

Australia enjoys an air safety record unparalled throughout the world and that record will continue, ‘ Mr Nixon said.

Mr Coysh has done nothing by his extravagant claims to assist air safety but has merely raised unnecessary concern in the minds of the travelling public, ‘ Mr Nixon said.

Canberra 14 April 1978

See Attachment

page 358

ATTACHMENT TO PRESS RELEASE

Item(l)

Of the 1 9 NOTAM sub-items listed only 4 related to faults occurring on 10 April or preceding weekend. all properly categorised at category 3 because of availability of alternative aids in accordance with designed redundancy all rectified on or before 12 April in relation to 2 (Casino DME and Coffs Harbour NDB) we have no record of any NOTAM during the period in question. Both aids operated continuously during period. 3 were long term notifications of permanent withdrawal of facilities 1 (Sydney radar) was planned maintenance of part of facility over period of 2 hours no traffic handling significance 1 was correction of a chart printing error and of no significance to normal operations 2 were advisory notices in respect of new aids yet to be commissioned 2 were standing cautionary notices on aids in use but subject to long term intermittent problems such as industrial radio interference. Major investigations in progress 1 related to long term withdrawal of facility requiring major maintenance to achieve better performance 2 involved obstruction lighting at Albury discussed under item 2 1 involved short term unserviceability of obstruction light on radio tower for which maintenance is responsibility of owner. No significance to controlled operations.

In summary, actual failures of radio aids were minimal; were restored in accordance with long standing procedures; and co-sited alternative aids were available. Statement that there was ‘failure of 19 aids’ is quite erroneous and misleading. There is no evidence that cost cutting or lack of preventative maintenance had any bearing on the few failures or on the longer standing item as discussed.

Item (2)- Obstruction lights at Albury failures were designated as Category 3 to be restored at next visit of appropriate maintenance personnel restoration was effected in accordance with categorisation level of categorisation was appropriate having regard to availability of other lights and operational procedures in force.

Item (3)

Primary criticism of this route relates to non-availability of VHF tracking facilities particularly at Point Lookout and West Maitland withdrawal from service of Point Lookout VAR was essential to permit more modern and efficient VOR equipment to be installed in its place commissioning of VOR is imminent in meantime co-sited NDB is available and operating

West Maitland VOR withdrawn because of unsatisfactory performance. Major maintenance and/or replacement being effected co-sited NDB available and operating neither program influenced by budget allocations.

Item (4)

Rescue and Fire Fighting Services at Perth meet international civil aviation requirements

Category 8 provided in comformity with ICAO guide lines

Service maintained at this level without significant interruption over 6 month period referred to notwithstanding this involved one period of temporary loan of equipment from RAAF no spare Fire Tenders are currently available ten additional Fire Tenders on order expected to be delivered by end of August..

Item (5)

Department has on order 12 Rapid Intervention Fire Tenders from UK nine have been delivered to Australia but none accepted by Department pending fault rectification by the supplier at his expense remaining three vehicles are en route to Australia

Department has made progress payment representing less than 30 per cent of total project cost this fully recoverable in unlikely event of inability to rectify faults.

Item (6)

Department team of two tested 6,800 litre Ultra Large Tenders (ULFTs) in USA 28 January- 10 March tests were prolonged by bad weather but completely successful deferment of visit would have delayed acceptance guaranteed deliveries now only one and a half months behind original schedule first ULFT will leave US factory 1 7 April all ten of order will have left US factory by 1 7 July.

Statement by the Minister for Transport, the Honourable P. J. Nixon, M.P.

The Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Nixon, said today that an investigation of further allegations made by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots concerning aviation safety had shown they had no foundation.

Mr Nixon said Mr Coysh of the AFAP appeared to be ignorant of the NOTAM system.

NOTAMS (notice to airmen) are issued as required to ensure that any change to the information published in radio navigation charts issued to pilots is brought to the immediate notice of pilots,’ he said.

Mr Nixon said an extensive pattern of radio navigation aids is established to provide en route navigation for the network of airline routes and for instrument approach procedures into nearly 200 airports.

The system is designed to ensure the number of navigation aids available at any time is sufficient to ensure a pilot can navigate with the required degree of accuracy even if a number of the aids fail to operate correctly.

The NOTAM system is of itself a safety mechanism and the list of NOTAMS issued yesterday by Mr Coysh is an example of the system in operation.

In all cases where navigational aids listed in the NOTAMS yesterday were unserviceable adequate back up aids were available’, he said.

Mr Coysh ‘s statement that there is not and there has not been a serviceable tracking aid between Sydney and Brisbane for some months is quite ludicrous.

What Mr Coysh is doing in fact is casting aspersions on both the members of his own Federation and air traffic control personnel.

Pilots are able, indeed obliged, to submit air safety incident reports if they are of the opinion that a situation exists which is prejudicial to air safety.

My advice is that only one such incident report relating to the Sydney Brisbane route ( 1 1 February) has been received this year. The report indicating all VHF tracking aids were out of service. Investigations showed VORs at both Sydney and Brisbane were operating normally as were sufficient NDBs and DMEs at intermediate points. The route was also under radar surveillance and control.

Similarly the Senior Operations Controller at each air traffic control centre has the responsibility of exercising his own judgement on the urgency that navigational aids which are reported as unserviceable are to be repaired.

In making this judgement the air traffic controllers have been instructed to ensure that adequate air safety standards are preserved ‘, Mr Nixion said.

He said there are a total of 57 navigational aids covering the Melbourne to Brisbane direct route and 50 miles either side.

Fifty-five were serviceable yesterday and the two unserviceable aids presented no problems whatsoever for pilot navigation as there were sufficient back-up aids.

Mr Coysh has also questioned levels of Government expenditure and suggested there had been a cut back in funds for navigational aids and fire-fighting equipment.

I repeat my statement last week that there has been an increase in funds for provision of these facilities. The attached table demonstrates the fact quite clearly.

If Mr Coysh is serious about assisting air safety he should stop publicly casting aspersions on the members of his own Federation, air traffic controllers and officers of my Department and stop causing unnecessary concern in the minds of the travelling public by his public allegations.

If Mr Coysh has substantive matters of concern relating to air safety he should bring them to the notice of the proper authorities in the Department of Transport immediately they come to his attention. If they have substance he can then make a public outcry if he wants to.’

Canberra 18 April 1978

Attachment to Press Release

The list of Notams attached to yesterday’s statement by Mr Coysh refers to 1 4 items: only three of these (Holbrook NDB, Mudgee VOR, Ml McQuoid NDB) relate to navigation aid faults occurring on 1 7 April or preceding weekend of these, only one (Mudgee VOR) is on the Melbourne-Brisbane direct route, and the NDB at that location was serviceable three of the Notams related to permanent withdrawal of obsolete navigation aids (Wagga VAR, Point Lookout VAR and Canberra Middle Marker) two advised that new navigation aids were operating on test prior to commissioning (Wagga VOR, Point Lookout VOR) one related to the long term withdrawal of a facility requiring major maintenance to achieve better performance (West Maitland VOR) two were long standing cautionary notices on aids in use but subject to intermittent problems such as industrial radio interference (Sydney DME and Sydney Runway 16 Outer Marker- not Sydney radar range as misquoted by Mr Coysh) one related to impairment of some radar facilities due to storm damage on 2 1 March which has no effect on pilot navigation one related to planned preventative maintenance of Sydney secondary surveillance radar for three hours one related to the non-availability of some runway and taxiway lighting at Melbourne which in no way affected the safety of aircraft operations because alternative lighting was available.

To put the whole matter into perspective it should be noted that there is a total of 57 navigation aids covering the Melbourne-Brisbane direct route and 50 miles either side. 55 were serviceable yesterday the two unserviceable aids would have presented no problem whatever for pilot navigation

As to the expenditure figures quoted by Mr Coysh the $ 13.2m for capital expenditure for 1 975-76 included amounts such as a progress payment of $6m towards the F28 which was reduced to $3m in the 1976-77 figure of $10.3m. the total expenditure figure of $916m for 1975-76 included such things as shipbuilding, which was in another Department’s expenditure in 1976-77.

Mr NIXON:
LP

– Of the 36 accusations made by Mr Coysh in April this year, I gave 36 answers presenting the facts, which in each case demonstrated that the allegations were not supportable.

I can also refer to the prevalent practice of putting constructions out of context on internal documents ‘leaked’ from the Department. One such document, originating from the VictoriaTasmania region of the Department, was used last week, in an article in the Melbourne Age on 12 August, to suggest that funding for overall maintenance materials would be inadequate. In fact the primary purpose of the document was only to ensure that the maintenance material requirements for safety services and facilities had precedence over other requirements; this can hardly be construed to be detrimental to safety. It is a quite normal administrative measure to ensure that maximum efficiency in the use of public moneys is maintained and that aviation safety is in no way prejudiced through material shortages.

So far as funds are concerned, there has been a substantial increase in expenditure on the provision and maintenance of navigational aids, compared with the record of the Labor Government. Expenditure on the maintenance of airways has risen from $9.57m in 1973-74 to $ 14m in 1977-78, which does not suggest any lack of appreciation of the safety importance in this area. To illustrate further the Government’s recognition of the importance of safety services, let me quote other examples of expenditure. For instance, the airways capital expenditure was $4.8m in 1973-74 and $7.5m in 1977-78. Fire service capital expenditure under the Labor Government actually fell from $120,000 in 1973- 74 to an all-time recent low of $30,000 in 1974- 75. By 1976-77 we had increased this to $250,000 and we increased it to $lm in 1977-78. Again, in respect of fire service maintenance, expenditure has risen from $960,000 in 1973-74 to $ 1.35m in 1977-78.

Yet the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) claimed in a statement of 1 1 August that this Government was following a policy of deliberate neglect’ and ‘denial of proper funding’ of air safety requirements. Needless to say, his statement did not contain any actual figures to sustain that claim. The figures I have just quoted obviously do not sustain that claim; instead they demonstrate quite the opposite. I have been referring to actual expenditures to date, and I cannot talk in the same terms in respect of our 1978-79 Budget as the money is yet to be spent. I make it clear, however, that in the 1978-79 appropriations we have maintained adequate levels of funding in the safety areas and have increased appropriations where required.

It is true that there has been a reduction since 1975 of 558 staff to a 1978 total of 6,078 in the technical and operational areas of the regions of the Department. These are the areas of the Department most closely concerned with the implementation of safety aspects. This reduction reflects improvements in efficiency, and technology and economies resulting from changing demands. One example is the close-down of flight service facilities at Katherine which are now handled from Darwin. In the key operational areas, however, which include air traffic control, flight service, fire service and flying operations and airworthiness, the 1978 total is still 2,630 compared with 2,666 in 1975. In the area of air traffic control staff numbers are down less than 3 per cent of the presently required strength of 955 in the regions, or down 27 officers. This requirement takes into account all operational needs plus relief for leave and sickness. I point out that this is not an abnormal situation for any organisation of this type; but in addition the Department took action some time ago to accelerate the trainee intake to alleviate even this small shortage as quickly as possible. More particularly, the Department and the Public Service Board are currently giving urgent consideration to a restructuring of air traffic control training. This will give even earlier relief, whilst at the same time giving better training and improved prospects of career satisfaction.

In the area of flying operations, a recruitment campaign was initiated some months ago. More recently, offers of employment were made to five examiners of airmen, to provide additional strength in this area, and another recruitment campaign for examiners is being planned. There has been a significant increase in the number of aircraft on the register and in the number of licensed pilots. Accordingly, the staffing situations in flying operations and airworthiness areas are being examined to determine what additional staffing may be required to ensure that appropriate standards continue to be maintained in the industry.

Before I conclude, I want to make reference to one additional matter. It illustrates perfectly the point I have been making about the unnecessary concern being generated in the minds of the public by unsubstantiated claims and assertions about safety from people who should know better, and by media reports that are directed towards the sensational and the selling of newspapers rather than fact and responsibility.

On 8 August I announced that the Government had purchased 10 ultra-large fire tenders from an American company. At the same time, I said that a separate order for 12 rapid intervention fire tenders from a British company had been cancelled because the vehicles delivered had not met the required specifications and were unsuitable for the task required of them. One Sydney newspaper interpreted this, in both an article and an editorial, as the cancellation of the British order at a cost to the public purse of $450,000, with the United States order replacing the cancelled tenders. That is incorrect, as any inquiry to either my Department or my office would have shown. To demonstrate my point, I ask that a copy of my statement on the matter be incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

NEW AIRPORT FIRE ENGINES

The Department of Transport has bought ten Ultra-Large American-built fire tenders for use at airports throughout Australia, the Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Nixon, said today.

The tenders, which will substantially increase fire suppression capacity, cost $ 1 . 5m.

They were built by the Walter Truck Company of Voorheesville, United States of America, specifically for airport fire-fighting and are among the most modern in the world.

Mr Nixon said eight of the fire tenders had already arrived in Australia and the full ten would be introduced progressively at Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra, Hobart, Launceston, Adelaide, Darwin, Brisbane, Mt Isa and Coolangatta airports.

Training of departmental instructors to handle the tenders, which have a water capacity of about 6,800 litres of liquid through-put rate of about 3,400 litres-a-minute through the monitor, had already begun at the Department of Transport ‘s fire training school at Melbourne Airport.

The unit would be demonstrated to senior department officers, industry representatives and unions at Melbourne Airport on Thursday.

Mr Nixon added that the department had cancelled an order with another company for twelve Rapid Intervention Tenders because they had failed to meet the department’s contract specifications.

Mr Nixon said the department was taking further action to obtain suitable replacement vehicles.

Canberra, 8 August 1978.

Mr NIXON:

– The original order for the British built rapid intervention tenders was placed by the former Government in May 1 975. When they arrived they proved unsatisfactory because they did not meet the specifications. As a result, under the contract all moneys were refunded and no public money was lost. The American built vehicles are not to replace the British built tenders but were designed to complement them in the airport rescue and fire fighting plan. Indeed, as I announced, action is being taken to re-let the tenders for the rapid intervention vehicles.

This House should be deeply concerned at the serious effect such inaccurate reporting is having, not only in the minds of the Australian public but also on the morale of officers of my Department, on the pilots flying our airline services, and others in the aviation industry. As I have said, they have a proud record in aviation safety and they are maintaining, as my statement has demonstrated, that record.

I repeat that the Government will not allow air safety to be prejudiced. Where circumstances come to light indicating weaknesses, they are rectified. Nothing but public distress and uncertainty will be achieved by the present campaign by the honourable member for Shortland and others who are trying to make a political issue out of one area that should be kept out of politics- aviation safety.

I repeat: I have confidence in my Department of Transport and its operations officers, which include air traffic controllers, flight service officers, fire service officers, and examiners of airmen, as well as all others in the aviation industry. I present the following paper:

Aviation Safety in Australia- Ministerial Statement, 16 August 1978.

Motion ( by Mr Fife ) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought that the arrangement was that I would seek leave to have equivalent time made available to the Opposition. Is that right? I was told that an extension of time would be granted in the event that the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) spoke for longer than expected.

Mr Nixon:

– You haven’t asked me about an extension of time. You haven ‘t got that far yet.

Mr Morris:

– The arrangement was made with the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) when he came into the chamber.

Mr Nixon:

– I don’t know what the arrangements are. Ask Mick Young.

Mr Morris:

– If you have taken over as Leader of the House, I congratulate you. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the House asked me about the arrangements and I said that I would wait until the Minister for Transport finished his speech. Surely we can resolve this matter without cat fighting across the table.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-The question presently before the House is:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-The Opposition welcomes the statement by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) on this critical subject of air safety because it provides an opportunity for the House to discuss the matter. I am sorry that the Minister reverted in his statement to his usual style of using abuse and invective rather than recognising the very real concern shared by responsible people across the spectrum of the aviation industry, including officers of his Department, about the increasing risk that is developing in aviation, particularly in general aviation. It is interesting to note that the Minister, in his 13 page statement, devoted some few paragraphs to general aviation. He chose instead to attempt to smear as sensation makers and irresponsible anyone in this country who draws attention to the shortcomings of his administration of the Department of Transport. I have been reluctant for a long time to raise this subject, just as he has been reluctant. I have listened to people and talked to people for almost a year now and, having listened to those people and having seen certain things, and taking into account the positions of the people to whom I have spoken over that last year, I am convinced from those discussions, with employees, executives, unionists, operators and departmental personnel, that there are grounds for concern. As I said, I am sorry that the Minister does not share that concern. All I can say to him is that he should come down from his ivory tower, get out amongst the people involved in the industry and talk to the operators and officers of his Department to whom he is not talking, whom he has denigrated and insulted and to whom he has had to apologise. The Minister stated in his telegram to these people:

If your members read more into my statement than this intention I am sorry and you may assure them of my continuing high regard . . .

Let us put aside this humbug about denigrating and insulting people, something which the Minister has accused other people in the community of doing. He alone has acquired the reputation of accusing his employees. He would do a lot more for air safety in this country if he had respect for his officers and started to show some concern for responsible officers other than those working in the top administration of his Department and who are communicating with him. I put that point to him in all sincerity, not as a political point.

I stand by the statements I have made in the House and outside the House. With reference to the Courier-Mail article I was asked for my response to a statement made by a spokesman of the Minister’s office. As the Minister said earlier, it could well be that the so-called spokesman in fact was not a spokesman. That has not been the case on other occasions since I have held this position. I acted in good faith in making my comments and I think they are still relevant. The newspapers no doubt will respond themselves. I have no doubt that the Acting Premier of Victoria a few weeks ago, Mr Thompson, who had much to say about this serious subject, will respond to the Minister’s accusations of sensationalisation and denigration. The other persons whom the Minister has smeared are, in the main, his officers, some of whom he has had to apologise to since.

Instead of recognising the problems, showing some concern and taking an approach, the Minister has savagely attacked the credibility of those people who have drawn attention to what is happening. He asks the Parliament and the people of Australia to accept that he alone is to be believed. He is the same Minister who said late last year that he had no knowledge of or participation in the activities of the Department of Administrative Services in the purchase of land required by his Department. He is the same Minister who was forced to admit a few days later that there was departmental evidence of his personal intervention. Last week a Minister in another place had to resign for a much less serious action. Does the Minister for Transport seriously expect anyone to believe what he is putting to the House? In fact, on that occasion last year he deliberately misled the House. He is a senior member of the Government. Regrettably, at the moment the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is suffering from a loss of memory. The Minister for Transport was also present with the Prime Minister at those discussions which led to the resignation of the other Minister. It would not surprise me if he also is suffering from a loss of memory.

There has been a shortage of funds for air safety related services. I have raised this matter in Budget debates, Supply Bill debates, adjournment debates and by way of questioning on a number of occasions. I am grateful to the Minister for his statement. This is the first occasion on which he has given air safety funding such priority that he has been prepared to discuss it. On all previous occasions he has scorned comments made and information that has been incorporated in Hansard and has not bothered to reply to questions. The associated manpower shortages are quickly reflected when we realise that since 1975 the Department of Transport has lost 1,602 officers, including a number of key experienced aviation personnel. That is one of the concerns of the major domestic airlines. The Minister ignored that fact in his speech. The deliberate decisions on funding taken by the Government and in response to interdepartmental memoranda is evidence of the neglect- I have said this publicly- for air safety on the part of this Government. Let me again draw the Minister’s attention to the Additional Estimates for 1977-78. Division 655.2.0 1 includes: essential operational travel commitments required to maintain standards of aviation and marine services to a minimum safe acceptable level.

Extra money was needed for that item. In a document presented to the Parliament by the Minister’s officers- the same Minister who is trying to convince the Parliament and the people that there has not been anything wrong and that there has not been a denial of funds- this appears in respect of Division 655. 1.02:

Furthermore, the maintenance of communication and navigational aid equipment and major installation works are behind schedule because of the unavailability of overtime funds.

So much for the Minister’s claim about the additional funds that are being spent on those areas. Let me turn to Division 655.2. 12 which relates to air transport, movable plant maintenance. The explanatory notes state:

The prolonged effect of limited funds resources has effectively depleted stocks of maintenance spares for departmental vehicles and plant and of necessity has ensured a minimal maintenance program being carried out during that period. This crisis maintenance policy implementation has now reached the stage where essential equipment is becoming increasingly non-operational and to rectify this position in the short term, additional funds of $100,000 are considered to be absolutely essential.

So it goes on. That document was drawn up early this year and presented to the Parliament in May of this year- a matter of weeks ago. A meeting chaired by Mr Schofield was then held with Mr Powell and other representatives of the aviation unions to discuss matters relating to air safety. The overall theme of the meeting was that safety in Australia no longer was of interest to the Department of Transport and that in the future overall Budget criteria will determine all facets of the airline industry. A report of the unions involved in this instance mentions that Mr Powell and the Chairman emphasised that ‘cost was the most paramount concern of the Department and that all other factors must be subjugated to overall cost restraint’. Once again we have the spokesman of the Department chairing a meeting of the interested and responsible officers of the Department and putting to them that safety was a secondary consideration and that budgetary considerations would come first. It is not good enough for the Minister simply to come in to this chamber and try to convince the Parliament and the people that he had put forward safety first as a primary area of interest.

I turn to the minute earlier this year from Mr Smith, the Airport Director of Melbourne Airport, which I raised by way of a question with the Minister on 11 April of this year. On that occasion I referred the Minister to the contents of this minute, which pointed out that according to a departmental survey there was a shortage of 1 1 flight service officers at Tullamarine. The Minister said that he would investigate the report. I have heard no more about it. I have since raised the matter in Parliament and I think it has been referred to in the Press, but there has been no report to this Parliament. There has not been the courtesy of a reply by way of a written answer to a member of Parliament following a verbal question in the Parliament. There has been nothing whatsoever. However, the same Minister would have us believe that everything in the garden is rosy. These are his own records, not the Opposition’s records. They are not sensationalist newspaper records. They are his own departmental records.

I turn to the situation in the South AustralianNorthern Territory area to show what was happening as far back as February and March of last year. I shall quote from a minute from Mr K. M. Barclay, the Acting Director of the South Australian-Northern Territory region, dated 31 March 1977. The minute states:

The severe curtailment of maintenance at remote and unattended sites due to lack of travel funds has produced a predictable result. TV ASIS-

Which is a form of glide control for incoming aircraft- and runway lighting systems have deteriorated in performance. Communication and associated equipment has failed, navigation aids have failed or are operating only on standby and mechanical plant has failed. The integrity of a number of navigation aids is in doubt.

That was the situation over a year ago. Since the preparation of that minute we have had the presentation of the Budget of last year and the Additional Estimates of earlier this year. Now we have a fresh Budget. On the second day of this Budget session the Minister is again saying that adequate funding is always and has always been provided. That is not true and it never was true.

I turn now to the subject of fire appliances. The Minister- I thought very cleverly- quoted the expenditure of $30,000 by the Labor Government on fire appliances. The Minister well realises that there is a long lead in time in respect of fire appliances. There has to be the determination of specifications, the calling of tenders and the assessment of prototypes before there is finally construction and delivery. To quote the second year of office of the Labor Government as a year representative of Labor priorities for fire appliance expenditure is absurd.

The Minister knows that the bulk of the fire appliances at airports in Australia are of the vintage of the late 1950s and the early 1960s. These appliances were planned for and purchased by a government of which the Minister was a member. Throughout that period he was a Minister and, for a number of years, the responsible Minister. So enough with the cooking of the books and records and the gobbledygook we have heard and enough with the juggling of the figures in relation to fire appliances and capital expenditure. I have not had time since the statement became available to me to check through and make adjustments for movements in the consumer price index so that I can make comparisons of the expenditure over the range of years mentioned by the Minister, but there is no doubt in my mind that when I do so the results on a government to government basis will show that since 1975, which is when the expenditure in those areas was reaching a peak, the expenditure in real terms has declined.

It is not good enough for the Minister to whack out a quick Press release yesterday and claim there has been an increase in expenditure, particularly when on examination one finds that the so-called increase in proposed expenditure this year is in fact a carryover of under expenditure for the year just concluded. The figures do not substantiate the claim that the Minister has attempted to make. When we look at recurrent expenditure in these areas we will find again that in real terms the case that the Minister has put will not stand examination.

I refer now to the air safety record in Australia. At no stage have I made comment about or criticism of the major airlines, nor have I reflected upon our safety record. I think that all Australians are proud of this record and that, irrespective of what government is in office, everyone would hope that the record will improve. But this is not an excuse for reducing expenditure priorities in the Budget in respect of the air safety areas, nor is it justification for resting on our laurels and saying: ‘Things have improved in the past year and we ought to be happy with that’.

The fact is that the record could have been better.

I move from that to a major area of concern which the Minister just skirted around, namely, general aviation and in that context I shall talk about private pilots and private aircraft. No matter what aircraft hits a large aircraft the large aircraft will crash. If there is an incident between a small aircraft and a large aircraft the result will be the same. It is not good enough to talk about the statistics in respect of major passenger airliners as distinct from general aviation. When two of these objects come together the result is the same. I would like the Minister and his officers- I say this in all seriousness- to get out among the industry and talk to responsible people, even to some officers of the Department who have now retired and who used to carry out the same functions as the officers who are now reporting to the Minister on these matters. They know very well that in the areas of examination and inspection of maintenance standards and the carrying out of aircraft maintenance there are discrepancies and that the regulations are bent. (Extension of time granted). They know, as the Minister will learn, that there are shortages in critical areas.

Let me cite the establishment for examiners. Central office is one below its establishment for air surveyors and two below its establishment for air examiners. The NSW region is down three, Victoria down three and the South AustraliaNorthern Territory region is down two. In most of those places the establishment is around double figures. So we are looking at a level of 25 per cent to 30 per cent below the establishment. I return to the result of that situation. In the general aviation field, particularly in relation to private aircraft as distinct from commercial light aircraft, there is a lack of supervision of aircraft maintenance. I again particularise for the benefit of the Minister. I ask the Minister to have some examination made in respect of a comparison of fuel records with hours flown. When he talks to people in the industry I ask him specifically to mention this subject and find out what is happening.

I ask him also to give consideration to the fact that there are now 193 flying schools in Australia and that flying school proprietors themselves have told me not privately but among their peers that because there is a surplus of flying schools any flying school instructor who is tough on standards will not do as much business as other flying schools. We know the result and the effect of this situation. At the same time the odds of getting caught in respect of maintenance standards are lower because there are not sufficient officers to go round and check these areas. I put to the Minister, leaving aside the politics of this matter, that one incident resulting from that will convert our wonderful safety record into a catastrophic safety record. That is of concern to the people of Australia. I am not talking about the sensationalising or the headlines. Sir Reginald Ansett made a similar comment about the situation in Victoria, as did the Acting Premier of Victoria. Does the Minister accuse those men of sensationalising? When people who hold such positions see these things happening and seek to draw them to the public attention I think that I, as the Opposition’s spokesman in this area, have a responsibility to respond, having ascertained to my own satisfaction that there is substance in the statements. I think the Government has a responsibility in this matter. It is not good enough for the Government to try to skirt around the problem.

