House of Representatives
27 September 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1978

Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P. C. Millar) took the chair at 2. 1 5 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1427

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Royal Commission on Human Relationships

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 the report of the Royal Commission on Human Relationships and especially its recommendations-

  1. ) Have been widely condemned for its support of unAustralian, anti-family, anti-child behaviour and morals such as incest, promiscuity, abortion, pornography, homosexuality, prostitution and brothels, etc.
  2. Have been strongly criticised by the medical profession for the absence of any medical practitioner on the Commission or on its staffof 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 UNO 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 Mr Sinclair, Mr Gillard, Mr Killen, Mr McVeigh and Mr Martin.

Petitions received.

The Budget

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

That because this budget will further increase the number of persons unemployed, because it reduces the average worker’s spending power by $ 10 per week, because it will reduce the income of pensioners, because it is unfair in placing a greater burden on the poor rather than the rich, and because it is driving this country into a depression.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government withdraws this budget and provides Australia, within this session of Parliament, with a revised budget that increases the level of economic activity in Australia, lowers unemployment, removes the burdens placed on the disadvantaged, and revives business and consumer confidence in the future of this potentially great country.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Les Johnson, Mr Martin, Mr Uren and Mr West.

Petitions received.

Pornographic Publications

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

That we the undersigned, having great concern at the way in which children are now being used in the production of pornography call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation:

  1. To prevent the sexual exploitation of children by way of photography for commercial purposes;
  2. To penalise parents/guardians who knowingly allow their children to be used in the production of such pornographic or obscene material depicting children;
  3. To make specifically illegal the importation, publication, distribution and sale of such pornographic childabuse material in any form