There is a need to examine this whole matter. The only way to do this is by the establishment of a select parliamentary inquiry. I know that the Minister has discarded such a suggestion. However, the Premier of Victoria is on record as having telephoned the Prime Minister seeking a public inquiry. The Minister nods his head. I am not quite sure of the position. I am quoting what was stated on, I think, the front page of the Melbourne Age. I assume that it is correct, but may be it is not correct. It does not matter if it is not correct because a little later in my speech I will quote what was stated by the Minister. He shares the same view on the matter. There is only one way in which we can provide a forum in which there can be a bipartisan approach to this important subject. The Minister said that it should be above politics. I agree that the matter has to be above politics. At the same time, the fact that it is above politics is qualified by a sense of responsibility. As I said, after talking to the people I have talked to over the past year, from the evidence I have seen, from the discussions I have had and from what I have heard said by responsible people in the industry among their peers I am convinced that there is a need to examine in particular the general aviation area.

There is probably a need to introduce annual licensing of general aviation pilots. I mentioned earlier the position as stated by flying club proprietors. I do not want to name the clubs concerned but I can name them. I can name the principals if required but I do not wish to do so. If one is able to get a quickie licence elsewhere or to get a licence under less strict conditions, that licence is good for a subsequent two years. After two years if the person concerned is able to supply a medical certificate and provide the necessary evidence- it need be only one’s log book, as I understand it- to show that he has flown five hours in the previous 90 days, he can go on holding a private pilot’s licence indefinitely without any mandatory examination of his skills as a pilot. It is not only the pilot who is concerned in the event of an accident but also those people who are with him and the other object with which the aircraft may collide if there is a mid-air collision. In those circumstances, I put it to the House that there is a need for a select parliamentary committee to be established, composed of members from both sides of the House. This should be done so that a stop is put to the accusation that the Opposition is being political on this subject, so that there can be a bipartisan approach to the matter and so that some method is established to remedy these abuses.

Let me conclude my speech with this quotation:

The Minister for Transport has a heavy responsibility to see that there is no slackening in the safety and other services at airports throughout Australia. The people of Australia demand safety and it is not proper for the Minister to make changes to the practised safety provisions of aerodromes around Australia without a proper inquiry. I believe that the Minister, if he is so mad keen to cut the air services group within the Depanment of Transport down to size -

The Minister mentioned the reduction earlier- as he seems to be, ought to set up -

That is, the Minister ought to set up- a special committee of the House of Representatives to study the question, instead of going off on an ad hoc basis closing down fire services and reducing safety standards in general.

It is time that the Minister set out to shake himself out of his lethargy and do something constructive for the air transport group instead of hacking away at it.

I agree with that view which was put to this Parliament by the Minister for Transport, who is at the table, on 21 November 1974, a year before his Government was returned to office. I agree with him. I ask him to discard his earlier statement that cannot be substantiated and to return to the view that he expressed to this Parliament. I ask him to set in motion machinery to establish a select parliamentary committee of inquiry into aviation safety services with particular reference to general aviation.

Debate (on motion by Mr Short) adjourned.

page 365

THE PRIME MINISTER

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The Prime Minister’s extravagance and self indulgence with public funds at a time when his own Government is causing grave financial hardship to the Australian people.

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

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

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

-During the past three years the people of Australia have been constantly told by the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that they have been living too well, that in order to get the economy going again they would have to make personal sacrifices, that in order to return to the prosperous days of the early 1970s there would have to be a long period of personal restraint and belt tightening. In Churchillian tones he has harangued the population with phrases like, ‘life was not meant to be easy’, ‘there is no such thing as a free lunch’, and so on as he applied his peculiar type of Friedmanite economics to the Austraiian economy. Without debating the pros and cons of this economic philosophy one would have imagined that a Prime Minister who indulged in this sort of high sounding rhetoric would have practised restraint in the expenditure of taxpayer’s funds, particularly in regard to personal pleasure. One would have anticipated that the self-denial he had urged upon the bulk of the population would have started at the top. One would have expected this in view of the Prime Minister’s incessant carping criticisms of Mr Whitlam during his period as Prime Minister and the statement in his 1975 election policy speech that:

There will be an end to Government extravagance and excesses. There will be no international safaris by members of the Parliament. The purpose and nature of overseas trips will be subject to clear guidelines. Australia does not need a tourist as a Prime Minister.

In view of that statement, which was repeated over and over again, one would have expected that this Prime Minister would have been positively frugal in his personal indulgences with taxpayers’ funds. I remind the House that not only did the present Prime Minister want Mr Whitlam to be tight fisted with the expenditure of funds but also he did not want him to go at all. However, the opposite has been the case. Not since Federation has the nation had a leader who has been so extravagant in indulging his personal whims and love of the good life. When he travels abroad, as he does with greater rapidity than any of his predecessors, it is with the style and affluence of an Arab oil sheik, not as the leader of a country which has just had handed down the most austere Budget in 30 years, as one newspaper described it this morning.

The Prime Minister, on his recent visit to New York with a staff of 21 advisors, cost the Australian taxpayer a conservative $65,000. I point out to the House that that amount does not include the cost of air travel. His visit cost $65,000 for 6 days- $11,000 a day. That amounts to about $500 a day for each person. I do not expect and I do not think that the House or the nation expects, the Prime Minister of Australia and his entourage to stay in the Bowery, but this is ridiculous. According to the Austraiian Broadcasting Commission program AM, this cost included $33,000 in hotel charges, $15,000 for a fleet of chauffeur driven Cadillacs on call 24 hours a day, $12,000 to $15,000 for the charter of two jet aircraft to fly Mr Fraser to Miami and $5,000 in telephone calls. The Prime Minister’s own hotel suite cost $600 a night. I hope that he slept well at $600 a night. He must have had some beautiful dreams at that price. One wonders what sort of room one gets for $600 a night? What were the extras for $600 a night?

Mr Sinclair:

– Tell us, Barry.

Mr COHEN:

– I will leave it to the imagination of the Leader of the House. But it must have been a beautiful night at $600 a night. I suppose that he sat there with that cigar, dreaming of how life was not meant to be easy. This from the man who has just told unemployed people without dependants that they will not receive any increase in their benefits and this from the man who has reintroduced the means test on increases in pensions for those people aged over 70 years. I also remind the House that all the bills are not in yet and it is estimated that the total cost could be in excess of $100,000. 1 repeat: This does not include air fares. The mind-boggling hypocrisy of this Prime Minister is breathtaking. On top of all this he further indulged his personal whims by flying his entourage to London aboard the Concorde at a cost of $15,000. These costs, incidentally, have been confirmed by Australia’s diplomatic missions in New York and at the United Nations. If this same rate of costs per day had been maintained over the rest of the tour which took three weeks, the cost would have exceeded $250,000.

In Paris the extravagance was continued. Despite the fact that Australia has in Paris one of the most beautiful and lavish embassies in the world - designed by the McMahon Government- the Prime Minister saw fit to have office furniture and equipment moved to Paris ‘s most exclusive hotel, the Hotel Crillon. All this could easily have been provided at the Embassy complex. The Embassy actually offered the space but this was rejected by the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister is so concerned with reducing public expenditure, why did he not avail himself of the ambassadorial apartment which was furnished for Sir John Kerr and which is now vacant? It probably was because he wanted to keep as much distance between himself and Australia’s most infamous exile. At least one would know that the bar would have been well stocked.

Another example of the Prime Minister’s personal indulgence was the trip to Rome to see his sister. On 17 June the Prime Minister and his party could have driven from Bonn to Frankfurt- a drive of an hour or so- to join Qantas flight 2 to Singapore, leaving Frankfurt at 7.30 p.m. Instead, the party flew from Bonn aboard a chartered DC9. The Australian Ambassador at Rome and a number of Embassy staff were on hand to greet the Prime Minister. A special program had been printed for the visit. The entire party plus the Press boarded a fleet of cars which ferried them to the Holiday Inn where rooms had been booked for all official members of the group. A banquet room in the hotel-motel had been set up as a Press centre with telephones, a bar and so on. The cost was borne by the Embassy. The Prime Minister and Mrs Fraser did npt go to the hotel however, but instead were driven 20 miles to a restaurant for dinner with Mr Fraser ‘s sister. At 1 a.m. the staff, officials and Press were ferried back to the airport from the hotel to board the Qantas flight from Frankfurt which had just arrived after midnight and they were joined by the Prime Minister and Mrs Fraser. The entire visit lasted some seven hours and cost in excess of $5,000. All of this was to allow the Prime Minister to visit his sister and to dine with her.

The way in which taxpayers’ funds are expended for the pleasure and comfort and at the personal whim of the Prime Minister has become a national disgrace. Nobody expects the Prime Minister to travel tourist class, to go steerage or to work his way as a steward. We expect our Prime Minister to go abroad in some style and with the right staff. We know that most of the criticisms of the Whitlam Government were absurd. We do not want to get to the stage in this country and in this Parliament where we are asking the Prime Minister to carry a cut lunch with him. But the costs now are getting out of hand, and they have been getting out of hand since the right honourable member for Wannon became

Prime Minister. He is over indulgent. Plenty of adequate, comfortable and even luxurious hotels can be provided without this sort of absurd extravagance. Honourable members should remember that this is only part of a pattern that started the day the right honourable member for Wannon became Prime Minister.

I should like to recall some of the Prime Minister’s previous extravagances. He spent $16,000 on a custom-built Chrysler for use in Melbourne. Maybe it should have come from one of the other manufacturers. He spent $9,000 for the purchase of a new set of crockery for use at The Lodge and $250,000 on renovations at The Lodge. The most scandalous decision of all was the decision to purchase two VIP 727 aircraft for the Prime Minister and his Ministers for their overseas jaunts at a total cost of $40m. Four Christmas parties to entertain businessmen at The Lodge cost $6,500. Arrangements, of course, were made for Mrs Fraser to have her personal florist flown from Melbourne to Canberra to arrange the flowers in Parliament House for the Queen’s visit. In March 1977 the VIP flight was used to pick up strawberries for the Queen’s visit. One can go on and on.

It is incredible that at a time when the people have been told that they must tighten their belts, that they must show restraint, that they must go without so that their country can get back on its feet, we have a man at the top, at the helm of the nation, who simply does not show any restraint at all. I have been here during the time of five Prime Ministers- Prime Ministers Gorton, McEwen, McMahon, Whitlam and Fraser. I did not realise I had been here so long. I have never known a Prime Minister who has gone remotely near indulging himself in the way this Prime Minister has.

Mr Young:

– Now he has developed a memory like Billy McMahon.

Mr COHEN:

– Life has got too much for him because he cannot remember anything. Maybe there is a moral in that. The time has now been reached when this Parliament and this nation must call a halt. The Prime Minister talks about sacrifice but he has no idea what he means. He has no idea about the suffering being experienced and the sacrifices being made by a very large section of the Australian people. I do not blame the Prime Minister for his birthright. No one is to be blamed for the fact that he was born into a comfortable family- perhaps a wealthy family. That is not his fault and he is not to be attacked for that. He should be attacked for not understanding what life is like for people on pensions, for the unemployed and for those who have been asked to tighten their belts.

Mr Holding:

– And his lack of compassion.

Mr COHEN:

-He should be attacked for his lack of compassion and lack of concern for the many hundreds of thousands of Australians who are in dire straits and who will be in worse straits after this Budget has its impact. He ought to try to understand and he ought to set an example. If there is one man in this country who should tighten his belt it is the Prime Minister. We are demanding a full accounting of these costs because the full story has not yet come out. We are demanding that this expenditure should cease because the country will no longer tolerate it and this Parliament will no longer tolerate it. I call upon the House to demand that the Prime Minister stops his personal indulgences and extravagances at the taxpayers’ expense.

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

– I do not know whether many people in this place listening to this debate realise that last night was Budget night. The Budget happens to be the most significant economic event in this country. This is a very difficult time. Honourable members on this side of the House are worried about inflation and about generating opportunities for employment. We are concerned with trying to get the whole country moving once again. Today the Opposition, using the one opportunity it has in the course of today’s program, decided that it would take the opportunity to talk not about economic matters or employment but about the personality of the Prime Minister.

Mr Cohen:

– No, his extravagance.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-All right, the Opposition raised some matters that relate to expenditure by the Prime Minister. I will put it that way. Not only has the Opposition raised this matter now, but during Question Time there was only one question regarding the Budget. It was asked not by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) but by someone down the line. Yesterday the Opposition canvassed a motion which was withdrawn, and then we debated a statement regarding a report by a royal commissioner. In that debate the Opposition went down the line and had to bring in one of its most junior members to make its fourth speaker. Today, the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) obviously is the man who, unfortunately for him, has drawn the long straw. Hence, we have the honourable member for

Robertson presenting a case in which he quite obviously does not have his heart. As far as personal attacks in this place are concerned, I think we should all be well and truly above them.

I should like to startoff in reply to what has been said by mentioning a few of the background issues that need to be put into perspective.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– You have got a bad memory, too.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– On no occasion have I ever attacked the personality of anybody in this place. If the politics of performance or the background of anybody’s behaviour in relation to the undertaking of his duty is involved, I think that is an issue which needs to be canvassed.

Dr Edwards:

– Disgraceful.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– To canvass this sort of issue in this way and then to have it laid down in a grossly inaccurate fashion is, I believe, a total disgrace, as my colleague has suggested. It needs to be said that nobody in Australia should be under any misapprehension about the necessity for Australians to hold their heads high when they are abroad. We do have difficulty in establishing the size and extent of this country, in having the influence that we would like to have.

Mr Howe:

– They don’t have to be on top of a 30-storey building, though.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-If gentlemen like the honourable member went abroad I know that it would give a very bad impression. Fortunately, for Australia’s sake, we have a Prime Minister who is seen and registered and respected. We should understand that it is important that when a Prime Minister travels abroad he does it in a manner which attracts the respect of others. I certainly do not believe that we should go along with a Whitlam-style entourage, and I want to make a few comparisons in that regard. Even at this stage it seems obvious that members of the Labor Party have forgotten that they were privy to the man who travelled more extensively than anybody else and that the man who is currently Leader of the Opposition was the Treasurer who authorised all the expenditure for the glorified trips to the antiquities that Mr Whitlam cared to visit.

In my view, this matter should be seen in the proper light. First of all, the Prime Minister of Australia must travel in a style and a manner befitting one who is Prime Minister of this very important country. He must be seen abroad not as one who is from a country of no consequence in world affairs but as one who is able to take his place, and that he most certainly does. Secondly, I think it is important to look at where he has travelled and at what he has done. Despite the allegations made this afternoon by the honourable member for Robertson, he would know that the visits of the Prime Minister have been working visits. Each of the instances the honourable member has canvassed has been essentially to pursue discussions of a business-like character with a range of people, and let me say something about that point. First of all, the allegations that have been made in the media and by the honourable gentleman are grossly inaccurate. Without going into them in detail, let me refer briefly to two instances the honourable member mentioned a moment ago. With regard to the alterations to The Lodge, the honourable member should know that those alterations are significantly to the advantage of those people who work at The Lodge. The conditions for those on the staff of the Prime Minister’s establishment were absolutely deplorable and the major part of the expenditure has been to upgrade those facilities to something like a reasonable standard. The alterations have not been for the benefit of the Prime Minister or for visitors to The Lodge; they have been specifically for those who are working there. The alterations were not made for just a short time; they were made so that The Lodge again can be appropriately furbished and available for the business tasks of the Prime Minister, which of course are not undertaken only in the hours within which he appears in this place.

Secondly, the honourable gentleman has referred to the upgrading of aircraft for No. 34 Squadron. Again, I would have thought that he would be aware that there have been quite strong security requests that the Prime Minister should undertake his travel in such a manner that he does not put at risk other passengers on aircraft on which he travels. Sure, members of the Opposition can just ignore that point. They can say that security does not matter. The Prime Minister himself has said: ‘It is not my security that concerns me.’ However, I have sighted personally reports from the head of his Department and from the head of another department responsible for Australian security firmly putting to him that he should take into account the consequences of his travelling commercially and the risk that inevitably he thereby places on other passengers. In that context I believe we cannot take lightly a suggestion which results in the proposed acquisition of aircraft that will enable him to travel to places he must visit in the course of his official duties.

Let us look at a few of the other allegations. In regard to the car expenditure allegations, I am told with respect to the costs in New York that the allegations are untrue. There was no cost to Australia for the Prime Minister’s transport in New York because a car was provided by the United States Government. I am told that figures for transport for other members of his party are a gross exaggeration. Any suggestion that a car fleet was available on 24-hour standby is a total fantasy. Secondly, I am quite sure that if one looks at the number of staff who accompanied the former Prime Minister and compares that with the number of staff who travel with the Prime Minister one will see things in proper perspective. On one occasion on a visit to Japan and China the former Prime Minister took 53 people with him. On another occasion, in DecemberJanuary 1975, he took 42 people with him. On that occasion he was away for 35 days and visited a range of countries on matters that were not peculiarly related to the function of his office as Prime Minister.

Mr Cohen:

– Like trout fishing.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-I will come to that. The cost was nearly $500,000 in 1975. Today the cost of such a trip would be significantly greater. I am glad the honourable gentleman has mentioned the matter of trout fishing. When the Prime Minister has been away fishing or on a private visit he has travelled not at the expense of the Australian taxpayer or he has travelled as a guest of somebody else. I think it is worth while saying that Mr Whitlam travelled abroad quite frequently with a very large party. I make no criticism of the number of people a Prime Minister feels it is necessary to take with him in circumstances where he is representing this country, and I think it ill becomes anybody in this Parliament to say that when a Prime Minister leaves the country he takes other than those who are essential to advise him. In any event, the number who have travelled with the Prime Minister have on every occasion been significantly less than the number Mr Whitlam took with him on every occasion. Then again, perhaps Mr Whitlam felt less secure, and understandably so, about the business of this country. I am told that the cost of the Prime Minister’s suite in New York included not only accommodation for security officers but also an office. It is necessary for a Prime Minister on a working visit to have premises where he can meet overseas people in an appropriate way. On his visit to New York the Prime Minister met Mr Strauss, who is the Special Trade Representative of the United States Government, Mr Allan Greenspan, the former Chairman of the the

Council of Economic Advisers, bankers and a number of diplomats in that suite.

Again, allegations have been made about the Prime Minister’s visit to Paris. Those too are untrue. Like other visits, it was a working visit. In the hotel suite the Prime Minister had discussions with Prime Minister Barre, the OECD Secretary-General, Mr Van Lennop, the European Community’s Commission President, Mr Jenkins, the United States Secretary of State, Mr Vance, the United States Treasury Secretary, Mr Blumenthal, the Danish Finance Minister, Mr Heinesen, the UNCTAD Secretary-General, Mr Corea, the GATT Director-General, Mr Long, and so on. On a working visit it was appropriate and economical for members of his party to live and work in a hotel with limited additional rooms being made available for use as offices. Certainly, it would not necessarily have been inappropriate for the Prime Minister to have been at the Embassy, but it is interesting to note that at that stage there was no space available there. The Embassy was not ready for use; it was not open. In any event, I believe it is far more appropriate for the Prime Minister to live and work in circumstances which are most convenient to him. Certainly I see nothing incorrect or improper or wrong in the Prime Minister in the normal course utilising hotel accommodation adjacent to the place in which he is living in order to pursue his prime ministerial responsibilities on behalf of this country.

A series of visits has been undertaken and there is a range of costs. What is important is the comparison between the overall costs of the visits by the Prime Minister and Ministers of this Government with those of their predecessor. Overall, to 30 June 1978 the Prime Minister has made 1 1 visits overseas totalling 1 16 days, at a present cost of $605,000. Mr Whitlam during his term made 14 visits overseas and was absent for 1 65 days. The total cost then was $ 1 .5m. In other words, the actual cost was more than twice as much as the cost of the present Prime Minister’s visits. If one takes an inflated comparison on present day costs, less than a quarter of the cost of Mr Whitlam ‘s visits has been debited to the Australian taxpayer for the totality of the Prime Minister’s visits outside Australia. In other words, Mr Whitlam ‘s 14 visits of 165 days at today’s costs would be worth somewhere around $2.4m, compared with a total cost for the Prime Minister’s 1 1 visits of 1 16 days at $605,000.

Frankly, I do not believe that there is anything whatsoever in the accusations made in this matter of public importance. I believe that the Australian Prime Minister has a responsibility to pursue this nation’s cause abroad in a manner and style that is appropriate. Equally I believe that those who are Ministers of his Government need to pursue the same international responsibilities. Every member of this House has a responsibility to do that. Even the Leader of the Opposition, who, I am told, had not previously been to South East Asia, spent the month of June there. Good luck to him. I think it was very necessary that he do so. We on this side of the House believe that South East Asia is of paramount importance to this country and I am delighted to see that the Leader of the Opposition has come back thinking that it may be of some importance. Indeed, if anything, I think it is more shame to him that in his term as a member of this place it has taken him so long to visit a place of such geographic importance to Australia.

Certainly in terms of the totality of ministerial visits undertaken by Ministers of this Government, I think it is worth saying that to 30 June there has been a total of 115 visits involving 1,442 days overseas. The estimated total cost for the period is about $1.6m. During the same period of the Labor Government 147 visits were completed and 2,056 days were spent overseas- in contrast to 115 visits over 1,442 days. A total of $2,678,000 was expended. In other words, $lm more was spent by the Whitlam Government over a similar period. In the entire period of the Whitlam Government, 155 visits were completed, involving 2,227 days overseas at a cost of $2,781,700 or around $4.4m at today’s prices.

Mr MacKenzie:

– How much?

Mr SINCLAIR:

-I thought the honourable member might be interested to hear it again. I said $2,781,700, which is around $4.4m at today’s prices. That is in contrast to this Government’s expenditure of $1,600,000. 1 do not hold up that comparison with the Whitlam Government for anything other than to show that the matter of public importance raised this afternoon is absolute nonsense. The Prime Minister of Australia, the Ministers of the Government and every other parliamentarian have a responsibility to travel outside this country and to advance this country’s name abroad. There is absolutely nothing in this matter of public importance which should take up further the time of this House. I believe that this matter is really one which reflects neither to the credit of he who proposed it nor to the credit of the Opposition. Therefore, I move:

Mr Young:

- Mr Speaker, there has been no arrangement for only one person from each side of the House to speak on this matter. The arrangement was that there would be two speakers from each side. No notice to the contrary has been given to us. As is usual, two speakers were arranged from this side of the House. In the first session of the Parliament we had five speakers per week on matters of public importance. This is the first matter of public importance we have raised in the Parliament this session and we have arranged for two speakers to speak on the matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I permitted the honourable member for Port Adelaide to speak by way of indulgence, but the fact is that the question before the House is that the Business of the Day be called on and I must put that motion. I take it that the Leader of the House wishes to proceed with his motion.

Mr Sinclair:

– Yes, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is:

That the motion be agreed to.

Question put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden)

AYES: 78

NOES: 30

Majority……. 48

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 371

EXPORT FINANCE AND INSURANCE CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

Mr ANTHONY (Richmond-Minister for

Trade and Resources) (4.38)- I move:

This Bill proposes amendment of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act to give effect to the Government’s decision to authorise the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation to provide indemnities to banks or other financial institutions which issue tender, performance or related guarantees. These guarantees are provided on behalf of Australian firms tendering for or undertaking overseas contracts involving the export of goods or services from Australia. This facility, which I announced in February and outlined again in my statement to Parliament in April on the Government’s new export initiatives, will greatly enhance the tender prospects of Australian exporters. The action is in line with the Government’s policy of continually reviewing the range of facilities available through EFIC in the light of changes in world trading patterns and practices. It will ensure that Australian exporters are in a position to compete with their overseas competitors. The Bill also proposes a number of amendments of a housekeeping nature. These changes are designed to bring various provisions of the Act into line with those in recent comparable statutory authority legislation. They also cover the repeal of superannuation and judicial provisions which have been made redundant by subsequent legislation.

In recent years performance and related guarantees and bonds have become an integral part of many overseas contracts and a prerequisite to consideration of tenders, particularly in Middle East markets. The Bill does not attempt to define precisely these contractual guarantees. However, in general terms arrangements such as bid or tender bonds, performance guarantees, surety deposits, retention money guarantees and advance payment guarantees are covered. Guarantees are usually required in the form of a written undertaking provided by a bank or financial institution. They guarantee the payment of a stated sum of money should the successful tenderer fail to fulfil its contractual obligations. They are normally issued against the security of a firm’s capital base or net worth and can vary from one or two per cent to as much as 20 per cent of the value of individual contracts. As such they represent a heavy contingent liability for Australian exporters.

Many relatively lightly capitalised firms, particularly consultants and contractors, have found they do not have the asset backing to meet the present criteria for the provision of performance guarantees. They are consequently prevented from tendering for overseas contracts which require such guarantees. In some cases this situation can arise as a result of a firm’s success in obtaining business both locally and overseas and this can lead to the loss of worthwhile export opportunities to which Australia is capable of responding. The growing size of international construction projects, the increasing magnitude of individual contracts and the impact of inflation on company financial structures are further factors compounding the problems facing banks and other bonders when considering the extent of the support they are able to provide. In this climate even the more substantially capitalised firms can experience difficulties in providing the security sought by their financiers and the new facility will also help them to bid for additional overseas contracts. Given the level of expertise in the Australian consultancy and construction industries the Government considers that a greater level of export success can be achieved with improved bonding facilities.

This type of facility is not new. Governments in many overseas countries, for example the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Japan, have recognised the limitations of the commercial sector in this area and are facilitating the provision of performance guarantees through their official export credit and financing agencies. It is in these circumstances, and in the knowledge that export success by Austraiian consultants and contractors can lead to follow-up orders of Australian capital equipment, that the Government has decided to introduce this facility. Although the measures proposed will have the greatest application to the consultancy and construction industries it will not be restricted to them. Exporters of products who encounter a need to provide bonds on overseas contracts, such as bid and tender bonds, will also be able to avail themselves of this new facility. It is the Government’s view that the needs of Australian exporters can best be met by EFIC indemnifying a portion of the liability involved in those instances where banks or other financial institutions are unable to accommodate the total amount of a firm’s requirements. The Australian trading banks, which presently cater for approximately 90 per cent of the guarantees provided for overseas contracts, welcome this approach.

Under the provisions of the Bill EFIC will not provide guarantees directly to Australian firms. Rather, firms seeking guarantees for overseas contracts will continue to make the initial approach to the commercial sector. If the bank or other financial institution is not in a position to provide the full amount of the guarantee, an approach can be made to EFIC for cover on the balance. The Corporation will seek maximum private sector participation in each case and will require a minimum private sector participation of five per cent. This requirement for private sector participation is embodied in the Bill, thus ensuring that EFIC supplements, rather than supplants, existing private sector facilities. The Corporation will assess each application on commercial grounds before deciding to underwrite a particular guarantee. The Corporation will continue its present practice of declining to cover commercially unacceptable risks.

In view of the risk factors associated with this type of business and with the Corporation’s risk less well secured, the Government has determined that an initial limit of $30m will be placed on the level of contingent liability in respect of performance guarantees provided by EFIC at any time. This approach is consistent with limits placed on EFIC’s other facilities and will be reviewed in the light of the Corporation’s experience in this new field. The Bill also provides for EFIC to refer cases which involve particularly high risks, or which it is not authorised to undertake, to the Government for consideration in the national interest. This provision is similar to those which apply to EFIC’s other facilities. Such applications will continue to require private sector participation.

The Government believes that EFIC is well equipped for this particular task. Through the operation of its present payments insurance and credit facilities it has developed skills and has acquired experience in assessing the creditworthiness and integrity of overseas buyers. It also has considerable knowledge of the ability of Australian consultants and contractors to fulfil overseas contracts. In addition EFIC has a close working relationship with the commercial and banking sectors and, as a member of the Berne Union, the international association of credit insurers, the Corporation has access to that body’s substantial repository of technical knowledge and experience in this field.

The introduction of this facility forms a part of the Government’s enlarged export development program designed to encourage Australian firms to increase their export sales and more actively pursue export opportunities. The proposal to introduce this performance guarantee facility has been enthusiastically welcomed by the Australian consultancy and construction industries. Its introduction will encourage these and other Australian export industries to tender for overseas contracts which would have been beyond their reach without this new facility. I commend this Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) adjourned.

page 373

APPLE AND PEAR STABILIZATION AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

Mr SINCLAIR (New England -Minister for

Primary Industry) (4.47)-I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to extend the apple and pear stabilisation scheme to cover the 1979 and 1980 export seasons and to alter the level of support provided under the scheme. The Bill provides for the lifting of the support price for apples during the two year extension from the current rate of $2 to $2.20 per box. The rate for pears would remain at 80c. However, the annual volume eligible for support would be reduced from 2 million boxes to 1.5 million boxes for apples and from 1.4 million to 1 million boxes for pears. As in previous years support will be confined to ‘at risk’ sales to the markets of Europe for apples and Europe and North America for pears.

In extending the stabilisation scheme for a further two years the Government has been mindful of its earlier announced intention to adjust the basis and the level of support. This decision followed consideration of the 1 976 Industries Assistance Commission recommendation that stabilisation support be phased out completely by 1977. The Government had not accepted that recommendation because such action would have been unnecessarily harsh, particularly following the entry of the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community.

In extending the stabilisation scheme for a further period the Government is conscious of the need to avoid promoting false hopes about market expectations and the reduction in the volume of ‘at risk’ apple exports covered by stabilisation to 1.5 million boxes is proposed with the likelihood of continued intensified competition in European markets in mind. It is this likelihood of reduced export returns for apples in 1979 and 1980 that has prompted the Government to propose the increase in the maximum level of assistance to $2.20 per box. Pear exports are expected to decline further from current levels and sales to the ‘at risk’ markets of Europe and North America are expected to be below the 1 million box volume to be covered by stabilisation.

The apple and pear stabilisation scheme has played a significant role in underpinning the export operation in 1977 and 1978 and I believe that its role in the coming two years will be equally important. I should add that in addition to the proposals within stabilisation there is supplementary assistance which this season is to be increased. Last season the Commonwealth and States participated in providing such assistance with contributions up to a maximum of $500,000. This year the Commonwealth will contribute $750,000 and there will be an equal contribution opportunity from the States. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

– No, they are by negotiation with the States and I am making them out of interest to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 374

APPLE AND PEAR STABILIZATION EXPORT DUTY AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill is complementary to the Apple and Pear Stabilization Bill, which I have just introduced. The purpose of the principal Act is to impose export duty under certain conditions on apples and pears exported ‘at risk’. The proceeds of levy are credited to varietal stabilisation funds and used to support market returns in future seasons to lift them to the support prices under arrangements set down in the Apple and Pear Stabilization Act as amended by the complementary Bill before the House. The Government guarantees the stabilisation funds up to stated limits. The amending Bill adapts the duty to the 1979 and 1980 export seasons. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 374

APPLE AND PEAR STABILIZATION EXPORT DUTY COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill is complementary to both the Apple and Pear Stabilization Amendment Bill 1978 and the Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Amendment Bill 1978. The principal Act provides the machinery arrangements for the payment and collection of provisional export duty and export duty imposed by the Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Act 1971. The amending Bill adapts the collection procedure to the 1979 and 1980 export seasons. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 374

WHEAT TAX AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wheat Tax Act 1957, as amended, to increase the maximum rate of tax for research purposes on wheat delivered to the Australian Wheat Board from 15c to 30c per tonne. The wheat research scheme which has operated since 1957 is one of a number of such national rural industry research schemes supported by the Commonwealth. On the basis of the report by the Industries Assistance Commission on the financing of rural research in Australia the Government last year reviewed and reaffirmed its policy of continuing to provide grants to national rural industry research schemes on the basis of matching dollar for dollar expenditure from funds contributed by producers raised by a levy on a national basis.

Under the wheat research arrangements established by the Wheat Research Act 1957, the proceeds of the wheat tax which is collected on deliveries to the Australian Wheat Board are appropriated for expenditure on wheat research to the State wheat research committees in each mainland State in the proportions in which those proceeds are collected. The Commonwealth’s contribution has been appropriated annually to finance research programs that are recommended by the Wheat Industry Research Council and approved by the Minister for Primary Industry. The Wheat Industry Research Council is constituted under the Wheat Research Act 1957. The industry participates in the allocation of funds through representation on the State committee structure and on the Wheat Industry Research Council.

The maintenance of a sound wheat research effort is important because of the productivity improvement benefits it affords to growers. It is also important to our interests as a major wheat exporter competing on the world market where quality considerations are important to buyers. Studies by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and other authorities have shown that an increase in yields is the most significant area for improving productivity gains in the wheat industry and either directly or indirectly a substantial part of the research funded by this scheme goes towards helping the grower increase his yields.

Maintaining and improving the quality of our wheat as measured by protein content and milling characteristics is important if Australia is to hold its place in the international market and compete effectively with other exporters in meeting the discriminating demands of overseas buyers. Improvement of yield absorbs the greatest amount of research funds under the scheme. Projects range from disease control, especially fungal diseases, breeding for special characteristics such as climatical and disease tolerance, nutritional requirements in various wheat growing soils, to weed control and assessment of yield losses arising from weeds.

Wheat quality research includes the breeding and selection of grain quality characteristics such as protein content and milling properties. In that field significant advances are being made in methods for determining quality at early stages of growth of the wheat plant. Research continues also into aspects of farm operations such as optimal tillage and fertiliser practices with a view to minimising costs. Several specialised types of sowing and cultivation equipment have been developed, using funds from the research scheme, and are currently being evaluated. A considerable amount of research effort is being directed towards the safest and cheapest methods of storing harvested grain. In this area the development of methods for refrigerating bulk grain has been perhaps the most notable, while more conventional fumigation methods continue to be improved.

The Australian Wheatgrowers Federation, representing the wheat industry, has requested that the maximum rate of tax specified in the Act be raised to 30c per tonne. The Act provides that the actual rate of tax is as prescribed by regulation from time to time. While asking for the maximum rate to be raised the Federation has also sought an increase in the operative tax from the present 15c to 20c per tonne. Once this amending legislation is enacted this request will be given consideration by the Government. The present maximum rate of tax of 1 5c per tonne was established by amendment to the Act in 1973. The operative rate has been at this maximum level since 1975. In these three years wheat research expenditure from tax proceeds and the Commonwealth’s contribution has increased from $2.53m in 1975-76 to $3.34m in 1977-78. It is estimated that expenditure in 1978-79 will total some $3. 32m. Research costs have increased along with the general level of inflation, so the higher levels of expenditure since 1975 to 1977-78 do not reflect an equivalent increase in the level of real research effort.

The drought-reduced 1977-78 crop has resulted in a reduced availability of funds for research expenditure in 1978-79. A drawing down of reserves of the Wheat Industry Research Council and most State wheat research committees has been necessary to maintain the overall level of research spending in 1978-79 at approximately last year’s level. Clearly this represents a reduction in the level of real research effort this year. A viable research program is of fundamental importance to the future of our wheat industry. Increased contributions made possible by this Bill will be most helpful in sustaining the research effort of the wheat industry. I commend this Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 375

WHEAT RESEARCH AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The amendment provides for a change in the procedures for the appropriation of the Commonwealth’s contribution to the wheat research scheme. Instead of the present procedure whereby the Commonwealth’s contribution is provided by an annual appropriation in the Appropriation Bill (No. 1), the amendment provides for a special appropriation under the Wheat Research Act. This procedural change will bring the wheat research arrangements into line with the provisions in more recently established rural research schemes. The amendment ensures that moneys appropriated under the Act to meet approved expenditure do not exceed industry contributions by way of the wheat tax. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 375

POULTRY INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1 965 so as to increase the level of funds available for poultry research. In addition to the principal amending clause of this

Bill, the Parliamentary Counsel has incorporated a number of formal drafting amendments in the interests of clarity and standardisation of expressions.

The Poultry Industry Assistance Act and related legislation were introduced in 1965 for the purpose of imposing a levy on hens over six months of age in commercial flocks exceeding 20. The levy money paid into the Poultry Industry Trust Fund is disbursed as grants to the States for the stabilisation of the poultry industry. No Commonwealth subvention is involved in such payments. The Poultry Industry Assistance Act was amended in 1966 to provide, among other matters, that, in addition to the disbursement to the States, the money in the Trust Fund could be allocated for research purposes. The amending legislation laid down that the Commonwealth Government would meet one-half of the expenditure on research, up to a maximum of $200,000 in a financial year. The present Bill seeks to raise that limit by 50 per cent.

In 1968 the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia- CEMAA- established a Poultry Research Advisory Committee, to propose each year a suitable research program. The total allocation for research to date, that is, industry plus Commonwealth funds, amounts to $2,171,053, including $260,649 for the 1978-79 program. The funds have been and are being used for research into the control of diseases, for work on nutritional studies, for investigation of egg quality aspects, together with some research dealing with genetic improvement for hens. Over the years, research projects have produced some notable benefits and others show promising results. Summaries of the work are to be found in the several reports of the Committee. These reports, although not statutory documents, have been tabled for the information of the Parliament from time to time. In addition to its reports, the Committee arranges for a continuing flow of articles on current research topics for publication in industry journals directed to poultry farmers.

Rising costs through the nine years since the poultry research arrangements began have had the effect of eroding the volume of research effort that can be supported by the unchanged and limited research funds. The industry considers that insufficient resources are being devoted to research generally but more especially in the marketing and economic research field. A detailed market research survey was recently commissioned, using existing poultry research funds. This survey developed from the earlier quantitative studies funded by the State egg marketing boards. The current survey is examining consumer attitudes to eggs, egg products and egg marketing systems. It is designed to give a better understanding of the factors that influence buying patterns and to provide a sounder basis for future marketing techniques.

The poultry industry does not consider it practicable to reduce the already low level of funding for technical and biological research to the extent necessary to accommodate a continuing research program into marketing. Accordingly, the industry offered to increase its annual contribution by $50,000 so that an effective marketing and economic research program can be maintained. The Government has agreed to match that offer. With passage of this Bill, the total amount available for poultry research in any one financial year, commencing with the current 1978-79 financial year, will become, instead of the present $200,000, a maximum of $300,000, with the Government’s share being up to $150,000. It is estimated that in the current financial year the increase will involve additional Government expenditure of about $23,000. The industry is to be congratulated for its initiative in offering to increase its expenditure on research. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 376

LOAN BILL 1978

Bill presented by Mr Eric Robinson, (on behalf of Mr Howard), and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr Eric Robinson:
” Minister for Finance · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to provide legislative authority needed to meet the prospective deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1978-79. At the same time it will, together with authorities expected to be available under other legislation, provide the borrowing authority needed to finance the estimated overall Budget deficit for the financial year to be undertaken. Honourable members will be aware that, for many years there has been legislation for these purposes in the legislative programs of successive governments. In the Budget Speech the Treasurer (Mr Howard) announced that the prospective overall Budget deficit for 1978-79 is estimated to be $2,8 13m. Except in so far as funds are available from accumulated cash balances or other miscellaneous financing transactions, this deficit must be financed by net borrowings. Such net borrowings must, of course, be within proper authority from the Parliament. The overall Budget deficit takes into account all relevant transactions of the three separate funds used to record the Commonwealth’s receipts and expenditures.

These funds are the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the Loan Fund and the Trust Fund. The amounts which may be paid from each fund are limited to the amounts legally available to it. Underlying the overall deficit estimated for 1978-79 is an estimated deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of $1,903. 5m. Details of the current estimate of the Consolidated Revenue Fund transactions are set out, for the information of honourable members, in table 3 of Budget Paper No. 4- Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for the year ending 30 June 1979. As payment from the Consolidated Revenue Fund cannot exceed moneys available in it, it is necessary either to reduce payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund by charging to Loan Fund some expenditures normally met from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or alternatively, to supplement the receipts of the Consolidated Revenue Fund from some other source. Appropriate legislative authority is needed for such transfers. The simplest and traditional means of providing appropriate legislative authority is a Loan Bill of the type I am now presenting.

This Bill will authorise borrowings for defence purposes in order that defence expenditure, which would normally be met from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, may instead be met from the Loan Fund. The Bill authorises borrowing for defence purposes, but it does not authorise any defence expenditures additional to those which have already been authorised by Parliament in Supply Act (No. 1) 1978-79 or which will subsequently be authorised in appropriation Acts for this financial year. It will simply allow reallocations between the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Loan Fund of defence expenditures to be made during the remainder of the financial year, following the enactment of this legislation. In this regard I draw the attention of honourable members to clause 8 of the recently introduced Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1978-79, which makes that Bill subject to the provisions of the proposed Loan Act. I should also mention that as borrowings under this legislation will be for the purpose of financing defence expenditure, those borrowings will not require approval from the Australian Loan Council.

However, the Bill includes a specific limit to the amount of such borrowings that may be undertaken; this limit is directly related to the level of defence expenditure which is expected to be made from the date of enactment of the Bill to 30 June 1979. Honourable members will be well aware that at this early stage the estimate of the Consolidated Revenue Fund deficit is inevitably a qualified one. The actual figure for the year will be affected by presently unforeseen developments during the year which could cause departures from current estimates of receipts and payments of the Fund. In setting a limit on borrowings for inclusion in the Bill these inherent uncertainties need to be recognised. The limit that has been included is $2,000m. This provides a relatively small margin over the estimated Consolidated Revenue Fund deficit of $ 1,903.5 m. Borrowings under this proposed legislation will be undertaken within the framework of the monetary policy objectives which were referred to in the Budget Speech. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 377

STATES GRANTS (CAPITAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1978

Bill presented by Mr Eric Robinson, (on behalf of Mr Howard), and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payment of capital grants to the States in 1978-79, totalling $477,933,000. This amount represents the grant component of the Loan Council program for State governments in 1978-79 and is one-third of the total program of $ 1,433.8m agreed at the June 1978 Loan Council meeting. The Bill also provides for the payment of capital grants in the first six months of 1979-80 up to an amount equal to one-half of the 1978-79 amount, pending passage of legislation to authorise grants in 1979-80. Payments authorised under this Bill may be made from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or from the Loan Fund, and appropriate borrowing authority is included. This is consistent with past practice. These grants represent a continuation of arrangements initiated by the Liberal-Country Party Government in June 1970, which provided that portion of the State governments’ Loan Council programs should take the form of interest-free nonrepayable grants in lieu of what would otherwise be interest-bearing borrowings by the States. The effect of the grants is to relieve the States of debt charges which they would otherwise have to pay, and the grants accordingly have a substantial beneficial effect on the States’ financial positions. The grants were introduced to help the

States finance works such as schools, police buildings and the like from which debt charges are not normally recovered. The States are, however, entirely free to apply these grants as they choose and no terms or conditions are attached to them.

Turning to the details of the Bill, clause 3 authorises the payment of grants to the States totalling $477,933,000 in 1978-79 and clause 4 authorises the Treasurer to make advance payments in the first six months of 1979-80 at the same annual rate as in the current financial year. The amounts payable to each State are set out in the Schedule to the Bill. Clause 5 of the Bill provides for payments to be made either from Consolidated Revenue Fund or Loan Fund and clause 9 provides for the necessary appropriation of these funds. The extent to which the payments will be met from Loan Fund will depend in part on the level of government borrowings during the year, and this cannot be precisely estimated at this point. Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill authorise the Treasurer to borrow funds in the period from the commencement of the Act to the end of December 1 979, up to the total of the amounts of the grants payable in 1978-79 and in the first six months of 1979-80. This borrowing authority will be reduced by the amount of any borrowings made before the enactment of this Bill, under the authority of the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Act 1977, which may have been used to finance grants made in the first six months of 1978-79.

I turn now to the general context in which this Bill is being introduced. The grants which are the subject of this Bill form part of the Commonwealth’s total assistance to the States which comprises no less than 36.4 per cent of Commonwealth Budget outlays. In this year of great stringency, these payments and net advances to the States from the Commonwealth Budget are estimated to increase by 5.1 per cent. It could hardly be expected that payments to the States could be immune from the rigorous approach to which all other Commonwealth outlays have been subjected. This was both necessary and responsible. Nevertheless, Commonwealth general purpose payments to the States, which are the most important element of payments to the States and of which the grants proposed in this Bill form a part, in total are estimated to increase by 7.9 per cent to $6,232. 5m. On present estimates these general purpose payments to the States should thus increase in real terms in 1978-79.

Specific purposes payments are estimated to increase by 1.7 per cent in 1978-79. In addition to these funds provided to the States there are the Loan Council borrowing programs for the States’ larger semi-government and local authorities. These are estimated to increase by 8.5 per cent in 1978-79. These funds for the States’ authorities are not Commonwealth Budget outlays, but they are an important source of funds for the States’ policies, and, of course, their level affects the market for Commonwealth bonds and the extent of Commonwealth support needed for the State government borrowing programs, which are underwritten by the Commonwealth.

The overall picture then is that restraint has had to be applied to Commonwealth payments to the States, as they have to other Commonwealth outlays; but these restraints have been applied in such a way as to leave the States with the maximum flexibility to allocate their resources according to their own priorities.

I emphasise that this flexibility includes the flexibility to use general revenue funds from the Commonwealth for capital purposes and vice versa. This Bill provides one-third of the State governments’ Loan Council programs by way of an interest-free grant. It is an important measure in the overall arrangements for Commonwealth assistance to the States. I commend this Bill to the house.

Bill (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 378

TASMANIA GRANT (THE MOUNT LYELL MINING AND RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1978

Bill presented by Mr Eric Robinson (on behalf of Mr Howard), and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this amending Bill is to permit the continuation of assistance to Tasmania for a further three months up to 30 September 1 978 in respect of the continued operation of the Mount Lyell mine at Queenstown. Honourable members will recall that the principal Act provided for assistance to Tasmania for Mt Lyell for the period ending on 30 June 1978 and that the assistance was provided pending the final Industries Assistance Commission’s report on copper ores and concentrates.

The Government considered the final report in June and it decided that the Commonwealth Government would negotiate with Tasmania and the Mount Lyell company on the question of any future assistance for the Mount Lyell mine being shared by the three parties. Ministers from the Commonwealth and Tasmania met company representatives on 14 August 1978. Discussions were frank, with the company expressing its concern for effects of mine closure on the Queenstown region while at the same time acquainting Ministers with the outlook for the Mount Lyell mine in the short to medium term. The Government will be considering the proposals advanced by the company and the Tasmanian Government during those discussions and an announcement will be made as soon as the Government has reached a decision on the matter.

The Government previously announced that pending the outcome of the negotiations it proposed to continue assistance to Tasmania for the Mount Lyell mine for a further three month period from 1 July 1978 on the terms and conditions which applied in the period to 30 June 1978. This Bill, therefore, seeks to extend the end of the period of assistance from 30 June 1978, as provided in the principal Act, to 30 September 1978. In accord with the terms of the previous Agreement, the Tasmanian Government has indicated that it will continue to remit payroll tax due by the company during the three-month period while the Commonwealth would meet the balance of the cash deficit including the cost of necessary capital and developmental expenditure.

The level of assistance which the Commonwealth will need to provide is dependent on the price of copper and it is difficult to foreshadow future price movements. A recent estimate, however, indicates that Commonwealth assistance to the order of $lm will be required for the period. Following the termination on 30 June 1978 of the previous Commonwealth-Tasmania Agreement, and pending the enactment of this legislation, Tasmania will bear the cost of assistance necessary for the mine’s continued operation. The Bill, therefore, will have the effect of enabling the Commonwealth to reimburse expenditure paid by the State in the first instance. I commend the bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 379

SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1978

Bill presented by Mr Eric Robinson, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I move:

This Bill, which relates to the Northern Territory, has a simple purpose. Commonwealth and State government departments and authorities are entitled to exemption from sales tax on goods purchased for their official use and not for sale. The relevant exemption, however, does not extend to departments and authorities controlled by the Northern Territory Government which came into being on 1 July 1978.

The Bill is designed to extend this exemption to goods for official use and not for sale by departments and authorities under the control of the Northern Territory Government. A memorandum explaining the provisions of the Bill is being circulated for the information of honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 379

LIFE INSURANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill presented by Mr Eric Robinson (on behalf of Mr Howard), and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Life Insurance Act 1945 to bring the provisions applying to the Life Insurance Commissioner into line with more recent legislation relating to similar statutory offices. More specifically, the Bill will enable the terms and conditions of appointment and service of the Commissioner to be determined under the Life Insurance Act.

The existing legislation does not contain adequate provisions to allow for determinations to be made of the remuneration and other conditions applicable to the appointment of a Commissioner. This deficiency has not presented any problems in the past as occupants of the office of Commissioner have until recently also occupied the position of Australian Government Actuary created under the Public Service Act and have been entitled to the salary and conditions applicable to that position.

In view of the increased workloads of the positions of Life Insurance Commissioner and Australian Government Actuary, it is no longer appropriate for these two positions to be filled by the one person and when the positions became vacant last year upon the retirement of Mr S. W. Caffin, it was concluded that the positions should be ‘split’ and filled by separate persons. Earlier this year the Treasurer announced the appointment of Mr G. L. Melville as Life Insurance Commissioner and Mr J. R. Ford as Australian Government Actuary. Pending amendment of the Life Insurance Act, the present Commissioner’s salary and other conditions of appointment are subject to temporary arrangements agreed to by the Public Service Board and the Remuneration Tribunal. The Bill will enable the arrangements applying to the Commissioner to be placed on a permanent basis. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Bill (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 380

QUARANTINE AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

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

-I move:

The main purpose of the Bill is to increase the penalties that may be imposed upon persons convicted of offences against the quarantine laws of Australia. The existing penalties have remained unchanged for almost a decade and are not now commensurate with the gravity of quarantine offences; nor do they provide an adequate deterrent to persons contemplating a deliberate breach of quarantine. Quarantine breaches should be regarded as particularly serious in view of their possible outcome. Notwithstanding the remarkable success achieved in the world fight against smallpox, many other human diseases continue to pose serious problems overseas. These, and the newly emergent and dangerous viral haemorrhagic fevers, such as lassa fever and marburg virus disease, emphasise the need for continuing vigilance and an effective and responsive quarantine service.

Honourable members will no doubt know that despite the best efforts of health authorities in the countries concerned, rabies continues its steady spread across Western Europe. We have succeeded in keeping this dreaded disease out of Australia for a century and continue to apply the most rigorous controls on the importation of animals which could be a source of infection. The establishment of this disease in Australia, which could follow an illegal importation of a cat or dog, would have profound effects on all Australians, requiring them to adopt a whole new lifestyle and a change in their attitudes to domestic pets and indigenous animals.

In the animal and plant health fields, I am sure all honourable members appreciate that Australia’s rural production and the advantages we enjoy on overseas markets for our livestock and agricultural products depend critically on our comparative freedom from serious pests and diseases. It has been estimated, for example, that an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Australia could cost this country up to $600m per annum. Such a disaster would have grave economic and social consequences for all Australians. It has been shown that illegal importation is a most important factor in the world spread of animal and plant diseases. In this regard I refer honourable members to a recent incident in Australia where Newcastle disease was diagnosed in a consignment of illegally imported Indonesian birds. If this disease spread amongst our bird population there would be an immediate and substantial drop in our export earnings and complete disruption of our poultry industry. Prompt action by quarantine authorities in this case averted any spread of the disease from the smuggled birds. Nevertheless, the importance of this incident is well illustrated by overseas experience. A Newcastle disease outbreak in California in 1971-72 involved the destruction of some 12 million birds and cost the American people well over $56m.

It is only in comparatively recent decades that the natura] quarantine protection afforded by Australia’s geographic location has been eroded. The comforting isolation of our island position and the natural barriers of time and distance have become less relevant as transport has become speedier and more flexible, and trade and travel have increased, particularly from areas where many exotic diseases are well established. In the face of these developments, honourable members will know that conventional entry of persons, animals and goods into Australia is rigorously controlled. No country can guarantee continuing exclusion of all exotic diseases. However, the Government is firmly committed to continue all practical measures necessary to minimise the possibility of such diseases being introduced and to maintain the quarantine record which continues to be the envy of other countries.

Honourable members will be aware from the announcement by my colleague the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) on 9 July that the Government has become increasingly concerned at the activities of foreign fishing vessels and others off our northern shores. Any unauthorised landing on the Australian coast constitutes a risk of disease introduction. This factor, coupled with the special problems of distance and remoteness across our northern shores, and our relative proximity to countries where major exotic diseases exist, was a major consideration in the decision announced by my colleague to upgrade Australia’s northern surveillance. The new arrangements, which will be implemented as soon as appropriate arrangements can be made, will include a daily aerial search by charter aircraft of the northern coastline between Geraldton in Western Australia and Cairns in Queensland. The purpose of this program, from a quarantine viewpoint, will be to alert quarantine authorities to any matters of quarantine significance and provide a basis for immediate quarantine follow-up where necessary.

The Government is acutely aware that there is a greater need than ever before to maintain an effective quarantine system and the legislation which provides the framework for that system must be adequate for the task. The Government, however, accepts that a sound quarantine system not only requires tough penalties for quarantine breaches but also must provide a framework which will encourage public co-operation. In this respect, honourable members will know that we have embarked on a comprehensive program of quarantine station development initiated, amongst other things, to facilitate importation of small animals into this country. Extended waiting periods for quarantine station accommodation increase the incentive for illegal importation.

As an example of the seriousness with which the Government views breaches of quarantine, I draw the attention of honourable members to the proposed maximum penalty in respect of offences against section 50 of the Act. This section prohibits the landing of any imported plants or animals in a place other than a proclaimed port. The Bill proposes to increase the maximum penalty for a breach of that provision from $500 or six months imprisonment to $5,000 or two years imprisonment. As another example, I would draw the attention of honourable members to the proposed maximum penalty provided under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 67 of the Act, which prohibits a person from knowingly bringing into Australia any goods, animals, plants, disease agents, et cetera, in contravention of the Act. Offences of this sort strike at the very foundation of our quarantine barrier and call for an extremely severe penalty. It is proposed therefore that the maximum monetary penalty be increased from $2,000 to $10,000. I have directed my Department to maintain a rigorous approach to quarantine enforcement backed by firm prosecution action where appropriate. All quarantine personnel have been assured that they have the strong support of the Government in carrying out their quarantine duties and responsibilities.

I now turn to the manner of dealing with offences. At present, offences against section 79, forging documents, and section 83, misleading a quarantine officer, are expressed as indictable offences and cannot be dealt with in a court of summary jurisdiction. In line with provisions in other Acts, the Bill proposes that these offences may be prosecuted in courts of summary jurisdiction and that these courts, when disposing of a matter, be empowered to impose a maximum fine of $2,000 or one year’s imprisonment. However the Bill also provides that where an offence may be prosecuted summarily or upon indictment and that prosecution is brought in a court of summary jurisdiction, that court may commit the defendant for trial or, if it is satisfied that it is proper to do so, with the consent of the prosecutor, as well as the defendant, may determine the proceedings summarily. At present, the consent of the defendant only is required. This amendment would protect the right of the prosecution in appropriate cases to require proceedings to be determined in a jurisdiction where higher penalties are available.

The Bill further provides that the maximum penalty which may be imposed by regulation under the Act be increased from $1,000 to $2,000. Amendments to the penalties applicable for specific offences against the regulations are being prepared. Finally, the Bill provides that the value of goods which cannot be effectively treated and which may be destroyed without prior ministerial approval be increased from $20 to $200, the present $20 limit is administratively inefficient and out of line with present day values. The Bill before the House reflects the Government’s firm commitment to an effective quarantine system for Australia. A realistic set of penalties for quarantine breaches is a most important component of this system. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 381

HOMELESS PERSONS ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of the Bill is to extend for a further period of 12 months, those provisions of the Homeless Persons Assistance Act which are due to expire on 13 December 1978. This is to allow for full consultation with State governments on future arrangements to meet the needs of homeless people in the light of the experience with the program to date. As honourable members will be aware, the Homeless Persons Assistance Act was introduced in December 1974 on the basis of a report by a working party on homeless men and women. The program has been kept under close review since then, and has been the subject of specific evaluation by the Department of Social Security including careful scrutiny by the homeless persons advisory committees established in each State. A report on the process of evaluation, entitled ‘A Place of Dignity’ was tabled by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) on 9 June 1978.

The working party on homeless men and women recommended amongst other things, that capital grants totalling up to $5m a year should be made available over a three-year period to voluntary agencies and local and statutory authorities for approved projects- such as night shelters, reception and assessment centres, hostels, flats, day centres, special clinics and detoxification units- in order to upgrade and replace existing inadequate accommodation and to build new facilities for permanently and chronically homeless men and women. The Act provides for capital grants to be made to eligible organisations, which are defined as non-profit organisations, local governing bodies and charitable or benevolent trusts, towards the full cost of purchasing, constructing or renting buildings, including the purchase of furniture and equipment. It also enables the Commonwealth to pay 50 per cent of the salary of a social welfare worker employed at a homeless persons assistance centre. Approved organisations may also be paid a daily subsidy at prescribed rates for each homeless person to whom both food and accommodation are provided, at a rate of 75c a day, and a subsidy of 25c for each meal supplied to non-resident homeless persons.

For the information of honourable members, capital grants totalling $9.8m have been approved under the Act to date. Of this amount, $3. 5m had been actually expended by 30 June 1978, $3.6m has been allocated for expenditure in 1978-79 and the remaining $2.7m will be carried forward to 1979-80. Expenditure on rental and salary subsidies for the period from 13 December 1974 to 30 June 1978 totalled $646,665. The appropriation for these subsidies in 1978-79 is $285,000. Expenditure under the national welfare fund on accommodation and meal subsidies for the period from 13 December 1974 to 30 June 1978 amounted to $2.6m. Estimated expenditure on these subsidies in 1978-79 is $lm. As at 30 June 1978, financial support was being given towards the running costs of 106 homeless persons centres, with a total bed capacity of 3,410. Subsidy made available in 1977-78 represents 990,759 people assisted. In addition 847,774 meals were served to non-resident homeless people. Salary subsidies were paid for 37 social welfare workers.

The Government has no doubt about the importance of this program, nor its effectiveness in helping to upgrade the standard of facilities for homeless men and women in many areas of Australia. Complementary to the assistance that has been provided under this program, 76 women’s refuges have been approved for funding, at an estimated cost of some $3m this financial year, through the community health program. Because of the involvement of the State governments in many aspects of services for homeless people, the Government has decided that it is appropriate at this stage to extend the Act for a further year, to allow full consultations with the States on future arrangements. This is in line with the spirit of the report of the working party on homeless men and women, which recognised the need for consultation concerning the continued development of service by all levels of government and voluntary agencies to meet the needs of homeless people.

As honourable members will recall, the Act was extended for a further period of one year from December last, so as to allow time for further development and review. The Government believes that the program is now sufficiently well established to warrant discussion with State governments on their views about the sharing of responsibilities in this area. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 382

STATES GRANTS (HOME CARE) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of the Bill is to provide for direct matching grants, with the States for a range of home care services, and for the salaries of approved welfare officers employed at or in association with senior citizen’s centres. The Bill provides for continuation of subsidy on a $2 for $ 1 basis, for the capital cost of senior citizen’s centres. Thus, the Bill gives effect to policies announced at the most recent Premiers Conference which recognise that the State governments are in the best position to assess the requirements for home care services and to determine their priorities accordingly.

As announced at the Premiers Conference, the new subsidy arrangements are to have effect on and from 1 July 1978 in respect of home care services, and for welfare officer salaries for a salary period commencing on or after 1 July 1978. The States Grants (Home Care) Act was introduced in 1969 on the basis of a recommendation made at the 1968 health Ministers conference. The Act broadly provides three forms of assistance:

Firstly, for home care service schemes which provide housekeeping and other domestic assistance to aged people in their own homes; secondly, for the building and equipping of senior citizens’ centres; and thirdly, for the employment of welfare officers employed by, or in association with, senior citizens ‘ centres.

A later amendment to the Act increased the subsidy from one-half to two-thirds of expenditure through the States. The importance of locally based home care and welfare officer services for aged and infirm people is fully recognised by the Government. Indeed, provision is made for significant overall increases in assistance for domiciliary services in this year’s Budget. For the states grants home care program overall, there is an increase of 12.28 per cent in the estimates for this financial year, over the expenditure for last financial year. For the home care services component of the program, there has been an 83.5 per cent increase in estimated expenditure for this year over that for the financial year 1975-76, when the Government took office. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table outlining Commonwealth expenditure over the past three years.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr HUNT:

– Because of the need for continuing constraint in the Government’s expenditure, it has not been possible recently to approve new welfare officer positions or new home care services. Nevertheless, there has been a significant expansion of existing services to meet new needs. Further, this particular legislation is but one avenue of Commonwealth financial assistance for those requiring support services to continue to live independently in their own homes. Other important services include meals-on-wheels, subsidised under separate legislation also administered by the Department of Social Security, expenditure on which has increased by nearly 30 per cent in the last three years to an estimated $2.3m this financial year, and domiciliary nursing care programs, which involved Commonwealth expenditure last financial year of $ 10.7m. The estimate for the current financial year is $ 12.1m. It has been suggested in some quarters that the Government is suddenly withdrawing from funding home care services, causing large numbers of aged and infirm people to look to nursing homes and other institutions for help. The fact is that the Commonwealth will continue to match every dollar allocated by the States for approved welfare officer and home care services.

As I have already indicated, the new arrangements for the program were announced at the time of the Premiers Conference in June, and of course are fully in line with the Government’s policy of federalism, which recognises that State and local governments are well placed to assume greater responsibility for locally based programs of this nature. Provided that State governments act responsibly within the framework of the federalism policy, there is no reason to believe that there will be any reduction in the level of welfare officer and home care services. Indeed, it could be anticipated that the States will allot a high priority to these services, which make a contribution to maintaining people in their own homes. There are currently 1 12 welfare officers whose salaries are being subsidised under the States Grants (Home Care) Act. Of this number, more than 100 are employed directly by local governing bodies. The main function of a welfare officer is to provide a link between aged persons living in their own homes and domiciliary and other supportive welfare services.

The activities and responsibilities of welfare officers vary according to local needs and priorities, but in general include determination of the needs of the aged population and the development of services and facilities to meet these needs; liaison with committees of senior citizens’ centres and service clubs for the purpose of establishing or extending the centres’ services and facilities; supervision of the services provided; fostering co-operation and liaison among various welfare activities for aged persons and encouraging interest in these activities; and providing an education program which will encourage senior citizens’ centres to promote purposeful activities. Home care services which can be subsidised under the legislation include home visiting, laundry and shopping services, home handyman and related home maintenance schemes, housekeeper and other services which complement health or welfare programs designed to enhance the independence of aged and infirm people living at home.

I am sure that all honourable members will recognise the importance of every encouragement being given to the States to maintain, and as necessary expand, their commitment to the home care program which will encourage independent living of aged and infirm people for as long as possible, and help to reduce the need for people to seek institutional care. As I have shown, it is simply not true that the Commonwealth has in some way absolved itself of responsibility in this field. Rather, the Government is seeking to build on the present partnership with State and local governments in the context of increased overall funding for these services. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Scholes) adjourned.

page 384

PRIVILEGE

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) today raised an issue of privilege arising out of an article published in the magazine the Bulletin dated 22 August 1978. The allegation in the article was that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) requested the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) to write a letter to him, the Prime Minister, in certain terms. There is no evidence in the article which supports the allegation that the request was made. It is in fact a bare allegation. There is no admission in the article that the request was made. In the House today the allegation was put directly to the Minister for Finance in terms of a question. The Leader of the Opposition said:

I ask the Minister for Finance: Has he at any stage been asked by the Prime Minister or anyone else to write a letter declaring that certain evidence he gave to the McGregor Royal Commission was faulty because it was based on an uncertain memory? If so, what was the Minister’s response to this highly improper request?

The Minister for Finance replied:

No one has ever suggested to me that my testimony be altered in any way whatsoever.

The Prime Minister subsequently said: so far as any knowledge that I may have is concerned, the reply of the Minister for Finance is completely and absolutely accurate.

The Minister for Finance has not raised any matter of privilege relating to the allegation. He has denied the basis of the article’s allegation. To ask the Privilege’s Committee to determine whether a breach of privilege has occurred in this circumstance would be to ask that Committee to undertake an inquisitorial role rather than its proper role of judging whether facts which are established amount to a breach of privilege. This article in itself does not establish a prima facie case of breach of privilege. Here the allegations are denied and the Leader of the Opposition, in raising the matter of privilege, has not presented anything additional to what is contained in the article. I therefore rule that there is no prima facie breach of privilege.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, could I raise a question with you?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes, as a matter of indulgence. There is no motion before the Chair.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

- Mr Speaker, you have asserted that the response of the Minister for Finance ( Mr Eric Robinson) to the question I asked him was a denial of the allegations in the article, as I understood what you said. Could I draw your attention to what the Minister said? It was:

No one has ever suggested to me that my testimony be altered in any way whatsover

I believe that is capable of being read as saying No one has asked me to change the assertions, the statements, the wording that I expressed before the Royal Commission’, which is a totally different thing from saying ‘ No one has asked me to say that when I said those things I recognised, although I did not acknowledge it, that my recollection of events may have been faulty or somewhat defective’. I suggest that in that respect it is a rather clever answer and whilst seeming to rebut the allegation in fact skates around it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I must point out to the honourable gentleman that he is debating the issue. There is no basis on which he is able to debate it. If I failed to rule that there is a prima facie case then there is nothing upon which the honourable gentleman can speak except as a matter of indulgence. If I fail to rule that there is a prima facie case, the matter cannot take precedence over other business. I permitted the honourable gentleman as a matter of indulgence to make a point, but now he is debating it. I point out that very many articles make allegations, and I think it would be a gross misuse of the Privileges Committee to ask that Committee to investigate allegations, which would thereby be multiplied from the mere fact that the Privileges Committee was investigating in an inquisitorial role. In my view, before long that would lead to putting in jeopardy the whole concept of privilege. The concept of privilege in this House is absolutely essential for members to be able to exercise their duties as members of the Parliament.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Could I seek from you a statement for the record, Mr Speaker, and I am sure you will be precise and positive? You are asserting that I have no right to debate your ruling further in the absence of a substantive motion?

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no facility for you to challenge my ruling that there is no prima facie case.

Mr HAYDEN:

-That is a gentle way of putting it.

Mr Scholes:

-Mr Speaker, I also wish to ask a question. In view of your ruling, which is substantially that evidence does not exist, should evidence subsequently become available would you reconsider this matter if it were presented to you?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman well knows that what he now raises is quite hypothetical. If an issue which the honourable gentleman feels is an issue of privilege arises in the future, provided that the honourable member complies with the requirements, that is, of raising the matter at the first opportunity -

Mr Scholes:

– The matter of first opportunity is what I was raising.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Well, if the honourable gentleman raises an issue of privilege when some other issue arises, I will hear it. He knows that he is entitled to do so and I do not want him to believe that he can put some innuendo into what I have said.

Mr Scholes:

– I just want to make sure that we do not get ruled out on the first opportunity proposition.

page 385

PATENTS AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · Balaclava · LP

– I move:

This Bill represents the first of a number of proposed changes to Australian industrial property legislation which I hope to introduce into the Parliament later in the session. The legislation will be aimed at better adapting industrial property legislation and catering for the practical needs of Australian industry and commerce. The initial changes are particularly intended to modify and extend the scope of existing legislation to encourage increased industrial productivity through innovation and improved commercial competitiveness.

At the turn of this century Australia had achieved a high level of innovative activity. The necessities created by a different geographical environment and worsening economic conditions lead to outstanding and profitable inventions in the agricultural field. Innovative activity not only improves productivity but more importantly it creates new employment opportunities. I see my portfolio as having a major role to play in the development of a climate in Australia which is more conducive to innovation having direct industrial application and this I see as the main purpose of a patent system.

The ownership of inventions, trade marks and designs creates important monopoly rights recognised to a greater or lesser degree in most countries. Laws in Australia in the past have tended to concentrate on the narrow legal issues of the regulation and grant of those monopoly rights. Little attention has been given to benefits which may accrue to an industrialised society by the existence or non-existence of industrial property laws. I have been concerned at this apparent lack of a coherent policy in developing industrial property laws relevant to Australia’s present and future industrial capacity. For this reason I have established an Industrial Property Advisory Committee which comprises industry, technical and economics representation. This Committee is an ongoing body which will undertake a continuous review of our industrial property laws and practices and advise me on proposals to reform industrial property laws and practices.

The present Bill involves a change in the current provisions of the Patents Act 1952 governing the publication of Australian patent specifications in order to reduce the period during which the information contained in those documents is unavailable to the Australian public. The primary purpose of that change is to encourage a positive approach to invention by Australian industry by providing it with earlier access than is presently available to the technical developments which are the subject of an application for patent protection in this country.

Currently, approximately 11,000 effective patent applications are lodged in Australia annually in respect of inventions made both in this country and overseas. Each application includes a document- the so-called complete specification- containing a full description of the technological advance made by the inventor and, additionally, a definition of the scope of the patent monopoly claimed by the applicant. Under the present legislation, a complete specification is not required to be published until 18 months after the date of lodgment of that document at the Patent Office. As the legislation also provides that a complete specification need not be lodged until 12 months after the filing of an Australian application for a patent or the filing of an earlier foreign application for protection of the same invention, the present provision for the publication of complete specifications involves a delay of up to 2Vi years during which information on technological developments considered sufficiently important by their owners to be made the subject of patent protection is unavailable to Austraiian industry. Moreover, even if information of such developments is obtainable from other sources, industries interested in commercially exploiting such developments, are unable during that period to determine whether they are entitled to do so without infringing an Australian patent.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed).

Mr MACPHEE:

– The present provisions in the Patents Act for the publication -

Mr Bourchier:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it true that there is only one Australian Labor Party member in the House?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-There is no point of order.

Mr Scholes:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Is it not out of order for an honourable member to make deliberately untrue statements in the House, as the honourable member for Bendigo just did?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I do not regard that as any point of order.

Mr MACPHEE:

– The present provisions in the Patents Act for the publication of complete specifications also involve a further disadvantage to Australian industry as a result of a recent and increasing trend in the patent laws of the major overseas industrial countries to require earlier publication of patent specifications than is provided in Australia under those provisions. As approximately 90 per cent of effective patent applications in Australia are based on prior overseas patent applications, it follows that the technical information in respect of almost all those applications is available to foreign industry before it is disclosed in Australia. Such a situation necessarily acts to the detriment of the competitive position of Australian industry relative to its foreign competitors. In these circumstances, it is clearly desirable that the present excessive delay in the publication of Australian complete specifications should be removed.

This Bill will remove as much of that delay as disadvantages both the Australian public, particularly Australian industry, and Australian inventors by providing for publication of complete specifications 18 months after the earliest priority date claimed by the applicant. The significance of the priority date arises from the fact that a feature of Australian patent legislation, based on the consequential benefit to Australian inventors and a commitment to overseas applicants under a long-standing international industrial property convention, permits the priority date claimed by an applicant to antedate the date of lodgment of his complete specification by up to 12 months. In the case of most Australian patent applications, the priority date is in fact approximately 12 months earlier than the date of lodgment of a complete specification. Accordingly, the amendment proposed by this Bill will result in most complete specifications being published 12 months earlier than is presently the case. In other words, the technological information contained in almost all Australian patent specifications will become available to Australian industry approximately 12 months earlier than is presently the case.

This provision also provides a number of incidental but not unimportant benefits. Firstly, it will make the Australian patent system, so far as publication is concerned, consistent with the national patent systems of many overseas countries. It will also conform to the publication requirements of the regional patent system recently adopted by most European countries- the European Patent Convention- and also the international patent system- the Patent Cooperation Treaty- which has recently been adopted by most of the major industrial countries. The resultant uniformity will result in simultaneous publications of inventions in all of the countries in which patent protection is sought for those inventions. In addition to the benefit to Austraiian industry through the earlier publication of complete specifications, it is worth noting that the requirement for publication under this Bill does not deprive Australian inventors from being able to withdraw a completed patent application before the complete specification becomes open to public inspection. In circumstances where an inventor does not wish to proceed with an application, the non-publication of his complete specification enables him to retain the right to lodge a subsequent application in respect of the same invention. The present provision reserves to such applicants a minimum period of six months within which to make such decision before the contents of his complete specification are disclosed to the public. I commend this Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Scholes) adjourned.

page 387

NITROGENOUS FERTILIZERS SUBSIDY AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of the Bill now before the House is to extend the operation of the nitrogenous fertilisers subsidy scheme for a further year until 3 1 December 1979, but at a rate of subsidy reduced from $60 per tonne of nitrogen content to $40 per tonne of such content. Following consideration of the Industries Assistance Commission’s recommendation in report No. 58 dated 5 September 1975, the Government decided that the subsidy on this fertiliser was to be phased out. The measures effected by the Bill represent a further step in the implementation of this decision.

The Treasurer (Mr Howard) in the Budget Speech mentioned various government initiatives in support of rural industry, including the provision of an amount of $ 10m for continuation of this subsidy for a further year. The level of subsidy to apply after 3 1 December 1979 will be considered by the Government in the light of economic circumstances prevailing nearer to that time. The Bill proposes that from 1 January 1 979 to 31 December 1979 subsidy will be payable at the reduced rate in respect of locally produced nitrogenous fertilisers which are sold for use in Australia as fertiliser and also in respect of imported nitrogenous fertilisers which are either used in Australia as a fertiliser by the importer or sold by the importer for such use in Australia. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 387

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– I move:

The Government has decided that the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority should find all those funds for capital works which it cannot meet from its own internal revenue sources through the semi-governmental borrowing program rather than half of these requirements being provided for in the Budget as has been the previous practice. The borrowing powers of the Authority are contained in section 26 of the principal Act.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend section 26 of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act 1 962 to provide:

  1. that the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority, which is constituted by the principal Act, may borrow moneys by issuing securities;
  2. that the Treasurer, on behalf of the Commonwealth, may guarantee the repayment of moneys, and interest thereon, borrowed by the Authority otherwise than from the Commonwealth; and
  3. that the Commonwealth’s guarantee will apply to borrowings, including interest thereon, by the issue of securities by the Authority where the securities are of a prescribed kind.

The opportunity has been taken in the Bill to provide for the Authority to borrow by the issue of securities and to attach the Commonwealth’s guarantee to them where they are of a prescribed kind. This will place the Authority on the same basis as the Australian Telecommunications Commission and other modern statutory authorities. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 388

TARIFF PROPOSALS

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

– I move:

Customs Tariff Prosposals No. 2 1 ( 1 978)

The customs tariff proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1966. The proposals implement the Government’s decisions on recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission in its reports on light commercial and four-wheel drive vehicles and heavier commercial vehicles and components, and brooms and brushes.

The effect of the decision on commercial vehicles is that general purpose commercial vehicles and buses over 2.72 tonnes gross vehicle weight will be dutiable at 22.5 per cent and prime movers for articulated dump trucks will be dutiable at 25 per cent. There is no change to the level of assistance now applying to light commercial vehicles. The decision on brooms and brushes will means that these goods will be dutiable at 25 per cent except for iron or steel brush roll hair curlers which will be dutiable at 22.5 per cent general and 15 per cent preferential. The new duties will operate from tomorrow.

A comprehensive summary of the changes contained in the proposals has been prepared and is now being circulated to honourable members. I commend the proposals to the House.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-These two proposals relate to light commercial vehicles and trucks. As it is not usual for the House to have the opportunity to debate these proposals later, I want to ask the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) one or two questions about the general matters which may or may not be in the proposals. Obviously, I have not had time to read them. In the last couple of days the Minister has announced proposals to substitute tariff for bounty on certain parts supplied for commercial vehicles in Australia where the parts are not supplied from in-house sources. Whilst this will be of advantage to the parts manufacturers in Australia vis-a-vis competition from imported parts, it could create in cases where there are marginal price differences conditions where the companies which currently manufacture in-house components- I think immediately of General Motors-Holden’s Ltd and International Harvester Australia Ltd and possibly there are other companies in Australia- will find it no longer economic to manufacture those parts and will prefer to buy them outside with the benefit of the bounty.

My concern is that this could cause transfers of employment which, while possibly benefiting the smaller companies, may have serious repercussions in regional areas. The Minister and I both live in regional areas where this could occur to the extent where substantial sections of manufacturing plant could go into disuse purely because of the operations of a government bounty designed to assist sections of the industry. I make the point that during the period of the Labor Government some forms of assistance which were given to maintain employment in certain industries, coupled with the subsidies which were then available in Victoria- I do not know about other areas- created over-capacity within Australian industry in certain areas. This also created imbalances in those industries because the employment creation subsidies, together with a subsidy which was available in some instances from the Victorian Government to allow decentralised industries to change to more economic forms of production, although this sometimes brought them into somebody else’s market place, caused unwelcome structural changes and the breakdown of not one but two companies operating in a field where there was an adequate market for the original company but not for two companies.

I do not know whether the Minister is able to reply at this stage. I am concerned about the possibility of existing in-house manufacture being discontinued because it may become more economic to buy outside. I am concerned also about the effect of displacement and the possible movement of employment opportunities from one area to another.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Before I call the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, I thought that the honourable member for Corio intended when he rose to ask a question, or maybe more than one question. He prefaced his remarks by saying that it is unusual for the debate on these matters to come back to the House. Do I gather that if I allow the Minister to rise, the honourable member is prepared to have this motion disposed of because he has not sought to adjourn the debate?

Mr Scholes:

– It is a motion, not a piece of legislation. It is open for immediate debate and it is open for another member, if he so desires, to adjourn the debate to a later time. I wanted to speak to the motion now because it is normal for customs tariffproposals to appear on the Notice Paper until the end of the session and then to be disposed of in a machine-like manner. Customs tariffs may apply immediately without having to be dealt with by the Parliament. They are then put through in a separate Bill at some other time.

Mr Hurford:

– I will move the adjournment of the debate. I expect that the Minister will get in touch with the honourable member for Corio promptly to give him the answers to the questions he has raised.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 389

CUSTOMS TARIFF PROPOSALS

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

– I seek leave of the House to move a motion to discharge certain customs tariff proposals which were moved earlier in the year and which constitute part of Order of the Day No. 44. These Proposals were incorporated in the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978 and the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1978 which have now been assented to.

Leave granted.

Motion (by Mr Fife) agreed to:

That the following tariff proposals, constituting part of Order of the Day No. 44, Government Business, be discharged: Customs Tariffproposals Nos 1 to 12 (1978) and Excise Tariffproposals No. 1 (1978).

page 389

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from IS August, on motion by Mr Fife:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-This is the first in a long line of 1978 Budget Bills that we will be debating in this House. The adjectives that I want to apply to the Budget generally could- and I emphasise the word ‘could’- apply to this Bill. Those adjectives are ‘brutal’ and contractionary’. It could lead to unemployment. It could also be a dishonest Bill. Again I emphasise the word ‘could’ because we know so little about the Bill that we are presently debating.

The Bill could be brutal and contractionary if it adds to all the imposts that were announced last night. Of course, we know that its object is to raise $7Sm, so it does add to the imposts. I should have said that it will add to the imposts on ordinary Australians, the consumers of this nation, rather than, as was suggested in the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Howard), merely put an impost on importers who are making monopoly profits. In the second reading speech the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) referred to:

  1. . imposition of a special additional duty of 12.S per cent on imports of certain finished goods. . . .

What assurances have we that this 12Vi per cent will not add to the cost of those goods? The hopeful assertions by the Treasurer in the Budget Speech are noted and supported by us in the Opposition. The Treasurer said in his Budget Speech:

I would like to point out that it is not intended that these arrangements should have any additional protective effect.

One assumes from that that he does not expect 12½ per cent to be added to the cost of the particular goods. But we look in vain at the second reading speech of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs on this Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) last night for some reassurance that this is not so, for some statement of intention that this should not be so and for some idea of how the Minister and the Government will set up machinery to ensure that the goods that are listed in the Bill before us will not be savagely increased in price for the ordinary Australian and the ordinary housewife buying the goods because of the savage increase in customs duty on all these items.

Reference was made by the Treasurer to import quotas. I shall not read the reference verbatim, but he said that import quotas confer on importers who hold them a substantial advantage over those who do not, thus giving rise in many cases to monopoly profits. The implication is that all of this 12 ‘A per cent should come from those monopoly profits. But what further assurances have we on this subject? The second reading speech of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, who is at the table, was a mere 12 lines in length and certainly gave us no assurances of the sort that I am seeking. I repeat that it certainly gave us no idea of how machinery could enable the Minister to give those assurances.

The assumption must be, as I have implied up to this point, that this Bill adds to the Budget imposts. It adds to the impost of the income tax surcharge that was brought in by a government which won an election on a promise to reduce taxes. It also adds to the other increases in indirect charges contained in the Budget last night. Of course, I am referring to the increased levies on beer, cigarettes and petrol. Further, it adds to the impost on ordinary Australians, for instance, by means testing pensions for those over 70 years of age. We could go on through the horrific list of further imposts that have been made on Australians. We might even make the point, as has been made already, that the Government is levying even a $10 airport charge on us when we try to escape from all these additional charges that were made in the Budget Speech that we had to put up with in this Parliament last night. The first point to be made by the Opposition is that we want to know what will be the machinery to ensure that the consumers of this nation will not be charged the extra 12V£ per cent tariff which is to be placed on goods by the Bill we are now debating. That is only the brutal and contractionary part of the Bill; there is more to it than that.

I mentioned earlier that this could be a dishonest Bill. I also mentioned that that adjective could be used about the Budget generally. It could be dishonest because we were promised lower taxes and we got higher taxes and because we were promised that there would not be any meddling with Medibank and we have seen the changes that were announced last night. The dishonesty in regard to this Bill is that the resumed debate was rushed on within 24 hours without an explanation of why that should be so. It was rushed on without any explanation as to the machinery to ensure that the charges are not passed on. This Bill is being rushed through the House in the manner with which we are dealing with it tonight without any justification of it as a way of siphoning off any monopoly profits that importers may be making. We would like more information about this. We would like canvassed in this House an explanation of why there are not other ways to siphon off any monopoly profits there may be in the importing of these goods. We would like some information from the department concerned, through the responsible Minister, as to the sort of profits they are. What is the quantification of them? To what extent will $75m be a suitable sum to siphon off from these profits? But we are given no information of this sort.

As the responsible shadow Minister I learnt at about 1 1 o’clock this morning, just as my parliamentary party was about to meet, that this matter was to be debated today. We were not given time to study it in the depth in which we would like to study it, and we certainly were not given in the second reading speech or from any other source the information to enable us to debate the measure adequately. If the purpose of it is to add to the costs of imports to protect Australian made goods, let us say so. But the opposite was said by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech last night. If the purpose is to add to the cost of imports in order to collect revenue, let us say that as well. But let us learn the true purpose of it and let us see how that purpose is to be carried out. I repeat: The second reading speech did not tell us.

I wish to say something now about my Party’s attitude to Australian manufacturing industry because it is very relevant to this measure. If the aim of the measure is merely to siphon off monopoly profits, we support that aim; but we do not support this way of protecting Australian industry. We know that it is absolutely essential for this country to have a manufacturing sector and we are on record in many places as stating that it is the Australian Labor Party’s aim that there should be a large manufacturing sector. We know that in the present economic circumstances the aim must be to make that manufacturing sector internationally competitive, which means aiming for increased productivity.

We know also that great help must be given to get economics of scale through assistance for exports, research and development and in some cases even for mechanisation to achieve that productivity. We believe we need planning mechanisms in this country to bring about that situation. But we have not got such planning mechanisms. We are developing a detailed policy as to what those planning mechanisms should be. In our view the Industries Assistance Commission should be concentrating on long term tariff bench marks. It should be working out in what areas we should be applying our resources so that we can increase the standard of living of the Australian people and on which industries we should be concentrating in order to get the best results. At the moment that is not happening. The IAC resources are being used to too great an extent elsewhere for that to happen. But I repeat that we believe that changes must be made towards applying resources to those areas where we require lesser tariffs rather than to those areas where we require higher tariffs.

Of course also we state that we must ensure growth of new industries in our community based on our research and development, on the upvaluing of our minerals and on areas where we have a natural protection, such as perhaps high transport costs to this country. Having said that, however, I point out that we have many great industries in this country which are labour intensive and with which we must be very sensitive. We believe that at the moment the quota is the proper way to protect those industries. The tariff is not the proper means to afford that protection. That is why we assert clearly that we do not support the idea of adding to costs, for instance, in the case of motor cars by adding a further 12 te per cent to the existing 45 per cent tariff, bringing it up to 57te per cent- when the quota is the proper means of ensuring that sufficient Australian-made vehicles are being produced to ensure that as much as possible there is full employment in this country.

Because we are very worried about this extra tariff impost, known as a special customs duty, of 12H per cent being added and because we know that already a quota is protecting the industries concerned, we feel that much more explanation should be given about the effect of this 12te per cent tariff before we can support the Government in this measure with any certainty and any happiness. I repeat that we must not rely on tariff alone for protection in these sensitive areas; we must rely on quotas. We do not support such a large impost which we feel will end up adding to the costs of this nation, feeding the consumer price index and indeed causing much more trouble than it will cure. So we support quotas while change is taking place and while we are moving to areas where economies of scale and a lower unit cost can result.

We agree that quotas cause problems. In fact a colleague of mine, the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), about six months ago addressed a question in this House to the Minister on the very problems involved in trading in quotas and on the high profits being made as a result of quotas being applied. We are not satisfied with any explanations given to us at this time that this is the way to cure that situation. To use a Scottish term, the case is not proven. That is why we ask the Government to let us know why it has not chosen the option, for instance, of putting quotas out to tender, or of auctioning the quotas or of ensuring that manufacturers should get these quotas. Perhaps any profits of manufacturers could offset the costs of manufacture and thereby ensure more manufacture in this country. I know that all these options have their difficulties but I believe that it is the job of the Government to bring these options to the Parliament. The Minister in his second reading speech on a measure such as this should tell the Parliament about these options and why the Government has not chosen the alternative options but instead has chosen this option which has all the dangers that I have already indicated.

I repeat that we realise that quotas have many difficulties and we recognise them. But I also repeat that the options ought to be canvassed in the Parliament. So far in discussing why this measure in our view is dishonest we have only scratched the surface. Why is this Bill being hastily rushed through the Parliament? We have not been told the reason. There is probably a very good technical reason but it ought to be spelt out rather than giving us just a few hours to engage in a meaningful debate.

Let me raise a number of other questions which I believe also need answering. For instance, no explanation was given last night, in the Budget Speech or in the second reading speech on this Bill, about why the goods that are mentioned in this Bill are subject to this 12te per cent tariff when other goods which are also the subject of quota have not been included. I think the House deserves an explanation on this matter. No explanation has been given anywhere as to the reasoning which led to the choice of a 12 te per cent tariff. Why did the Government choose 12te per cent? Why not 15 per cent? I indicated earlier that we do not know from any information given by the Government what these monopoly profits are. Let us learn from the Government what they are and then we may be able to make a judgment as to whether $97m siphoned off in a full year by 12te per cent is the correct amount.

Another question which comes to mind is the nature and extent of the monopoly profit problem associated with these quota arrangements. I have already implied that we would like to know a lot more about that problem. Is this just a revenue raising exercise- I have already asked that question- or is it another way to clobber the consumer in addition to all the various ways that were mentioned in last night’s Budget Speech? Before going any further, let me raise two legal considerations which should also be noted in considering this Bill.

Firstly, I believe that there are some doubts whether the Government can unilaterally impose such additional duties because sections 23(3) and 23 (4) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act specify that the Minister should not increase or reduce duties imposed on imported goods without first referring the matter to the IAC for recommendation. In this Bill are we not increasing the duties to be imposed on goods?

How do we reconcile this situation with the particular sections of the IAC Act? Is the Government trying to sidestep this requirement by having a Minister, other than the Minister responsible for the Act, announce the tariff increase? That was one suggestion put forward when the financial Press leaked the information that this measure would be brought in. I cannot see that that suggestion applies because my knowledge of affairs is that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs is the Minister responsible for the IAC Act and he was the Minister who introduced this measure in the Parliament last night.

Not only is the legality of this measure in doubt, as I suggested- several importer groups have already indicated their preparedness to challenge its legality- but also there is a moral question of the wisdom of the Government embarking on this course of action without considered advice as to the effects of this decision. Perhaps the Government has already received considered advice but I believe it is the duty of the Government and of the Minister to tell the House about that considered advice. Let me read from the particular sections of the Industries Assistance Commission Act. Section 23 (3) states in part:

The Minister shall not take any action in respect of any of the matters specified in sub-section (4) . . . unless he has received a report of the Commission in relation to that matter under this Act . . .

I suggest that in the case of all the goods specified in this Bill such a report from the IAC under the meaning of that section has not been received. Section23 (4) (b) states:

Whether duties imposed on goods of a particular description imported into Australia should be removed or the rates of those duties should be increased or reduced;

Of course, the rates of duty are to be increased under this Bill. But that is not the only legal impediment which I believe applies to this Bill. I also want to draw the attention of the House to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Does this Bill not breach Australia’s international commitments in the General Agreement? Does it not breach the GATT rules as we know them? A member cannot break such a commitment without some offsetting form of compensation. Instead, it is believed that the Government will invoke Article XIX of GATT, arguing that the tariff increase is necessary for balance of payments purposes. Clearly this is not the intention of this measure for it runs counter to the Treasurer’s assertion that ‘it is not intended that these arrangements should have any additional protective effect’. Rule (1) of Article XXXVII of GATT in part states:

The developed contracting parties shall to the fullest extent possible- that is, except when compelling reasons, which may include legal reasons, make it impossible- give effect to the following provisions:

b ) Refrain from introducing, or increasing the incidence of, customs duties … on products currently or potentially of particular export interest to fessdeveloped contracting parties;

It is clear that many of the goods covered by this legislation are of enormous interest particularly to the less developed contracting parties to GATT. We do not believe that Article XIX applies because the Treasurer has said that it is not intended that the goods should increase in price. Article XIX would let us out. However, we are told nothing about this in any information that is given in this House and we object to that. On behalf of the Opposition I move:

Apart from the legal considerations I want to remind the House of the points that I have made. Whether this measure achieves the aims set out by the Treasurer- that is, allegedly to raise revenue and not to raise levels of either protection or inflation- depends crucially upon the extent to which importers of the goods affected are able to pass on the higher duties as higher prices. Apparently the Treasurer and I suppose the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs believe that importers will not raise their prices so that the duties will be paid for out of profits. Is this not a naive belief? Market forces will do this only if either one of two conditions apply: First, imports are price sensitive so that the increase in price will lower the quantity demanded on imported goods; or, secondly, there is no unsatisfied demand for imported goods so that higher prices will lower the quantity demanded. We have no evidence that either of those two conditions apply. Both situations would have the effect of importers failing to sell all their quotas and pressuring prices to remain at their previous levels.

Do we think this will be the effect? I do not, and 1 certainly do not believe that most informed people in the community would do so.

In other words, we will certainly have an addition to costs by this 12te per cent impost. Even if market forces have this effect in the long run, this does not deny that the immediate effect will be higher prices for imported goods, greater inflation and the ability of domestic producers also to raise their prices and their profits. However, market forces alone are highly unlikely to have that expected effect just described even in the long run. More likely importers will be able to pass on their cost to the consumer because either imports are relatively price insensitive- in other words, they can be sold almost for whatever price is asked- or there is some unspecified demand for imports. I assert further that these direct effects are not the only consequences. There are also indirect effects. The domestic manufacturer will be able to increase his price in line with the importer’s price increase, but this will only mean profit increases not employment increases. I assert also that his production and employment levels will not rise; they may even fall as the declining real wage effects of price rises of other imported goods reduce the demand for domestic goods.

Furthermore, there would be additional falls in domestic production and employment associated with a retaliation by our trading partners upon the goods they currently import from us. There would also be the increased use of the penalty quota under tariff quota arrangements since the disability of these penalty rates of duty are decreased as the additional duties are placed on the quota goods only. There is no guarantee at all that these detrimental effects will not occur, increasing simultaneously both inflation and unemployment. Already there is evidence of our trading partners being furious with this measure. I have had feedback today about the effect this measure has had on some of our major trading partners, and I believe that retaliatory measures will be taken against us because of the fact that this measure has been brought into this Parliament. I have asked for more information about the 12 te per cent rate.

In summary, I make the point that the purport of the Opposition’s amendment is to delay the passage of this Bill while questions are answered. I do not think any objective observer of this Parliament could disagree with me when I say that we are debating this measure without satisfactory information being given to this House. We believe that the legislation will place an additional impost on prices, in spite of what the

Treasurer has said in his speech. The Opposition believes that it is proper to protect the particular industries but this has to be done sensitively by quotas and not by increased prices at this time. We believe that there are such legal impediments that the Government would be well advised not to rush this measure through this Parliament at this time, but to look at the points that I have raised and give the House the courtesy of providing proper answers to my questions before asking us to vote on this Bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

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

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– My colleagues and I on this side of the House are delighted to be able to support the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife), who is sitting at the table tonight, and the Government on the introduction of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1978. Contrary to the assertions made by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) who has just finished speaking in this debate, the Bill was introduced merely to increase the amount of revenue collected from tomorrow to the end of the financial year. The total amount of increased revenue for that period will be some $65m. In a full year it will amount to $75m. I believe that the reason behind the introduction of this legislation should be mentioned in the House tonight. The Treasurer (Mr Howard) made this point very clear in his Budget Speech last night when he stated:

Import quotas have a certain scarcity value and confer on importers who hold them a substantial advantage over those who do not- giving rise, in many cases, to a ‘monopoly’ profit; by contrast, protection provided by the tariff gives rise to increased duty collections rather than increased profits for importers.

I would like to point out that it is not intended that these arrangements should have any additional protective effect. The measure will produce additional revenue amounting to $65m in the 1978-79 financial year and about $75m in the 1979-80 financial year. I believe that what the Treasurer has said is the truth. People must realise that it is important for us to increase the amount of revenue from as many sources as we can during the difficult period we find ourselves in at the present time. The 12te per cent special additional customs duty which will be imposed from tomorrow will apply to imports of certain finished goods which are subject to import ceilings imposed through tariff quota and import licensing controls. The Minister has made it very clear that where practicable goods which are regarded as imports to an industry and entering under quota and licence controls have been exempted from the additional duty. There are some grey areas which always arise in any legislation of this nature. For instance, finished articles of clothing imported in pieces and merely sewn together domestically will be included.

In addition to the goods upon which this additional duty is to apply now, it is intended that it will apply to goods which at a future time come under quota or licensing control. As goods become no longer subject to those controls, the additional duty will be removed. The imposition of this additional duty is not intended to pre-empt the findings of the review of the administration of the quota system which is currently under consideration by a number of people. That is an area under the control of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

I feel that it is very important for industry as a whole in Australia to make it known that it supports the Government in this action. I call upon industry to advise the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, members of the Government and members of the Opposition that it supports this measure totally. In making this call, I ask for early consideration of the matter by members of industry so that the Government will know from the outside that what it has done in this area is correct and that it has introduced the appropriate measure.

The honourable member for Adelaide also made mention of the fact that there would be an increase in the cost to the Australian consumer of goods which are imported. I can inform the honourable member that in fact in some cases the high mark-ups which are currently being placed upon some imported goods amount to 500 per cent or 600 per cent. I have seen the customs declaration forms which have been made out at the point of entry of the goods to this country. I know the purchase prices in Asian countries with cheap labour and I also know the retail selling prices. I wish to outline what has happened in the last few years since this mess arose in 1973 after the Whitlam Government reduced tariffs by 25 per cent across the board and some 40 000 people were lost from the industry. Australian manufacturers work on a very much smaller profit margin and have much higher labour costs when manufacturing goods in this country. At the point of sale in the retail outlet, the importer or the individual who is bringing the goods into this country sells those goods to the retailer and they are priced at a slightly lower retail selling price than that of the Australian manufactured article.

I saw an example of this recently involving a man’s shirt manufactured in this country for about $8 and which retailed for $ 1 5.99. The item which was imported into this country for $3.50 landed was retailing in the same store for $ 1 5.50, 49 cents less than the Australian manufactured product. The Australian manufacturer is faced with a horrific situation when we realise the sizable difference in the amount of the mark-up on the imported item and the margin of profit on the Australian product. The importer is working on a profit margin of 400 or 500 per cent as against an average margin of 100 per cent in many areas in Australia at the present time.

It is also important to realise that many people entered this industry in their early teens. They have worked in the industry and been involved in it for a number of years. They have built up expertise over a period and the industry has had an involvement with those employees. The amount of support which has been given to the industry since the Fraser Government came to office in 1975 has been substantial, particularly in the area of the 40 per cent investment allowance. I am delighted to note that after due consideration of submissions put to the Government and particularly to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, a 20 per cent investment allowance has been considered. It was announced a few months ago that the investment allowance will not cease in 1983 but will continue for another two years until 1985. This is the sort of thing for which this Government stands; it is the type of approach for which this Government stands. The industry and the people involved in it have an assured future. They have a future because they know that our Government is concerned about the jobs of people working in the industry. I cannot say, in all fairness, that the people who were in government during those terrible years of 1972 to 1975 understood or had a concern for people who had spent a lifetime, in some cases, working in the garment and textile industry in Australia.

I am pleased to see that there are some new members in the Opposition who have an appreciation of the importance of this particular manufacturing sector in the Australian community and that they are starting to bring a little pressure to bear on the individuals who are at the present time in the Opposition shadow ministry. I should point out that because of the type of leadership we have in this House they will remain in the shadow ministry. But I am pleased to see that some honourable members opposite are starting to realise that it is not possible to play around with tariffs as was done by the Labor Government in July 1973.

The future of the garment and textile industry will mean a great deal for this country. It is not realised generally that the figures of Australian males, females and children are different from the figures of people in other countries. The sizes of garments, the lasts of shoes and the types of cuts that are necessary for all clothing in this country are different from those in most other countries. This applies to underwear garments, swimwear, sportswear and normal day-wear clothing. If honourable members look at the Bill they will see that it covers everything from rubber coated garments, men’s suits and clothing, women’s dresses, underwear, boys and girls’ clothing and babies napkins. It covers the whole range of clothing.

It is very important to realise that the imposition of an additional duty of 12 te per cent will apply across the board in most areas but that a very important area which has experienced some difficulties in the last few years has been left out. I am referring to the textile area. This Bill applies an additional duty of 1 2 te per cent to the finished garments which are being imported and which have caused the most trouble in the last few years. We have to realise that some of the assertions which have been made in the last few weeks are completely fallacious. Recently, the free trade movement or the free trade groupcall it what you will- came up with a new argument against tariff quotas. Proponents of this argument point to declining levels of employment in the local textile, apparel, and footwear industries since 1974 as being the foundation for their argument. They state that, despite the existence of a wide range of quota arrangements, employment levels continue to fall. They have selected a high employment situation as the starting point of their argument. The boom production and retail conditions in 1973 and 1974 and the levels of employment early in the calendar year of 1974 reflect these conditions.

The second point that is being used is that throughout 1974 and 1975 the Government attempted to control the disruptive flow of imports by means of voluntary restraint arrangements. I think those of us who were members of this House then realise that that failed completely. These arrangements were shown subsequently to be useless and were replaced progressively by tariff quotas. It was not until mid 1976 that the first semblance of comprehensive tariff quotas was replaced in position by the products of those industries. Since then, quotas have continued to be applied to product groupings on a continuous basis. The last significant additions were made in late 1977. Currently, the Industries Assistance Commission is taking evidence on a further significant range of products. Thus, for the greater part of the period since 1974 the industries concerned were in practical terms exposed to disruptive import flows. It is small wonder, therefore, that employment levels in those industries continued to be eroded despite action taken by the Government.

The problems which this industry has faced have been horrific. When one compares it with some of the other industries in Australia one sees that some of them have gone completely offshore. I do not want to see the garment and textile industry go off-shore. I stress that the Bill with which we are dealing tonight is not a means of protection. It is merely a means of increasing the revenue derived by the Government. The sum of $65m is a substantial amount of money in anybody’s language. The sum of $75m for a full year is considerable amount of money. It is the type of money which we need at the present to reduce a very significant deficit. I strongly believe that the types of measures which the Government introduced in its Budget last nightthis is one of them- will ensure that this country of ours will move forward. They will create extra jobs and reduce the level of inflation. I was delighted to hear the statements today by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in answers to questions that we can look forward to the situation when we will have an inflation rate of 5 per cent.

I should like to give the House an example of something which is good government. I had drawn to my attention only recently the instance of a man who is involved in charity work and who had budgeted for a 13 per cent inflation rate finding that because we have reduced the inflation rate he had an extra $64,000 which he had not considered would be part of his total amount at the end of the year. That has meant that the particular organisation for which he works will have funds for a new building which will assist some very needy and handicapped people. That is the sort of confidence which is brought about by a reduction in the inflation rate. When we have brought down the inflation rate people will be able to start to budget effectively and they will be able to start to look at the employment situation. That is the key to success. The Budget is aimed at achieving success in that regard. I know that we have received criticism from certain quarters but that is inevitable. The Budget involves a number of considerations, including the matter under consideration tonight, but it is the type of good government and good management which this country has desperately needed. I am pleased to be part of a team which is bringing to the Australian people measures such as this which will ensure that those people who at present do not have jobs in the industry but who want jobs in the industry will be returning to the industry over the next few months and the next few years.

I believe that it is permissible to range fairly widely in a tariff debate. I feel it is important to mention that a number of people have telephoned me today to congratulate me on these measures. I have been involved in this industry and the reaction has been quite surprising. I have received 14 telephone calls from Sydney and Melbourne. I have not received a telephone call from Brisbane but those honourable members who come from Queensland will realise that today is a public holiday in Brisbane. It is the annual show day; it is the people’s day. I think that I will receive a number of telephone calls from Brisbane tomorrow. Those people who did ring me and who are involved heavily in the industry said that they agreed with the Government’s assertions that import quotas have given a large number of people a licence to make net profits.

Recently I met an individual who became an importer three years ago. He asserted with a great deal of pride that last year he earned a total of $2,146,000, That is a lot of money. I do not mind anybody making a success of his life in this country if he works hard. I believe that that is the way it should be. But some people are assured of a substantial amount of money merely because they have a quota. This has happened in a number of areas. That is why some people are selling quotas. If one considers that on a quota for 50,000 units which is being rented out at the present time- it has not been sold- and which is for an operation over two seasons one can pick up the average going rate of $3 to $3.50 for a skirt or a blouse or $5 for a dress one realises that we are looking at a fair amount of money in anybody ‘slanguage.

I believe that the industry itself must stand up and be counted in this regard. The industry itself must speak to government with one voice. I have asked the industry to consider writing to the Minister indicating that certain members of its associations are selling quotas and have obtained quotas unfairly and are not using them for the purpose for which they were originally designed.

I am delighted to say that a number of people in the industry have considered this matter very carefully and I believe this action will be taking place. The more industry associations speak with one voice the easier it will be for this Government to bring down legislation which will create jobs and ensure that the people in the industry are protected and will remain part of the Australian work force.

My time has almost expired. Before resuming my seat let me assert very strongly that the legislation before us tonight- the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3)- is not a measure for protection. It never has been and it never will be. I have checked with departmental officers from the Departments of Business and Consumer Affairs, Industry and Commerce and Treasury and without exception they have asserted that this is a measure to increase the revenue. It is something which I totally support for the reasons I have outlined. The rate of 12!£ per cent, considering the huge margins which are operating at the present time on the input of goods, is very small. I am delighted to be part of a team which will assist the Government in its search for some additional revenue which will be distributed under our type of approach to those people in need and those people who will be involved in this scene. Part of that revenue will be put into research and development grants. Part of the revenue will go to the export incentives which the Government announced a few months ago, and that is the way it should be. We still make the best garments in the world and we have still got a huge market outside this country.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– If the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Peter Johnson) proved nothing else to me during the course of his address to this chamber he proved something that I have thought was so since the Treasurer (Mr Howard) introduced his Budget last night. This is a bookkeeper’s Budget which was never seen by an economist during its preparation. On two or three occasions the honourable member for Brisbane referred to the purpose behind the increase in the tariff on these items, and I interpolate that there are a lot of items, running through from ladies’ sleepwear to passenger motor cars. We are not talking about the knitwear industry in isolation. The honourable member did not apologise in any way at all for this increase being just another rip-off to get another $65m into the Budget to try to balance the deficit that seems to be worrying the insides out of everybody. The honourable member tried to lock into that argument something to do with employment.

Much as he might have disliked the period between 1972 and 1975, if we are going to talk about unemployment then I remind him that there are more people unemployed in Australia now, after three years of Liberal Government, than there were under the Labor Government. Fewer people were working and more were unemployedwhich is very significant- during the three years from 1975 to 1978 than there were during the three years from 1972 to 1975. 1 wish the honourable member had elaborated the point so that I could have been enlightened about how he intends to improve the employment situation- by that I mean getting people back to work- by increasing the price of certain imported goods by 12te per cent. He seems to believe naively another false assumption- one of the many on which the Budget is structured- that somehow the importers are going to pay the extra tariff over to the Australian Government, totalling an estimated $65m between now and the end of June. If I have copied his words correctly, he said also that at the present time imported goods have a mark-up of 500 per cent or 600 per cent and that they are then put into the retailers at a slightly lower price than that charged for locally manufactured goods. He went on to indicate that because of our expensive labour we have to be able to compete -a typical conservative speech.

The honourable member then gave us a clear indication of how the market is expected to react. There is no doubt in my mind, and I have been around a long time, believe you me, that if a manufacturer or a merchant has the opportunity to increase his price and the market is prepared to pay, then those who are going to pay are the consuming public of Australia, the people who have to buy the imported goods. If there is such a capacity in the demand for goods in Australia, it strikes me as being very odd that this Government, which holds itself out unashamedly as a government of business, does not do something about getting industry in Australia active in order to take up the slack and cater for the demand for those goods that is now being met by imports. On the argument of the honourable member for Brisbane, the price of those goods is already being increased to a price above that of the locally manufactured goods, which seems to me to put the local manufacturer in a favourable position. But the Government has not said that.

It took the Minister at the table, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife), less than two minutes to introduce this measure into the House, and it has quite wide ramifications. It raises a number of questions. The

Treasurer thought so little of it that he gave it three lines in his Budget Speech. How on earth does the Government expect us, the representatives of nearly half of the people in Australia, to understand something like that when it gives us so little information? How does it expect intelligent debate on a measure such as this when it gives us that sort of information? For example, the Government did not tell us whether the Industries Assistance Commission had considered the matter. In fact, by its silence it is clear that the Government has not done so. A unilateral political decision has been taken in the Cabinet room and legislation brought into the Parliament. The Government expects the support of its party to allow it to railroad this measure through the Parliament without it being thoroughly investigated. It is the purpose of the Industries Assistance Commission to look at matters of tariff, indeed it is a requirement that matters of tariff be referred to the Industries Assistance Commission. In moving his amendment the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) made the point that in view of section 23(3) and section 23 (4) of the Act there ought to be an examination of this matter by the IAC, but there has not been.

The honourable member for Adelaide also raised the problem of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. From a reading of that document, it seems that the Government is flying in the face of international agreements. There has been no consultation, simply an arbitrary decision taken in the Cabinet room and brought into this place as legislation. This Parliament has been misused, abused and prostituted again. It is expected to agree blindly with propositions that are put to it by a half-baked government that keeps coming in here with half-baked ideas that will not work. We would like to know, and I have already made this comment, what measures the Government will use. It uses the term ‘monopoly profits’, and I think that is a pretty interesting term. I would like to know what the Government means by that. If people are making monopoly profits in this country, why is the Government not doing something about it and getting its share of revenue from that area? Instead of doing that, it has increased the tariff by 12Vi per cent, which ultimately will be passed on to the consumer, on goods ranging from brandy and PVC-rubber coated garments through to footwear and motor cars.

As far as motor cars are concerned, I had a bit of a giggle while listening to AM this morning when I heard the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) talking about the sales tax on locally manufactured cars being reduced and the price dropping by $500. When questioned about the increase in the price of petrol he said: ‘$500 will buy a lot of petrol. ‘ That is a beauty! He did not bother to say that the changeover price will be the same and nobody will get the $500. On the other side of the coin, imported vehicles will increase in price because of the 12!6 per cent increase in the tariff that the Government is determined to impose, as the honourable member for Brisbane has told us, so that it can balance its books by adding $65m between now and the end of June. He made the point that that is a lot of money. Apparently he is mesmerised by these things, like most bookkeepers, and is not prepared to look at the consequences for the Australian community and for the Australian consumer.

No attention has been given by the Government to solving the problem at its source, that is, by increasing the capacity of Australian industry. I too have knitting mills in my electorate, as well as textile factories and a very large car manufacturer, the Ford Motor Co. All of those factories are operating under capacity. What is wrong with the Government doing something about getting those industries back to capacity? There would then be a lesser need for imports to come into the country. Surely the two things ought to go hand in hand. But have we heard anything about that? We heard not one word from the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs in the one and a half minutes it took him to address this House. He had no time to elaborate. The honourable member for Adelaide in his response tonight took his full 30 minutes, and it was the best 30 minutes’ worth of sense that I have heard in this House for a long time.

Mr Hurford:

– Thank you.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-That is quite all right. The speech made by the Minister, and it was quoted to the House by the honourable member for Brisbane, told the House nothing. It treated the Parliament with contempt and certainly treated the Opposition with contempt. Many questions have been raised, and I have no way of knowing whether the Minister will rise tonight and answer those questions or whether he will just let this Bill go through. I think he has a responsibility to this Parliament to answer those questions, even at this late stage in the debate. It should be remembered that this matter was introduced into the Parliament only yesterday and the Opposition has had little time to study it. I could not be convinced that the Bill was prepared in one day, yet the Opposition is expected to debate it in one day. Again, utter contempt has been shown for the forms of this House and for the way in which parliaments- the people’s forum- are supposed to operate. We have been treated with this same sort of contempt over the last three years and I guess that we will continue to be treated with contempt until we win government in 1980.

At this late stage I urge the Minister to rise and to give the House some indication of why these measures are necessary; why it is essential, in the view of the Government, to impose a 12Vi per cent tariff increase on certain goods- the motor car industry, for example. If people are making windfall profits, to use the words of the Treasurer, why is the Government not instigating measures to tap those windfall profits? Furthermore, the threat of retaliatory action by our trading partners is not an unreal one. I would like to know from the Minister whether that matter has been considered and whether the Government has received assurances that there will be no such retaliatory action by our trading partners around the world.

Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a lot more business before the House to be considered yet and I would be the last person to take up all my speaking time simply in order to take it up and to reiterate matters that have already been raised. I think I have made a scathing attack on the Government. I think the Government should resign but before that happens, I would like the Minister to stand up in this chamber and explain thoroughly what this matter is all about.

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

– in reply- Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not want to disappoint the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson). As a matter of fact, I could not hear him clearly over here. I thought he said that he was about to resign. I thought that was to be his greatest contribution. The honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Peter Johnson) has really answered the only points that need to be referred to by the Government in reply to comments made by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) and the honourable member for Burke. But just to restate the position and to emphasise what the Treasurer (Mr Howard) said last night in this Budget Speech, the special additional customs duty which this measure provides is purely a revenue measure. It is not intended to provide additional assistance to industry. This point was made by the Treasurer last evening and I emphasise it now. If tariff quotas or import licensing on the goods in question were to be removed, the special additional duty would also be removed. The measure is intended to divert to the community, through the tax system, part of the additional profits which accrue to import entitlement holders. As I have said, it is not intended to raise the level of protection; nor is it intended to add cost to the consumer.

In relation to the Industries Assistance Commission, the honourable member for Adelaide raised the question of the validity of this measure. I want to emphasise that insofar as assistance to industry is concerned, the Government remains committed to its platform that assistance to industry will not be varied without a prior IAC or Temporary Assistance Authority report. The Opposition has moved an amendment designed to delay this measure. The basis for the Opposition’s amendment is its claim that it has not had time to study the measure. The measure is not substantial in volume; it is a measure that has been available overnight to the Opposition and as I have indicated, the Treasurer made clear last night what was proposed and what the intention is. The Government of course, does not support the amendment.

Question put:

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

The House divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Dr H. A. Jenkins)

AYES: 77

NOES: 31

Majority……. 46

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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 Fife) read a third time.

page 399

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY AGREEMENTS AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 399

AUSTRALIAN OVERSEAS PROJECTS CORPORATION BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 April, on motion by Mr Anthony:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– From looking at the title of this Bill honourable members would be entitled to say that it is a worthwhile measure but when we look at the structure of the Bill we realise that it has very many defects. If we look at the definition of the projects embraced we see that they are defined as developmental projects involving construction, design and supply of equipment or installation of equipment, and testing in the field of agricultural practices. If we look at the second reading speech of the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) we see that there is to be concern for the type of international competition that exists already in this world of project development. We see that there have been discussions in Australia as to whether we could become part of that competitive process. In the course of his speech the Minister talked about other nations, quite substantial nations, which are involved already in this field. They are no less than the United States, France, Canada and the United Kingdom. He says that they are actively involved in supporting their industries.

The difficulty that we seem to face with this particular measure is that what is proposed does not seem to have the sort of strength that would give private Australian organisations the capacity to compete as well as they might. In other words the proposed organisation is designed to inform and assist. It does not seem that it will have much of the muscle that would be required in accordance with the definitive objective of being able to construct, install and otherwise carry out a project. So it is a curious piece of legislation.

Whilst at the outset it appears that the Bill is about overseas projects, we find that this Australian Overseas Projects Corporation would be the least able to fulfil such a project. Honourable members will see from the Minister’s second reading speech that the Corporation will be able to carry out projects at the request of private Australian organisations. The Opposition has no objection to private organisations but this unfortunate project of the Government is limited to what might be the dictates of private organisations. If a private organisation is not involved, one wonders what in the name of fortune will happen to the worthwhile, perhaps tentative, exploration by the Corporation.

There is to be a board of directors. Again we find that the board is to be comprised in the main of representatives of the private sector. There is nothing wrong with that but it gives rise to the question of what the Bill is all about. If the board of directors is comprised of people from the private sector it would have certain particular views as to how to judge what is a worthwhile project. In other words, there could be a conflict of interest. Honourable members will see that the measure provides for contingent liabilities of up to $50m, so there will be some substantial propositions requiring worthwhile consideration. The Minister said that this is the most important piece of legislation in a package which will assist private Australian organisations in any field because it will be export oriented.

In that context one must hearken back to the piece of legislation that has just been passed, despite objections from the Opposition, which deals with the problems of overseas credibility. If Australia is to be invited to be involved in projects overseas, for example, in Europe or Japan, I think that those countries will have a very close look at the measure which has just been passed which indicates clearly that we are imposing some sort of tariff restriction by way of increased penalties, namely a 12)A per cent tariff. It has been explained to the House that that measure had nothing to do with the countries in which those goods originate or the countries which question our credibility and whether we are dealing with them on a fair basis. Let me assure the Minister that the Japanese are very angry about that measure. In fact there are suggestions that it could well affect their subsidiaries here.

In that context one wonders how we should look at the European position. We have before us legislation to set up the Overseas Projects Corporation which, we think, will give us a chance to compete for developmental projects in Japan or Europe. But I can imagine those countries saying that we have not really helped them in legislation recently passed in this House which has been aimed virtually at preventing them developing and obtaining the benefit of their expertise in trade. The Government ought to be alerted to this. It should not be telling the House this evening that this is only a financial or fiscal measure with which the Treasury has been concerned and that it does not concern trade. It does, it has and I have no doubt that the European Economic Community as well as the Japanese would object to this approach. It could well affect our position in the Multi-National Trade Negotiations and could well affect the ability of the Overseas Projects Corporation to effectively carry out work in those countries.

The Bill is a curious piece of legislation. At first glance the proposed Corporation appears to be a corporation in its own right and able to carry out developmental projects. However, let me address honourable members’ minds to the provisions which will weaken it in every phase of its operations. Clause 6 makes it clear that one of the functions of the Corporation will be to obtain information and make it available to Australian private organisations. So, in this regard it is merely an agent of Australian private organisations. The Corporation also is to assist private organisations in respect of overseas projects. So it is to inform and assist, but all the time on behalf of Australian private organisations. An Australian private organisation is deemed to be a person, a partnership, an Australian company or an Australian consortium not being a consortium which includes the Corporation. Finally, this limited Corporation can agree to carry out the whole or part of an overseas development project on the basis that the necessary work can be carried out on behalf of the Corporation by an Australian private organisation. Nowhere under this legislation can the Corporation function in its own right. Its functions are all the time limited to projects that an Australian private organisation can undertake.

Clause 7 states that, subject to sub-section (2) of the clause, the Corporation is prevented from engaging as principal or agent in the buying or selling of goods. Note the limitation there again. It is prevented from buying or selling goods. That provision really weakens the Corporation. If it is to be involved in development projects, which include the construction of works, the installation of equipment and the testing of agricultural practices, it would be motivated further by being able to buy or sell goods. It would assist Australian private enterprise no end if the Overseas Projects Corporation could negotiate a project with a guarantee that Australian producers could sell their goods.

While clause 7 restricts the Corporation by not allowing it to buy or sell goods, clause 8 brings about an incredible situation by providing that the Corporation shall not compete against any Australian private organisation, whether acting as principal or agent. I find it difficult to imagine how the Corporation could get itself into that situation when clause 7 prevents it buying goods as either principal or agent. This provision seems to conflict with clause 6 which states that the function of the Corporation is to inform, assist or agree to carry out on behalf of another private organisation any function at all. So under clause 8 it cannot compete with any other private organisation and under clause 6 its functions are limited to assisting private organisations. We could have the ridiculous situation where one private organisation is prevented from receiving help from the Overseas Projects Corporation because another private organisation says that the Corporation is competing against it when, under clause 8, it should not be. Therefore nothing happens at all. Sub-clause (3) of clause 8 provides that where an Australian private organisation lodges with the Minister an objection under sub-clause (2) to negotiations by the Overseas Projects Corporation, whose main thrust is to help other private organisations, the Minister may direct the Corporation to cease negotiations if he so desires.

Under clause 9 the Corporation shall not agree to carry out any work at all unless an Australian private organisation that is able and willing to do the work on behalf of the Corporation requests it to do so. This seems to be in complete conflict with what the Corporation is all about. Let me make it clear that when we talk about overseas projects we are talking about projects of a very substantial nature. We are talking about Australian enterprise, Australian technology, Australian design, Australian equipment and Australian goods, and they are all in the private sector. That should be the concept behind this legislation. It is unfortunate that the Minister considers that this legislation provides the best way of approaching the Corporation’s task. He completely overlooks the fact that at present there are severe problems in Australian industrial design and development.

We have had White Papers presented on what we should do with our industries. It is recognised and admitted that the best thing for us to do to help industries become efficient is to encourage them to become export oriented, but this cannot happen unless the Government gives a lead. The Minister has made the point that these measures are in accordance with the Government’s longterm industry policy, but we do not know what that policy is. It has never been explained and as far as the Opposition is concerned it does not exist. Even the White Paper on manufacturing industry has been condemned as a completely shallow and incompetent document. So it is important that we understand the problems when we talk about policies. The Opposition says, but is unable to get the Government to do it, that long-term policies need to be indicated whether in relation to tariffs, structural change or manpower policies. We ought to know where we are heading.

We can do this if we look at what already has occurred in Australia, not the least important example being the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. It has been a most successful venture. This Corporation already can do much, if not all, of the work that the proposed Overseas Projects Corporation might do. The Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation’s financial operations for the year ended 30 June 1977 showed a profit of $1.8m. It paid taxes of $1. 15m. In other words it is a very successful operation. That Corporation is able to assist the Government with all overseas projects.

We see that extremely well qualified personnel with great engineering expertise control the Corporation, with the result that it has been able to compete for and obtain contracts throughout the world. It has a total staff of 5 1 1 which comprises 164 professional, 201 technical and 146 service personnel, who are what could be called some of the best Australian talent from private enterprise and university training and who are generally able to compete in the world.

Where are these projects being carried out? During the year ended 30 June last the Corporation was engaged on work in most States of Australia and in many other countries. At the end of the year 148 personnel were located on overseas projects, that total being made up of 30 in Thailand, 57 in Indonesia, 12 in Malaysia, 1 1 in Western Samoa, 16 in the Philippines, three in Tanzania, two in Ghana, seven in Papua New Guinea, two in Pakistan, two in the New Hebrides, five in Kenya and one in the British Solomon Islands. So this Corporation has a fairly impressive record with regard to what it can do.

What we are asking is: Why do we need this additional and very weak piece of legislation that is dressed up on the basis that it will do something worth while? By way of the proposed amendments that I have already circulated the Opposition will make the point that we do not need the legislation. If we were to give the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation the same encouragement to develop in this area, which it can do, we would be benefiting private enterprise in Australia because it would utilise all the goods and services that would be needed to carry out the projects and would be getting them from Australia. But the Government wants this legislation, and it will not agree with proposals that come from the Opposition. It is prepared to denigrate the expertise of its own Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation and the Corporation’s ability to make profits. If we are to have this legislation let us give it a bit of strength. Accordingly, by way of our amendments we propose to amend clause 7 to say that the Corporation may engage as principal and agent in the buying and selling of goods but so as not to compete with Australian organisations. What is wrong with that? If it cannot do that it cannot function at all.

With regard to clause 13 of the Bill, why must the great majority of the personnel come from the private sector? That proposition carries all the dangers that we envisage. Such personnel may well have to look at projects submitted by other private organisations with which they are not associated but with which they have to compete. Worse still, they may have to look at projects with which they are associated and therefore will have a conflict of interest. How will we be able to judge that sort of situation if, as this Bill provides, the personnel shall be people who are engaged in private industry? If we want the very best people we want those people in private industry who are directly related to this sort of work, but if they are to be put in the position of acting for the government on the basis that they cannot really assist in areas in which they are directly involved we certainly will be embarrassing them and perhaps limiting Australia. The analogy is that no member of parliament may discuss in this House a matter in which he has a pecuniary interest.

We suggest that the best way to overcome the problem is for the people who will be appointed pursuant to clause 13 to include the Secretary to the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Secretary to the Department of Trade and Resources, Manager of the Commonwealth Development Bank and the Director of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation or their delegates. We would then get a clear and, one might say, judicial appraisal of the validity of the judgments made. We make the point that no director shall be involved in the consideration of or vote upon any matter in which he has a direct or indirect interest. Everybody knows that it is essential to have that sort of measure to protect the Corporation. We are critical of the Bill in that context and we propose to move amendments accordingly.

The main thrust of my criticism is that we do not need the measure in the way it is designed. We fully applaud the idea of Australians being able to develop their expertise and obtain overseas contracts, but a point that has been made to me is whether the Government is really encouraging matters to the benefit of the existing facilities. I draw the Government’s attention to the fact that the Budget Speech last evening, at page 128, talks about other assistance in respect of overseas trading corporations. The ‘other assistance’ includes $375,000 for the promotion of Australian consultancy services in developing countries. It also talks of Sim for the capital of the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation. That is not the first time a consultancy fee has been provided for. I notice that in 1976-77 the consultancy fee provision was $180,000 but I am disappointed to learn that we were able to use only $69,000 of that sum- approximately one-third. In 1977-78 we appropriated $159,000 as consultancy fees but we used a mere $52,000 of it- again one-third. The present Government seems to print figures and hope that they will turn out right, and if they turn out wrong it gives some explanation. There is not much point in merely putting figures in the Budget when in the last two years we have utilised nowhere near the full appropriation for consultancy fees. Accordingly, it appears fairly clear that organisations in Australia have never been able to utilise even the limited resources that have been made available.

One critic has written to me to ask why it would not be better to encourage consultants in Australia to get moving and to work through an organisation that could well be the same as the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. In other words, if we already have the funds and we have had them for years we ought to consider why we have not been able to utilise them. It is important not just to win a contract for an overseas project but in so doing to use Australian products. In other words, the Australian involvement in the project should not be limited to design and installation. There ought to be an additional incentive to guarantee that Australian goods and services will be used to fulfil the contract. That is one of the points that have been made.

Another criticism is that the Government has given no indication of how this proposed Corporation is to secure information about available projects. We have already the services of trade commissioners. Surely they should be able to provide the information. How does the Government expect the proposed Corporation to do it? It has no particular expertise in this very competitive area. We have said for some time- and again we were denigrated in the second reading speechthat the most effective way for Australia to trade and develop would be to have an Australian overseas trading corporation, not as a socialist concept but on the basis of talking government to government with the ability to find out about projects that ought to be developed. If we had that sort of structure, which for reasons we cannot understand this Government will never agree to, we would be fully alerted to the worthwhile projects that could be developed in other countries and for that purpose we could utilise our trade commissioners. But if this legislation is passed we will have a private enterprise corporation employing very busy men who will be trying to make a living in private organisations in Australia and who will be expected to be alert to what is happening in other countries. How can they be expected to be aware of that? How will the Government get this sort of corporation to assist employment and development in Australia?

We make the point that the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation can do that and that we cannot understand why the Government is creating this structure, which can be faced by all the limitations in the world. In other words, any private organisation here can object to it doing anything if it feels that it is going to do what is deemed to be competitive. Why does the Government not look at the matter on the basis that it wants to assist overseas projects and it wants to do so in a way that will assist all Australians? There is to be no government structure in this area, but expertise is certainly available through an existing structure and the trade commissioners can provide an intelligence service as to what it is all about.

I come now to the final point. The Bill provides for an appropriation of $2m on an annual basis, which has to be repaid, and a $50m contingency. That means that the Corporation has to operate within a profit oriented framework. That point leads one to ask: Will the charges be increased because the Corporation has to make a profit? In other words, the Corporation will have to apply additional charges to the private sector for which it is trying to get contracts. Also the Corporation is virtually obliged to repay the money to the Government. The impression has been created that this Corporation, cabined and confined as it is, will still have to levy charges to the private sector which is trying to get the work and it will have to add those charges to its tender prices.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– Surely it would be related to the profitability of the private sector.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The point I am making is that there is no doubt about the profitability of the private sector but it also will have to wear the fact that this Corporation is an added incubus from the point of view of what we are about in trade. We have to be effective, fast and definitive. If the Corportion has to go back to the private sector each time and say that it can carry out the project but its fees in the area will be $250,000 because money has to be repaid to the Government the private sector might decide that it cannot afford to go on with it because of the charge being levied on it. In other words, the Government is demanding that the Corporation has to be a viable proposition. There is no query about that. But a second unnecessary operation is created. As I say, there is no objection from the Opposition about the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, with all its expertise, saying: ‘There is a very worthwhile proposition in Thailand or the Middle East. We will help you to get that contract. We can do it for you and we could be part of a consortium with you’. The structural steel and concrete could come from Australia. We can provide all the private enterprise buildup that is necessary’. There would be a complete deal with the people with whom one was doing business. But the Corporation cannot act as principal or agent. That is the point I am making. It seems to be a well meaning public relations exercises in encouraging something to be done by a private organisation in Australia which may decide not to do so. If that is the position, nothing will happen. We have said for some time that Australia has an opportunity to trade as a nation. Mr Deputy Speaker Drummond, you would know of the West Australian

Lamb Marketing Authority, which is a very worthwhile proposition. It is a State trading authority which is doing very well indeed, thank you very much, because of its expertise and the full benefit goes to the producer. It is the same concept that one is about when one is talking about trade. I want to make the point that we as Australians have the opportunity to develop the expertise of Australians but it must be done within the concept of what we are about. This measure clearly will overlap the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. We say that it is a wasteful dispersal of skills. It is a contraction from the private sector which could embarrass it because of the structure. We ought to look at what we are about. That Corporation has had some seven years’ experience in the field. It is trading well at a profit and is paying tax. So why not get it to do this worthwhile venture? The private sector would be involved. To have the sort of structure which does not have the capacity or the legal ability to act as either principal or agent is not offering a worthwhile incentive to the Australian private enterprise sector in Australia. We oppose this measure because of its limitations. We say there is a better alternative.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s time has expired.

Mr CHAPMAN:
Kingston

-Contrary to remarks we have just heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen), the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation Bill is a further confirmation of the Fraser Government’s positive action to ensure strong economic growth in Australia in the long term. It is also pursuing policies in the shorter term which have been necessary to overcome the distortions in our economy as a result of the insanity which prevailed in the Whitlam Labor Government era. To restore long term prosperity to Australia we must expand our trading opportunities and exports. Therefore the Government is to be commended for many of its initiatives in this regard, particularly those initiatives that have been taken in recent months. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has vigorously pursued Australia’s trading interests in Japan, the United States of America and Europe. The achievement of a significant increase in our beef exports to the United States reflects one aspect of the Prime Minister’s success in this area.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) has also directed considerable attention to successfully promoting Australia’s trading prospects. The Minister at the table- the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland)- has been pursuing our interests in the very difficult forum of the European Economic Community. Also the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) has been a strong advocate of our interests, particularly in Asian countries. So the Government is fulfilling its responsibilities to expand Australian trading opportunities both in the formulation of policy and with the direct personal involvement of senior Ministers.

Particularly as a result of the wage-cost explosion that was encouraged by the Whitlam Labor Government, import replacement as a stimulus to growth in manufacturing industry is over. A forward looking innovative approach is required by management and manufacturing industry to direct its growth to areas where export markets can be developed. It is simply not good enough for management to sit back and rely on tariff protection to ensure guaranteed markets in Australia. Indeed, to do so is directly contrary to the principles of free enterprise. Management should welcome competition and grasp the opportunity to compete in international markets. Shorter term tariff protection may be justified to allow for readjustment to export oriented production. However, in the longer term excessive protection proves to be an unbearable millstone around the neck of existing export oriented industries, both primary and secondary, and inhibits innovative growth of new export oriented industries. On that basis, far from maintaining employment, excessive tariffs in fact add to unemployment.

The important economic developments that have occurred in Asia over the last decade or so have largely been overlooked by Australian manufacturing industry. I emphasised in my speech in the Address-in-Reply debate earlier this year that it is time that we focused more closely on Asia, not only because in the negative sense Asian manufacturers are placing increasing pressure on a growing range of Australian manufacturers but also because Asia offers a vast range of challenging opportunities for Australian manufacturers. Australia has the manufacturing capacity and the innovative ability to delve quite deeply into this region. As new industries are developed within the region, Australia will be able to compete for the supply of capital goods, essential raw material inputs, specialised manufacturers and consultancy services. In this respect I am conscious that a wide range of Australian industries have already exploited export opportunities within this region. In the manufacturing sector, food, beverages and tobacco, non-metallic mineral products, fabricated metal products and transport equipment industries have experienced large increases in the share of their exports going to the developing Asian market economies while the rural and mining sectors have experienced smaller increases.

The specialisation by Asian countries in particular products associated with their general economic development will continue to create substantial export opportunities for Australian industry. The extent to which Australia will be able to take advantage of the benefits of increased trade with Asia will depend on the extent to which Australian industry adopts a course that complements rather than competes with the output of developing Asian market economies. It will require Australian concentration on rural based products, processed rural and mining products, consumption oriented manufactures and the outputs of the service industries.

An important element in the success of Australian exporters will be the adaptive skills of Australian manufacturers. It is my belief that adapting products to local requirements is an area of comparative advantage Australia has and can develop much further. Our strength lies in the depth of manufacturing industry’s innovative skills built up over the years to service Australian needs. Well known examples of this would be Australia’s success in dry land farming techniques and the bulk handling and processing of agricultural and mineral commodities. There is no reason why the horizons of Australian manufacturing industry should be limited in any way in this regard. A prime example of the success which Australian industry can achieve with an outward looking attitude is the success of the world renowned lens manufacturing firm Sola International Pty Ltd located at Lonsdale in the Kingston electorate. I have referred to this firm’s initiative and success on previous occasions.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– Tell us again.

Mr CHAPMAN:

– I would love to tell the honourable member for Lilley again of their success. The technical expertise with which they developed the CR39 plastic lens has led to the establishment of a substantial export market and has allowed lower input costs of production. As a result there has been a further growth in exports. Last year substantial extensions were made to the factory of the Sola organisation at Lonsdale and also additional employees were recruited, thereby providing additional employment in that area. So the benefit from export oriented manufacturing is obvious.

The Government is aware of the need for Australia’s manufacturing sector to become more export oriented. The White Paper on manufacturing industry clearly indicates that the Government wishes to develop a stronger and more specialised manufacturing sector. Towards this end the White

Paper argued that it was desirable to give encouragement to new investment in manufacturing that will be efficient, internationally competitive and export oriented, particulary where it is based on Australian talents, skills or resources and where the degree of processing or transportation is the maximum consistent with international competitiveness.

The Austraiian Overseas Projects Corporation Bill emphasises the Government’s strategy to expand trade and economic relations with other countries. It fulfils yet another promise made by the Fraser Government during the 1977 election campaign. The Bill proposes to establish a statutory corporation to provide the Australian private sector with information and assistance to negotiate with overseas governments or organisations to carry out overseas development projects. The legislation follows consultation with the private sector and has the private sector’s full support.

There has been massive expansion of investment in large scale development projects in developing countries during the present decade. These projects have made a significant and growing contribution to world trade. The Australian Overseas Projects Corporation will meet a pressing need for government support for Australian exporters in this field. The legislation is an excellent example of effective co-operation between the private sector and government. The Corporation will provide real benefits to Australian firms seeking to enter large overseas development projects and hence to the Australian economy. The legislation reflects the Fraser Government’s outward-looking approach which seeks new export markets and new links with the economies of other countries. I think that even the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) ought to be interested in this piece of legislation.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– His interest is growing by the minute.

Mr CHAPMAN:

– I am pleased to see that he is waking up now to listen. This approach is reflected in other measures which recently have been introduced to assist in the development of export markets. A new export incentive scheme has been established. There has been expanded promotional activity by the Department of Trade and Resources to support exporting companies combined with an export consciousness program. The Overseas Trade Commissioner Service is being strengthened. The facilities of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation are being expanded by legislation to provide export finance at concessional interest and underwrite performance guarantees. The present Government has also negotiated a new international sugar agreement and has established the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. This positive approach by the Fraser Government is in marked contrast to that of the Austraiian Labor Party as has been represented by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, not only in the debate this evening but also in other statements in recent times. The Deputy Leader has pretensions to be the Deputy Prime Minister one day and maybe even the Prime Minister. One would therefore expect a far more thoughtful contribution on matters of trade, particularly in tonight’s debate. However, his contributions are in no way serving Australia’s interests. Instead, his comments on Government policies and initiatives in this area have ranged from the petty through the inaccurate to the ridiculous. His substantial criticism of Government policy and performance are extremely difficult to substantiate. He has recently criticised the determination of the Fraser Government to gain access to European Economic Community markets. He has claimed that Australia has no hope of increasing exports of steel and agricultural products to the European Economic Community. This negative attitude from the Opposition is not good enough.

The Government will not close its eyes to the domestic market of the world’s largest trading block; it will not close its eyes to the European Economic Community’s selling practices on third markets. The Government will continue to challenge the principle of closed markets and special trading rules for agricultural products. The Labor Party ignores all this to Australia’s detriment. The Opposition’s criticism of the Government’s policies and performance completely lacks validity. Noticeably, the Labor Party has no coherent alternative policy to present to the Parliament or to the Australian community. We are given no idea of how the supposed alternative Government would handle the present situation. The Labor Party merely offers a counsel of despair- the doom and gloom of which the Leader of the Opposition is so fond and for which he has become so renowned. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition regurgitates proposals from the disastrous years when Labor was in office. He has claimed that the Fraser Government is not making sufficient effort to develop markets in fields other than Europe. He completely ignores the Government’s comprehensive approach and policy.

As I demonstrated earlier, the Government’s attention has been directed not only to the European Economic Community but also to markets in the United States, Japan, the Middle East and South East Asia. A few moments ago I outlined also a range of policies designed to assist exporters to develop other new markets. The

Deputy Leader of the Opposition has proposed a framework agreement between Australia and the European Economic Community. The Government remains open to such an agreement if its benefits are demonstrable, but the Fraser Government wants substance and not mere formality in this regard. A framework agreement currently exists between Canada and the European Economic Community but no one in either of those countries can point to any positive results from that agreement. It would seem the Labor Party has more interest in show pieces and organisational gimmicks than actual sales.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition in remarks he has made in recent months has also trotted out the Labor Party’s hoary old socialist proposal for the Australian Overseas Trading Corporation. Of course, this legislation was rejected by the Senate when Labor was in office and the amendments proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition tonight once again reaffirm Labor’s commitment to that structure. The proposed amendments in fact would have the effect of converting the Australia Overseas Projects Corporation very largely to a body similar to the Australian Overseas Trading Corporation. The private sector, very correctly, was aghast at the proposals to establish the Overseas Trading Corporation when it was introduced during the era of the Labor Government. Far from assisting Austraiian enterprise to expand trade, the Corporation could have directly competed with private business trading in goods. The Australian Overseas Projects Corporation which is established by this Bill provides for any benefits that were claimed for the Australian Overseas Trading Corporation and more, while not threatening the private sector in the way that that proposed body would have done. The Overseas Projects Corporation can act only on requests from private organisations. It is also a provider of assistance and cannot directly engage in general trading. Once again, this obviates it as a threat to the private sector.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Australian Labor Party are acting contrary to Australia’s national interest through the negative attitude which they have adopted. I discovered during recent discussions in a number of countries that Australia has lost a significant proportion of its export markets as a direct result of the disruptive activities of our waterfront and maritime unions. The activities of these unions have caused Australia to be an unreliable supplier of goods, particularly with regard to meeting delivery deadlines; so other suppliers have been obtained. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition would better serve Australia’s national interest if he used what ought to be his undoubted influence in the labour movement to stop these militants destroying Australia’s prosperity. The capacity for Australia to develop and expand its export markets on the basis of the assistance that is being provided by the Government directly depends on a responsible attitude being adopted by our waterfront and maritime unions. If delivery dates are not met as a result of militant activity by those unions our customer countries will turn to other suppliers as they have done already as a result of the activities of those unions. In direct contrast with the attitude of the Labor Party, the Fraser Government has the runs on the board with a series of significant measures to assist business to establish exports markets.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– It has the runs.

Mr CHAPMAN:

-The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as a valued member of the parliamentary cricket team, ought to know what the term ‘runs on the board’ means. It means that the performance is there to be seen. The Australian Overseas Projects Corporation is a worthy addition to these initiatives. The Australian Labor Party, through the remarks of its Deputy Leader tonight, has offered no viable alternative. It is now up to private businesses to use the assistance provided and get on with the job of developing export opportunities to their individual benefit and to the benefit of the whole Australian economy and hence the Australian community. It is for that reason that I strongly support the passage of this Bill and will oppose the amendments which the Opposition proposes to move during the Committee stage.

Debate (on motion by Mr Les Johnson) adjourned.

page 407

ADJOURNMENT

The Honourable E. G. Whitlam, AC, Q.C.

Motion (by Mr Garland) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

-I would not like to let pass the occasion of the retirement from this House of the former honourable member for Werriwa, the former Prime Minister of this country and the person whose memory has been revered by the people in Australia, particularly for the measures which he introduced for the period between 1972 and 1975. Unfortunately, the Honourable E. G. Whitlam, Q.C, did not return to the Parliament for the commencement of this parliamentary sitting. So the opportunity has not presented itself to speak of the good work which the previous honourable member for Werriwa performed in this House. It is to the credit of Mr E. G. Whitlam, Q.C, that by diligence, by forthrightness and by good government during the period that he was Prime Minister he placed many measures on the statute books of this country which will possibly be better recognised after he has died and is gone. I think it is true to say that history has shown that the worth of a person is seldom realised during his lifetime. I compare the Honourable E. G. Whitlam with such mighty Prime Ministers as John Curtin, the Labor Prime Minister who led Australia during the period of the last World War, and Joseph Benedict Chifley who was revered by the Australian people but who was roundly criticised by the Press during the period that he was Prime Minister of this country. He was recognised only after he had died. It is amazing to me that the Press of this country can pillory such good men as John Curtin, Joseph Benedict Chifley and Edward Gough Whitlam.

I know that Edward Gough Whitlam was Prime Minister of this country in a time of great controversy. I also know that during those periods of controversy he stuck to his principles, the principles which he had fought for and believed in over a period of many years in the Labor movement. I revere his memory and the things which he has done in this House. I am certain that the people of Australia, when they have time to think about the great benefits which were conferred on them during the period that he was Prime Minister, will revere him also.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

page 408

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Advertising (Question No. 37)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) What sum was spent by his Department on advertising and services during the period

    1. 1 1 November 1975 to 13 December 1975,
    2. 14 December 1975 to 30 June 1976,
    3. 1 July 1 976 to 30 June 1 977 and
    4. 1 July 1977 to date.
  2. What was the cost of each campaign undertaken.
  3. Under which item of expenditure were funds allocated.
  4. Which advertising agencies or consultants were used for each campaign.
  5. What was the total sum paid to each agency or consultant for each campaign.
  6. 6 ) How was each agency or consultant selected.
  7. What is the estimated cost of advertising and promotion of Government programs and services for 1977-78.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The amounts spent by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for advertising and services on specific programs were:

    1. 11.1 1.75 to 13.12.75- $7,465
    2. 14.12.75 to 30.6.76-$20,578
    3. 1.7.78 to 30.6.77-$22,229
    4. 1.7.77 to 28.2.78-833,587
  2. The cost of individual campaigns were:

    1. Staff recruitment- Department of Aboriginal Affairs-$1 1,126
    2. Staff recruitment-Nursing stadd (film)-$44,000
    3. Election- National Aboriginal Conference- $25,428
    4. Aboriginal Land Commissioner N.T.- Land Claims Hearings-$3,306
  3. 3 ) Funds were provided as under for:

    1. Staff recruitment (departmental) 120.2.04 (1975-76); 120.2.04 (1976-77) Advertising
    2. Staff recruitment (nursing) Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account (1975-76); 120.4.02 (1976-77) Grants-in-Aid-Health
    3. Election (N.A.C.) 120.3.05 (1977-78) National Aboriginal Conference- Election expenses
    4. Land Claim Hearings 813.0.01 (1975-76) Interim Northern Territory Land Commission- Operating expenses 120.3.11 (1976-77) Interim Northern Territory Land Commission- Operating expenses 120.3.10 (1977-78) Aboriginal Land CommissionerOperating expenses.
  4. and (5) Agencies used and the amount paid to each in respect of individual campaigns were

Gordon and Gotch $5,846 Staff Recruitment (Departmental)

Berrie Currie $4,444 Staff Recruitment (Departmental); $15 Election (N.A.C.); $2,582 Land Claim Hearings

Insight Advertising $439 Staff Recruitment (Departmental); $2,065 Election (N.A.C.); $724 Land Claim Hearings

Weston Advertising Film Australia $2,599 Election (N.A.C.); $44,000 Staff Recruitment (Health)

  1. Advertising was arranged through the Australian Government Advertising Service and the promotional film was made by Film Australia.
  2. The estimated cost of advertising and promotion in 1977-78 is $185,428.

Television Advertising Directed at Children (Question No. 190)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to an article at page 23 of On DU for 16 October 1977 on children’s television advertising.
  2. If so, does the article quote evidence that most food and drink commercials on television promote non-nutritious products.
  3. Will he investigate laws overseas which have provided for equal time to counteract unlawful or misleading advertising and report the results to the Parliament and the public.
  4. Will he publish guidelines for television advertising directed at children, providing among other things for clear separation of advertising from program material, with no use of characters from children’s programs in advertising within or adjacent to such programs, and no use of promotional competitions by comperes of children ‘s programs.
  5. Will he consult with his colleagues about the use of violent scenes from adult classified films in commercials, shown during family viewing programs.
Mr Staley:
Minister for Post and Telecommunications · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 have read the article in the University of Adelaide students magazine On DU attributed to Mrs Barbara Biggins of the South Australian Council for Children’s Films and Television. Mrs Biggins appeared before the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal at its public inquiry into the concept of self-regulation for broadcasters. Her views on children’s television advertising were taken into account by the Tribunal in framing its subsequent report and recommendations.
  2. The article quotes the results of a study of Adelaide television which indicated that approximately 50 per cent of advertisements between 4.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. were for food or drink most of which, according to the article were likely to have high sugar content.
  3. I am aware of the existence overseas of laws relating to misleading or unlawful advertising. For instance, in the United States the Federal Trade Commission is empowered to require advertisers found guilty of breaches of advertising legislation, to make appropriate retractions. There have been cases where advertisers have been obliged to televise announcements correcting false or misleading claims made in television advertisements. The Honourable Member will appreciate that conditions prevailing in the broadcasting field in other countries are different in many important aspects from those in Australia, nevertheless I will ask my colleague, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs to supply me with details of overseas legislation relevant to your question.
  4. Guidelines for advertising directed to children already exist. These were developed by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and are administered by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal as part of its Television Program Standards. They provide as follows:

    1. Children should not be directly urged to put pressure on parents to purchase the product advertised.
    2. Advertisements should accurately represent the product, and claims concerning specific product qualities should be capable of being substantiated.
    3. Advertisements must be clearly recognisable as such and separate from the presentation of program matter.
    4. Personalities or characters from children’s programs should not be used to endorse or recommend products within or adjacent to children’s programs.
    5. Children in advertisements should be wellmannered, well-behaved, and show respect for parents.
    6. There should be no implication that the possession of a product makes the owners superior to their peers, nor that lack of the product may lead to ridicule and contempt No comparison should be made with last year’s models or competitive makes in such a way as to make a child possessing these feel inferior.
    7. With the objective of avoiding excessive repetition in the telecasting of advertisements directed to children, a station should exercise discretion in the placement of identical advertisements within any regularly scheduled program directed to children.
    8. If a price is mentioned, the complete price of the product should be made clear, preferably both aurally and visually, and advertisements should clearly indicate the cost of those items which constitute the original purchase and additional items that must be purchased separately.
    9. Undue emphasis should not be placed on the use of such words as ‘only ‘ or ‘just ‘ in stating the price of the product.
    10. In the case of a product that must be assembled this should be made clear and where necessary, the source of power and method of operation should be indicated.
    11. Where reference is made to competitions, the applicable rules should be made clear and the value of prizes and the chances of winning should not be exaggerated.
  5. Results shown or claimed for advertised products, such as toys or games, should be attainable by an average child without an undue degree of skill.

    1. Except in the case of specific safety messages, advertisements should not portray unsafe acts or dangerous situations, e.g. children ignoring traffic regulations or conversing with strangers.
    2. Advertising of products not intended for use by children, except for gift-giving, should not be directed to children.
    3. Frightening dramatisations or effects should not be included in advertisements directed to children.
  6. The practice described by the honourable member is prohibited by specific provisions in the Television Program Standards except in the case of promotions consisting of voice-over slides’ as distinct from film extracts. The Tribunal vigorously pursues complaints alleging breaches of the program standards. Any breaches of this provision will, of course, be raised also during public inquiries into the renewal of the licence of the station concerned.

In its report and recommendations ‘Self-Regulation for Broadcasters?’ published last year following its public inquiry, the Tribunal stated that it expected that industry codes would include provisions relating to times of promotion of programs so that those for adults-only type programs were confined to times when the programs themselves were permitted to be shown. Programs for family viewing and for children could be promoted at any time other than times set aside specifically for children’s viewing when special guidelines set down by a Children’s Program Committee would operate. The Tribunal’s report is currently being examined by the Government and these aspects will certainly have received consideration.

Parliamentary Retiring Allowances (Question No. 241)

Mr Young:

asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

Which of the former Liberal Party members of parliament who hold office as judges, ambassadors, high commissioners and administrators receive their parliamentary pensions (Hansard, 16 February 1977, pages 116-118).

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

The following former members of parliament currently hold office as a Judge, Ambassador, High Commissioner, or Administrator of a Territory of the Commonwealth and are in receipt of a parliamentary retiring allowance:

The Rt Hon. Sir Garfield Barwick, G.C.M.G, Q.C.

The Hon. Sir Nigel Bowen, K.B.E., Q.C.

Mr J. A. England

The Hon. Sir David Fairbairn, K.B.E.

The Hon. Sir Gordon Freeth, K..B.E.

The Hon. L. K. Murphy, Q.C.

Purchase of Newspapers and Periodicals (Question No. 472)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many copies of (a) each daily newspaper and ( b ) each weekly publication are purchased by (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of the Department of Administrative Services.
  2. What was the cost of these purchases during 1 976-77.
Mr Street:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

As mentioned in the Prime Minister’s answer to question No. 468 (House of Representatives Hansard, 4 April 1978, page 978), the Departments of Administrative Services and Finance recently undertook a review of the purchase by departments of newspapers and periodicals of a general nature. The following tables show an estimate of annual purchases by each department of a group of newspapers and periodicals of a general nature, based on actual purchases in November 1977, and the assessed cost of those purchases over a year.

Staff Canteens (Question No. 575)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What staff canteens are operated by his Department.
  2. ) What is the pricing policy of each canteen.
  3. ) Are charges for (a) cleaning, (b) electricity and power, (c) fuel, (d) rent or lease, (e) repairs and maintenance, (0 replacements of plant, furniture and fittings and (g) depreciation of plant, furniture and fittings included for determination of canteen prices; if not, what was the estimated cost of each of these items in each canteen during 1 976-77.
  4. What staff is employed in each canteen, and what were the total wages and salaries paid to staff in each canteen in 1976-77.
  5. Are all wages and salaries paid to canteen staff included for determination of canteen prices; if not, what percentage of total wages and salaries paid to canteen staff were included for determination of canteen prices for 1 976-77.
  6. What decision has been made by his Department concerning subsidisation of each canteen and what was the estimated cost of such subsidisation to each canteen for 1976-77.
  7. Are the public and relatives and friends of departmentai staff permitted to use each canteen.
  8. if there are restrictions on its use how are they implemented in each canteen.
  9. What staff from other Commonwealth Departments and instrumentalities regularly use each canteen.
  10. Are there any arrangements made by his Depanment for any staff canteen to be operated by private enterprise; if so, which canteens and under what terms and conditions.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Nil. The Government decided early in 1977 that all Commonwealth employee food services would be operated by Commonwealth Hostels Limited. Handover of these services to the company was completed on 13 November 1977. However, in 1976-77 the cafeterias listed in (4) were operated by my Depanment. The Australian Services Canteens Organisation which operates the canteen service for the Army and Air Force provides a canteen service at Victoria

Barracks in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. These are regarded as Service establishments.

  1. Commonwealth employee food services are required to operate on a self-supporting financial basis, within the division of costs prescribed in Treasury (Finance) Directions, Section 8.

(4)-

  1. Yes.
  2. See answers to Questions (2) and (3) above.
  3. The cafeterias are provided for the use of Commonwealth employees only. However, it has always been seen as reasonable for persons visiting a Department on official business to be allowed to use the food service facilities on such occasions, at the Department’s invitation.
  4. Signs are displayed at the entrances to each cafeteria indicating that the dinning-rooms are for the use of Commonwealth employees only.
  5. In general, Commonwealth food services are available for the use of any Commonwealth employee.
  6. 10) No. See answer to Question ( 1 ) above.

Staff Canteens (Question No. 588)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What staff canteens are operated by his Department.
  2. What is the pricing policy of each canteen.
  3. Are charges for (a) cleaning, (b) electricity and power, (c) fuel, (d) rent or lease, (e) repairs and maintenance, (f) replacements of plant, furniture and fittings and (g) depreciation of plant, furniture and fittings included for determination of canteen prices; if not, what was the estimated cost of each of these items in each canteen during 1976-77.
  4. What staff is employed in each canteen, and what were the total wages and salaries paid to staff in each canteen in 1976-77.
  5. Are all wages and salaries paid to canteen staff included for determination of canteen prices; if not, what percentage of total wages and salaries paid to canteen staff were included for determination of canteen prices for 1 976-77.
  6. Are the public and relatives and friends of departmental staff permitted to use each canteen.
  7. If there are restrictions on its use how are they implemented in each canteen.
  8. What staff from other Commonwealth Departments and instrumentalities regularly use each canteen.
  9. Are there any arrangements made by his Department for any staff canteen to be operated by private enterprise; if so, which canteens and under what terms and conditions.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. Nil. The Government decided early in 1977 that all Commonwealth employee food services would be operated by Commonwealth Hostels Limited. Handover of these services to the company was completed on 26 June 1977. However, in 1976-77 the cafeterias listed in (4) were operated by my Department.
  2. Commonwealth employee food services are required to operate on a self-supporting financial basis, within the division of costs prescribed in Treasury (Finance) Directions, Section 8.

(3)-

  1. Melbourne- No; 70 percent; Brisbane- No; 662/3 per cent.
  2. Subsidisation policy is laid down in Finance Directions, Section 8, and no decision outside this policy was made by the Department.
  3. There is no prohibition on persons other than departmental staff using the canteens but in practice it is mainly departmental staff that use them. Visitors to the canteens are normally accompanied by a departmental officer.
  4. 8 ) See answer to ( 7 ) above.
  5. In Melbourne- Departments of Science, Administrative Services Shipping and Transport, Primary Industry; In Brisbane- Only occasional use by visiting officers.
  6. No.

Mining on Aboriginal Reserves: Land Councils (Question No. 697)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 16 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to moves by the Government of Western Australia to change the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Act to allow mining in Aboriginal reserves without approval of the State ‘s Commissioner for Aboriginal Affairs; if so, has the Government made it clear to the Government of Western Australia that Federal legislation will be introduced if necessary to ensure that mining on Aboriginal land will be subject to the same conditions in the States as in the Northern Territory.
  2. Will he ensure that Aboriginals on the Forrest River reserve are fully informed of their rights and that Land Councils are established in Western Australia and Queensland before Australia approves foreign investment in our exports from Aboriginal land in those States.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) See my answer to question No. 833.
  2. Aboriginals of the Forrest River reserve have been involved in consultations with the Aboriginal Lands Trust of Western Australia.

The establishment of Land Councils is a matter unrelated to foreign investment policy.

Williamtown Air Force Base: Use of Firing Range (Question No. 1032)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 4 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is the firing range at Williamtown Air Force Base in danger of being rendered inoperative because of the encroachment of sub-divisional development.
  2. Would loss of the capacity for training in weapon firing seriously reduce the ability of the base to carry out its functions.
  3. What action is the Government taking to ensure that the functional capacity of the base as a pilot training and operational base is retained.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The present situation at the Saltash Range does not introduce any significant restrictions to operations from Williamtown Air Force Base. However, residential development around the range, if continued without restriction, could seriously affect the RAAF’s future use of the range.
  2. Yes.
  3. The functional capacity of Williamtown Air Force Base as both a training and an operational base is not at present jeopardised. The Defence Department issued, in August 1976, a Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) for both RAAF Base Williamtown and the Range. Copies of this NEF have been made available to the NSW Planning and Environment Commission, the Port Stephens Shire Council, the Department of Administrative Services and the Department of Transport. Application of the NEF by responsible planning authorities is an important step in maintaining compatibility between aircraft operations and the local communities. In addition it should limit residential development in areas of high noise intensity.

Special efforts are necessary to limit further the development, for residential purposes, of that land inside the 25 NEF contour ( the highest acceptable level before which caution in development should be exercised). In this regard, the Port Stephens Shire Council has agreed to include information relating to aircraft noise and land use planning with every relevant building approval. If further residential development continues to the extent where operations from RAAF Base Williamtown are threatened, the only course of action may be the acquisition of additional land to provide a buffer zone.

Furthermore there is a need to restrict the height to which structures may be erected on neighbouring land, in order to protect low flying aircraft and radio installations. If structures are erected in uncontrolled fashion, RAAF operations may be affected. Thus, control is proposed to be exercised through the Defence Areas Regulations which are currently being prepared for promulgation.

The Department of Defence has concluded agreements with the Department of Transport for Military Air Space in the Williamtown area. These agreements, now incorporated in the ‘Joint Aviation Standards and Procedures’, are sufficient to protect the Defence interests for the foreseeable future.

Hospital Benefits Reinsurance Trust Fund: Contributions (Question No. 1092)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 9 May 1978:

With regard to the contributions by registered hospital benefit organisations to the Hospital Benefits Reinsurance Trust Fund referred to in his answer to question No. 844 (Hansard, 9 May 1978, p. 2106) (a) what was the membership of each of these organisations at the relevant time and (b) what was the contribution per member in each case, over the period covered.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. My answer to question No. 844 provided the total and payments made to the Reinsurance Trust Fund by (b) registered hospital benefit organisations for the period I October 1976 to 31 December 1977.

The information provided below is based on net payments to the Reinsurance Trust Fund (that is payments to the Fund less payments from the Fund to the same organisation). The use of net payments to the Reinsurance Trust Fund to determine the per capita effect on members of reinsurance reflects the actual position per head of membership.

Public Servants: Payment of Telephone Charges (Question No. 1105)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 May 1978:

  1. How many officers and employees of his Department have their home telephone rentals or charges fully or partially paid by the Department.
  2. What was the cost to the Department of this expenditure in 1976-77.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

Departmental Defence Force

  1. 229 389
  2. $41,581 $46,812

Joint Intelligence Organisation: Staffing (Question No. 1129)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 May 1978:

  1. What is the current authorised staff establishment of the Joint Intelligence Organisation.
  2. What was the authorised staff establishment of the Organisation prior to the establishment of the Office of National Assessments.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

Advisory and Consultative Committees: Inclusion of Members of Parliament (Question No. 1131)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 10 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What advisory or consultative committees has he established or continued which include members of parliament.
  2. Which members and senators are included on these committees.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations was established in 1977. The five members of parliament on the Council are Mr I. B. C. Wilson, Mr B. D.

Simon, Senator B. F. Kilgariff, the Hon. L. F. Bowen and Mr C. Hurford.

I note that similar questions have been asked of other Ministers, who will respond separately.

Advisory and Consultative Committees: Inclusion of Members of Parliament (Question No. 1134)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 10 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What advisory or consultative committees has he established or continued which include members of parliament.
  2. Which members and senators are included on these committees.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The Australian Agricultural Council, the Australian Fisheries Council and the Australian Forestry Council.
  2. Australian Agricultural Council- Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair, M.P., Minister for Primary Industry; Hon. Evan Adermann, M.P., Minister for the Northern Territory. Australian Fisheries Council- Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair, M.P., Minister for Primary Industry; Hon. Evan Adermann, M.P., Minister for the Northern Territory; Senator the Hon. J. J. Webster, Minister for Science. Australian Forestry Council- Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair, M.P., Minister for Primary Industry; Hon. Evan Adermann, M.P., Minister for the Northern Territory.

Advisory and Consultative Committees: Inclusion of Members of Parliament (Question No. 1144)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal

Affairs, upon notice, on 10 May 1978:

  1. What advisory or consultative committees has he established or continued which include members of parliament.
  2. Which members and senators are included on these committees.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) None. There is a standing House of Representatives Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Senate committees from time to time deal with matters concerning Aboriginal affairs.

Advisory and Consultative Committees: Inclusion of Members of Parliament (Question No. 1148)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 10 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What advisory or consultative committees has he established or continued which include members of parliament.
  2. Which members and senators are included on these committees.
Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2)I have not established or continued any advisory or consultative committees which include members of parliament.

Advisory and Consultative Committees: Inclusion of Members of Parliament (Question No. 1157)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 10 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What advisory or consultative committees has he established or continued which include members of parliament.
  2. Which members and senators are included on these committees.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)&(2) I have not established or continued any advisory or consultative committees which include members of parliament.

Security of Defence Establishments (Question No. 1230)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many incidents of robbery or misappropriation of arms, explosives and weapons from defence stores have occurred in the last year.
  2. Where did the robberies and misappropriations occur and what was taken.
  3. Which of the locations have (a) permanent and (b) part-time security coverage.
  4. Are security arrangements for the storage of weapons and ammunition at unpatrolled locations, such as Australian Defence Reserve depots, adequate to prevent weapons falling into the hands of criminals or terrorists.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A total of five incidents occurred during the period May 1977 to May 1978.
  2. and (3) The incidents were as follows:

    1. On 14 October 1977, a recruit at 1 Recruit Training Battalion, Kapooka, New South Wales, stole a quantity of rifle ammunition and pyrotechnics from the unit magazine. He was apprehended and the items recovered. This unit had permanent security coverage.
    2. On 15 October 1977, an Army Reserve unit depot (111 Air Dispatch Squadron) at Richmond, New

South Wales, was broken into and a quantity of blank ammunition and pyrotechnics were stolen. The items were recovered by the New South Wales Police and three civilians charged with the offence. This unit had part-time security coverage.

  1. On 18 October 1977, a storehouse was broken into at 33 1 Supply Company at Mangalore, Victoria and a quantity of eleven anti-personnel mines were stolen. The items have since been recovered. One arrest has been made and other persons are being sought. The unit had permanent security coverage.
  2. On 22 October 1977, an SLR rifle was stolen from a member of 1 3 1 Divisional Locating Battery while the unit was on exercise in Townsville, Queensland, area. The weapon was later recovered from the residence of another member of the same unit who admitted the offence.
  3. On 18 May 1978, the unit armoury and signal store was broken into at an Army Reserve unit depot ( 10 Medium Regiment) at Geelong, Victoria. Four SLR rifles and five bayonets were stolen. All items less one rifle have been recovered and five civilians have been charged with the theft by Victoria Police. The unit had no security patrols at night.

    1. The anti-personnel mines excepted, the small amount of Defence Force material which was lost was of a kind that could have been acquired from the many commercial and industrial premises which stock firearms, explosives and the like. On the whole the incidents reported do not support a suggestion that criminals or terrorists would see Defence depots as a more readily exploitable prime source of weapons of interest to them.

Nonetheless, the Defence Force takes all such incidents very seriously and all are thoroughly investigated. Security arrangements are kept under continuous review, and improvements as resources permit is a continuing activity.

Departmental Services in the Northern Territory: Payment to Aircraft Operators (Question No. 1295)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 26 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What was the total sum paid to individual aircraft operators for the provision of departmental services in the Northern Territory during each year since 1 962.
  2. What was the nature of the departmental service in each case.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

The information requested by the honourable member is not available for the period prior to 1972 and could not be provided after that year without an undue and unwarranted diversion of limited staff resources from more relevant and essential duties.

Bing Bong Pastoral Lease (Question No. 1307)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Abor iginal Affairs, upon notice, on 26 May:

  1. 1) Is there (a) a deep spiritual and historic significance, (b) an abundance of hunting and fishing resources and (c) a long term potential for economic grazing of the Bing Bong pastoral lease between Borroloola and the offshore islands. not only for traditional owners of these lands but also for periodic ceremonial gatherings of many tribal groups.
  2. When did (a) his Department first become aware of Aboriginal interest in the leased land, (b) the Borroloola Community’s representatives approach the Land Fund Commission requesting acquisition of the lease, (c) Mount Isa Mines or a subsidiary company (i) seek authority from the Foreign Investment Review Board to buy the lease and (ii) notify his Department of plans to purchase, (d) the Board ask his Department for advice on Aboriginal claims in the area, (e) his Department seek information from the Commission about this interest or these claims and (f) the Commission notify his Department of such an interest.
  3. What steps has the Government taken, and on what dates, (a) to authorise the M.I.M. purchase, (b) to ensure inalienable title to the land for the traditional owners or their community’s representatives and (c) to remedy any dereliction by his Department or the Commission.

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

  1. 1 ) I am aware that Aboriginals have indicated interest in the Bing Bong pastoral lease to the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission on the basis of traditional interest and its present and potential social and economic use to them.
  2. (a) The Aboriginal interest in the area is of long standing and has been known to my Department.

    1. 28 November 1977.
    2. (d) and (e) Consideration of proposals by the Foreign Investment Review Board is on a strictly confidential basis.
    3. The Commission, in a paper submitted in January 1978 outlining its program for the 1978-79 financial year, indicated that it was “highly likely” that it would try to purchase Bing Bong Station and /or another named station in the Gulf region. My Department first received information from the Commission of its resolution to attempt to negotiate purchase of the pastoral lease on 1 May 1978.
  3. (a) See answer to 2 (c) (d) and (e) above.

    1. Inalienable tide to land may be granted to Aboriginal Trusts under the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act if traditional claims to unalienated Crown land are submitted to, and considered by, the Aboriginal Land Commissioner and if the Commissioner recommends the grant of the land and the Minister is satisfied that the land should be granted. Bing Bong lease is alienated land and no claim has been lodged. My Depanment is in touch with Mount Isa Mines to discuss what might be done to satisfy the aspirations of Aboriginals in relation to land within the Bing Bong lease and other leases near Borrolooa.
    2. I will take whatever action is appropriate if I conclude that there has been any dereliction by my Depanment or the Commission.

Sir Robert Menzies’ Funeral: Deployment of Defence Personnel (Question No. 1314)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Were members of the Defence Force deployed in respect of traffic control, maintenance of security or other duties on the occasion of Sir Robert Menzies’ funeral at Melbourne on 19 May 1978.
  2. If so, what was (a) the number of personnel involved, (b) the defence unit or units involved and (c) the prescribed objective of the deployment.
  3. On whose (a) request and (b) authority was the deployment undertaken.
  4. Are there any precedents for this deployment; if so, what are they.
  5. Was the Victorian Police Force considered incapable of performing the duties undertaken by Defence personnel.
  6. What authority is vested in Defence personnel utilised on such occasions to (a) regulate the behaviour of civilians, (b) apprehend and charge civilians with offences, (c) complement the traditional responsibilities of State Police and (d) use weapons or defence equipment in the discharge of duty.
  7. What are the essential differentials between such defence service deployment and martial law.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) An Army helicopter was provided at the request of the Victorian Police to carry police observers watching over the funeral arrangements. No civil helicopter was available at the time. Other Defence Force assistance was directed to meeting the military ceremonial requirements for the funeral at the request of the Depanment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The latter duties gave rise to circumstances in which servicemen guided official vehicles but did not comprehend any assumption of general traffic control or security functions.
  2. (a) Ceremonial: 420 plus the bands of the RAN and Third Military District.

Provision of Aircraft: 1 pilot.

  1. Elements from: 1 Armoured Regiment: 2 Signals Regiment; 2-15 Field Regiment; HQ Third Military District; 161 Reconnaissance Squadron (helicopter); RAAF Laverton; RAN Cerberus.
  2. See(l).

    1. (a) See (1).
  3. Depanment of Defence.

    1. It is an established practice for elements of the Defence Force to perform a military ceremonial role at state funerals when requested to do so by the responsible civil authority. There have been many instances in which Service helicopters have been used to transport personnel at the request of civil agencies.
    2. See(l).
    3. (a) to (c) No special authority is conferred on servicemen so employed.
  4. The ceremonial carriage of personal weapons is a normal practice for military guards on ceremonial occasions. Live ammunition is not issued. Use of other Defence Force equipment is authorised to meet the requirements of the particular event.

    1. The application and administration of the civil law (e.g. by the Victoria Police and by the civil courts) were not affected in any way by the arrangements for Defence Force assistance in the state funeral.

Statutory Authorities Responsible to the Prime Minister (Question No. 1345)

Mr Lusher:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 29 May 1978:

  1. What is the name of each statutory authority, corporation or undertaking for which he, as distinct from other Ministers, has responsibility.

    1. Are any funds appropriated in the budget to any of these authorities, corporations or undertakings; if so, (a) what sum was appropriated to each during (i) 1975-76, (ii) 1976-77 and (iii) 1977-78 and (b) was the appropriation on one line or broken up into divisions.
    2. Who audits each of the authorities, corporations or undertakings.
    3. Under which Act of Parliament was each authority, corporation or undertaking established, and in what year.
    4. When was the most recent review or inquiry into each authority, corporation or undertaking carried out and the report made available to the Parliament and by whom was the inquiry or review carried out.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations Auditor-General, Commonwealth Ombudsman, Office of National Assessments, Public Service Board.
  2. Funds appropriated in the budget are as follows:
  3. Each of the above authorities are audited by the Auditor-General except the Advisory Council for Intergovernment Relations, which is audited by the State Auditor-General, Tasmania.
  4. Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations Act 1976, Audit Act 1901, Ombudsman Act 1976, Office of National Assessments Act 1 977, Public Service Act 1 922.
  5. The Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Office of National Assessments have only been established within the last two years. The functions and operations of the Public Service Board and the Auditor-General were examined closely by the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration whose Report was tabled in Parliament on 1 8 August 1976.

Statutory Authorities responsible to the Minister for Science (Question No. 1364)

Mr Lusher:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science the following question, upon notice, on 29 May 1978:

  1. What is the name of each statutory authority, corporation or undertaking for which the Minister has responsibility.
  2. Are any funds appropriated in the budget to any of these authorities, corporations, or undertakings; if so, (a) what sum was appropriated to each during (i) 1975-76 (ii) 1976-77 and (iii) 1977-78 and (b) was the appropriation on one line or broken up into divisions.
  3. Who audits each of the authorities, corporations or undertakings.
  4. Under which Act of Parliament was each authority, corporation or undertaking established, and in what year.
  5. When was the most recent review or inquiry into each authority, corporation or undertaking carried out and the report made available to the Parliament and by whom was the inquiry or review carried out.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The Statutory authorities responsible to the Minister for Science are as follows:

Anglo-Australian Telescope Board; Australian Institute of Marine Science; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research ganization Metric Conversion Board; and National Standards Commission.

  1. (a) The funds appropriated to these bodies in the financial years 1975-76 to 1977-78 were as follows:

    1. Details of the appropriations were as follows:
  2. All bodies listed above are audited by the AuditorGeneral.
  3. The Anglo- Australian Telescope Board was established under the terms of a bi-national agreement between the Governments of Australia and the United Kingdom. This agreement forms the schedule to the Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act 1970.

The Institute of Marine Science was constituted by the Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972.

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization was constituted under the Science and Industry Research Act 1949.

The Metric Conversion Board was constituted by the Metric Conversion Act 1970.

The National Standards Commission was constituted by the Weights and Measures (National Standards) Act 1960.

  1. A Committee of Inquiry into the CSIRO was established in October 1976 and the report was tabled in Parliament on 6 October 1977. The members of the Committee were Professor A. J. Birch (Chairman), Sir Cecil Looker and Mr R. T. Madigan, O.B.E. The other statutory bodies have not been subject to independent review giving rise to a report to the Parliament.

Entry to Aboriginal Reserves, Western Australia (Question No. 1419)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 3 1 May 1978:

  1. Has he replied to a letter of 4 May 1978, from the Western Australian Minister for Community Welfare indicating an intention of the State Government to remove from the Commission under the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority Act, the final authority to approve Aboriginal reserve entry permits and to confer this authority by regulation on the Minister.
  2. If so, will he table that reply.
  3. What discussions has he arranged with the Aboriginal Lands Trust on this matter and with what result.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No. It is normal practice for correspondence between Commonwealth and State Ministers to be treated as confidential.
  3. The matter is primarily one for the State Government to take up with the W.A. Aboriginal Lands Trust. I understand that the Premier has been discussing the matter with the Trust and that further discussions between the two parties are envisaged. At the request of the Trust I have met with representatives of the Trust at which they briefed me on their discussions with the State Government.

Whyalla Rolling Stock Proposal (Question No. 1421)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 June 1978:

When will the Government release its decision on the submission by the South Australian Government on the establishment of a railway rolling stock manufacturing plant at Whyalla, S.A. as recommended by the working party established by the South Australian Government to find other employment opportunities at Whyalla following the closure of the Whyalla shipyards?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

The Premier of South Australia was advised on 1 6 June 1978 that the Commonwealth is unable to accept the proposal by the Whyalla Working Party for the establishment of a plant to manufacture railway rolling stock for State Government railway systems.

In reaching that decision, the Government had before it the advice of an inter-departmental committee which indicated that future effective demand for rolling stock is likely to be well below that indicated in the South Australian report and also that existing production capacity is greater than estimated. In short, it appears that the most optimistic demand projections could be met from existing capacity.

The Government was also mindful that the Commonwealth purchased rolling stock for leasing to the State railway systems in 1973-74. The experiment was not successful and appears to have no Support from State Governments. Excess capacity for rolling stock exists in several States and these States naturally wish to utilise this capacity to meet their own rolling stock requirements.

In these circumstances and in the context of an extremely tight budgetary situation, the Commonwealth was unable to support the proposal.

The Government is aware of and greatly concerned with the employment situation in Whyalla and accordingly is willing to examine any further proposals that may be put forward. My colleague, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, is doing everything possible within the existing job placement, retraining and relocation programs to assist displaced workers from the shipyard.

Recycling of Waste Materials (Question No. 1443)

Mr Uren:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) What arrangements are made in his Department and statutory authorities under his control for the recycling of waste materials such as paper, metals and glass.
  2. If no arrangements for recycling presently exist, will he implement, or investigate the implementation of, procedures for the recycling of waste materials.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Where it is an economical proposition, all types of waste are recycled through contract or by disposal action administered by the Department of Administrative Services.

Where it is considered that there are insufficient quantities of waste generated or the distance from recycling outlets is too great then all waste is either burnt or destroyed under local arrangement.

Recycling of Waste Materials (Question No. 1452)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science the following question, upon notice, on 2 June 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What arrangements are made in the Department of Science and statutory authorities under the Minister’s control for the recycling of waste materials such as paper, metals and glass.
  2. If no arrangements for recycling presently exist, will the Minister implement, or investigate the implementation of, procedures for the recycling of waste materials.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The general arrangement in my Department and statutory authorities under my control is for any potentially valuable waste materials to be sold to commercial waste collection agencies or collected by charitable organisations.

Recycling of Waste Materials (Question No. 1454)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 2 June 1978:

  1. What arrangements are made in the AttorneyGeneral’s Department and Statutory Authorities under the Attorney-General’s control for the recycling of waste materials such as paper, metals and glass.
  2. If no arrangements for recycling presently exist, will the Attorney-General implement, or investigate the implementation of, procedures for the recycling of waste materials.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1) No metal or glass waste is generated by the AttorneyGeneral ‘s Department or the Statutory Authorities under the Attorney-General’s control. See the answer provided by my colleague, the Minister for Administrative Services to parliamentary question No. 1437 in respect of waste paper.
  2. See(l).

Recycling of Waste Materials (Question No. 1459)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 2 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) What arrangements are made in his Department and statutory authorities under his control for the recycling of waste materials such as paper, metals and glass.
  2. If no arrangements for recycling presently exist, will he implement, or investigate the implementation of, procedures for the recycling of waste materials.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. and (2) In addition to the information in respect of Government Departments generally which was provided by the Minister for Administrative Services in response to Question No. 1437, 1 am informed that the Australian Archives, the Australian War Memorial and each of the statutory bodies for which I am responsible have appropriate arrangements for the recycling of waste paper and, where the quantities are sufficient, waste metal, timber, glass and film.

Teacher/Non-Teacher Staffing Ratios in Tertiary Institutions (Question No. 1462)

Mr Short:
BALLARAT, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 2 June 1978:

What is the average teacher/non-teacher staffing ratio in (a) universities, (b) colleges of advanced education and (c) technical & further education colleges located in (i) metropolitan and (ii) non-metropolitan areas.

Mr Viner:
LP

-The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

At the 1971 Census, the Australian Bureau of Statistics adopted the term ‘ major urban ‘ in place of metropolitan ‘.In New South Wales the term major urban covers the urban population of Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong. In Victoria it covers the urban population of Melbourne and

Geelong, and in other States the capital city urban population; it also covers the urban population of Canberra. (a)-

(b)-

(c)-

Drought Relief Assistance, Queensland (Question No. 1474)

Mr Hodges:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 6 June 1978:

  1. Did the Queensland Government apply for drought relief assistance in 1978- if so, on what date was the submission received by the Commonwealth?
  2. How much has the Commonwealth paid to the Queensland Government in drought relief assistance in 1978?
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) In January 1 978 the Premier of Queensland sought the Prime Minister’s agreement to widening and varying the drought relief measures which the Commonwealth had already agreed to support (in November 1977) under the natural disaster assistance arrangements.
  2. Department of Finance records of advances for natural disaster assistance to the States are based on financial years. These advances are made to the States on the basis of

State estimates of expenditure on agreed relief and restoration measures. If a State is receiving assistance in a financial year for more than one disaster (as was the case for Queensland in 1977-78) it is difficult, in the absence of audited statements of expenditure, to provide accurate statements of expenditure on a disaster by disaster basis. Audited statements are not generally available until some time after the close of the financial year in which the advances have been made.

A further complication which tends to prevent indentification of Commonwealth assistance in terms of particular disasters is the requirement that each State must meet from its own resources a pre-determined ‘base’ amount of expenditure on natural disasters for a financial year before Commonwealth assistance becomes payable.

The following table shows estimated total Commonwealth payments to Queensland in respect of natural disaster assistance in 1977-78.

Laser Rangefinders (Question No. 1492)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 June 1978:

  1. Did his Department recently place orders for laser rangefinders for the Defence Forces with a Norwegian firm.
  2. If so, has an Australian designed laser rangefinder capable of similar functions been developed at the Weapons Research Establishment, Salisbury, SA.
  3. If so, was the estimated cost of the Australian system below the system purchased.
  4. Was the Australian system considered.
  5. Would purchase of the Australian system have given stimulus to Australian industry and encouraged continued expertise in weapon development technology.
Mr Killen:
LP

– The answer to the honourable gentleman ‘s question is as follows:

  1. Yes. Orders were placed in January 1978 for 41 rangefinders.
  2. An experimental rangefinder has been made by WRE but it has not been developed for production.
  3. An early estimate indicated that the Australian system could have been developed at reasonable cost but further investigation showed this to be optimistic.
  4. The Australian system was considered but at the time of decision to purchase, the lead time for development and production was at least two and a half years too long for Army requirements.
  5. Purchase of the Australian system would have given a small stimulus to Australian industry but only forty-one rangefinders were purchased. The WRE rangefinder will be receiving consideration for further development to meet possible longer term requirements of rangefinders for other arms as well as future artillery tasks.

Beef Processing and Marketing: Inquiry by Prices Justification Tribunal (Question No. 1501)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 7 June 1978:

What progress has been made with the establishment of the terms of reference, and the actual hearing by the Prices Justification Tribunal, of the inquiry into certain aspects of the meat industry.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

The terms of reference for an inquiry by the Prices Justification Tribunal into beef processing and marketing were announced by myself and the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs on 28 June 1 978. The Tribunal commenced its investigation upon receiving details of the terms of reference.

Pesticide Residues in Foodstuffs (Question No. 1533)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 June 1978:

  1. Which sub-committees of the National Health and Medical Research Council are responsible for screening pesticides for use in Australia, and for inquiring into pesticide residue limits in food for human consumption.
  2. Who are the chairmen of these sub-committees.
  3. Was Dr W. A. Langsford, of the Council, approached by the Australian Broadcasting Commission Four Corners program to participate in its program on the possible long term effects of pesticides on health.
  4. If so, did Dr Langsford nominate the chariman of the sub-committees referred to in pan ( 1 ) to speak for the Council on this program, because of his responsibility for matters related to pesticide residue limits in food and the scheduling of substances hazardous to human health.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. ) and (2)-

Poisons Schedule (Standing) Committee- Chairman: Dr E. J. Fitzsimons, Director, Toxicology Section, Commonwealth Department of Health.

Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals (Standing) Subcommittee- Chairman: Dr E. J. Fitzsimons.

Other bodies of Council peripherally involved are-

Occupational Health (Standing) CommitteeChairman: Professor D. Ferguson, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, University of Sydney.

Food Standards (Standing) Committee- Chairman: Professor R. A. Edwards, School of Food Technology, University of New South Wales.

  1. and (4) The Australian Broadcasting Commission (Four Corners program) approached my Department seeking an officer with appropriate detailed technical knowledge to participate in a program about the possible long-term effects of pesticides on health. Approaches such as this are routinely directed to the departmental press officer and this occurred on this occasion too. Dr Fitzsimons was proposed as an appropriate departmental representative. He was not a spokesman for Council.

Advisory and Consultative Committees: Inclusion of Members of Parliament (Question No. 1152)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 May 1978.

  1. What advisory or consultative committees has the Attorney-General established or continued which include members of parliament.
  2. Which members and senators are included on these committees.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) I have not established or continued any advisory or consultative committees which include members of parliament.

Maternity Leave (Question No. 1290)

Mr Shipton:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 26 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What has been the cost of maternity leave in his Department during the years (a) 1 976 and (b) 1 977, and (c) in the period January 1978 to date.
  2. What was the total hours of leave in respect of these employees.
  3. How many employees have resigned or retired within one month of the end of the leave period in each of the periods.
  4. What sum was paid for maternity leave for the (a) first, ( b) second and (c) third child in each of the periods.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I am informed by my Depanment as follows:

(a) 1 976- S 1 93,065; (b) 1 9 7 7- $2 5 8 , 82 8 ; (c) 1978- $128,523 (to 31.5.78).

175,480 hours.

1976-17, 1977-27, 1978-17.

(a) 1976- $189,313, 1977-5244,491, 1978- $116,684.

1976- $3,752, 1977- $14,337, 1978- $ 1 1,839.

1976- NU, 1977- Nil, 1978- Nil.

Statutory Authorities responsible to the Minister for Primary Industry (Question No. 1348)

Mr Lusher:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 29 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What is the name of each statutory authority, corporation or undertaking for which he has responsibility.
  2. Are any funds appropriated in the budget to any of these authorities, corporations or undertakings; if so, (a) what sum was appropriated to each during (i) 1975-76, (ii) 1976-77 and (iii) 1977-78 and (b) was the appropriation on one line or broken up into divisions.
  3. Who audits each of the authorities, corporations or undertakings.
  4. Under which Act of Parliament was each authority, corporation or undertaking established, and in what year.
  5. When was the most recent review or inquiry into each authority, corporation or undertaking carried out and the report made available to the Parliament and by whom was the inquiry or review carried out.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Australian Apple and Pear Corporation.
  2. ) See details at end of reply.
  3. 3 ) The Auditor-General.
  4. Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1973. Established in 1974.
  5. Corporation replaced Australian Apple and Pear Board (established in 1939) following a review by the Government in 1973.
  6. 1 ) Australian Canned Fruits Board.
  7. See details at end of reply.
  8. The Auditor-General.
  9. Canned Fruits Export Marketing Act 1963. Established in 1926 under Canned Fruits Export Control Act 1926.
  10. 5 ) Recommendations to Minister for Primary Industry by Australian Canning Fruitgrowers’ Association in 1963 resulted in reconstitution of Board.
  11. 1 ) Australian Dried Fruits Control Board.
  12. See details at end of reply.
  13. 3 ) The Auditor-General.
  14. Dried Fruits Export Control Act 1924. Established in 1925.
  15. Structure and functions of the Board are currently under Review.
  16. 1 ) Australian Egg Board.
  17. See details at end of reply.
  18. The Auditor-General.
  19. Egg Export Control Act 1947. Established in 1947.
  20. Nil.
  21. 1 ) Australian Honey Board.
  22. See details at end of reply.
  23. The Auditor-General.
  24. Honey Industry Act 1962. Established in 1963.
  25. Nil.
  26. 1 ) Australian Dairy Corporation.
  27. See details at end of reply.
  28. The Auditor-General.
  29. Dairy Produce Amendment Act 1975. Established in 1975.
  30. 5 ) The Australian Dairy Corporation was established following a review of the powers and functions of the Australian Dairy Produce Board in 1 975.
  31. 1 ) Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation.
  32. See details at end of reply.
  33. The Auditor-General.
  34. Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation Act 1977. Established in 1977. (AMB established under Meat Export Control Act 1935 and reconstituted by Meat Industry Act 1964).
  35. Nil. Established in 1977 (replaced Australian Meat Board after 30 November 1 977).
  36. 1 ) Australian Wool Corporation.
  37. See details at end of reply.
  38. The Auditor-General.
  39. Wool Industry Act 1972. Established in 1 972.
  40. Nil.
  41. 1 ) Australian Wool Testing Authority.
  42. ) See details at end of reply.
  43. The Auditor-General.
  44. Australian Wool Testing Authority Act 1957. Established in 1 957. (Continued in existence by Wool Industry Act 1972).
  45. Nil.
  46. Australian Wine Board.
  47. ) See details at end of reply.
  48. The Auditor-General.
  49. Wine Overseas Marketing Act 1929. Established in 1929.
  50. Structure of the Board is currently under review.
  51. 1 ) Australian Wheat Board.
  52. The Australian Wheat Board normally meets all its costs of operation from the proceeds of the sale of wheat. However in 1 976-77, as the result of a Government policy initiative effective for the 1973-74 and 1974-75 seasons, there was an appropriation to the Australian Wheat Board of $810,000, being reimbursement to the Board of costs incurred in extending credit facilities to certain developing countries beyond the Board’s normal commercial terms. This was a one-line appropriation for 1976-77 only.
  53. 3 ) The Auditor-General.
  54. National Security Regulations 1939. Established in 1 939. Continued in existence by successive Wheat Industry Stabilization Acts, the latest being the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act 1974.
  55. Nil. The Industries Assistance Commission considered the marketing functions of the Board as part of its recent inquiry into the wheat industry).

    1. I ) Australian Tobacco Board.
  56. See details at end of reply.
  57. The Auditor-General.
  58. Tobacco Marketing Act 1965. Established in 1965.
  59. Nil.

Various levies, charges and taxes are collected from primary industries and, through appropriations, equivalent amounts are paid over to the commodity Corporations and Boards to meet administrative expenses, promotion, and market support operations (wool).

The Australian Wool Corporation has received Commonwealth contributions toward the promotion of wool as follows: 1975- 76, $8,200,000, Special appropriation under Wool Industry Act 1972 1976- 77, $8,900,000, Special appropriation under Wool Industry Act 1972 1977- 78, $19,900,000, Item 490/3/ 12

This is one line appropriation.

Special Youth Employment Training Scheme (Question No. 1483)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 7 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many junior employees, who have obtained employment under the Special Youth Employment Training Scheme, have had their services terminated within (a) 6 months and (b) 7 months, in each of the cities of (i) Port Pirie, (ii) Port Augusta and (iii) Whyalla, South Australia, since the introduction of the scheme.
  2. How many junior employees have obtained employment through this Scheme in (a) Port Pirie (b) Port Augusta and (c) Whyalla, South Australia, since the scheme was introduced.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. I ) and (2) Information in the form requested is not available. In view of the volume of requests and the time involved in extracting such information as is available I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a Member of Parliament, to provide any readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question.

Air Navigation Aids (Question No. 1753)

Mr Shipton:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 16 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Are 2 of the main navigation aids on the main SydneyMelbourne air route at Albury and Williamsdale out of order and are pilots operating on back up emergency aids.
  2. If so, (a) will he take steps to have these aids restored as soon as possible and (b) will he assure travellers on this route that they are in no danger.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Yes, except that these locations serve alternative routes between Melbourne and Sydney and not the same route.

    1. Each location is served by a Non Directional Beacon (NDB), Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) and VHF Omni Range (VOR). The VOR’s at both locations are presently out of service for major maintenance involving replacement of faulty cables which is an extensive task requiring considerable recalibration.

The re-cabling is almost completed and recommissioning tests are scheduled for 28 August.

The two remaining aids (NDB and DME) at each location are supplemented by radar surveillance from Canberra in the case of Williamsdale and Melbourne in the case of Albury. These facilities provide an adequate service while the VOR’s are unavailable and there is no danger to the travelling public.

The total complex of facilities has been planned with specific regard to the need to remove individual aids for periodic maintenance or to repair equipment faults when they occur. The temporary closing down of the subject aids was a normal and safe procedure within these planning principles.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 16 August 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1978/19780816_reps_31_hor110/>.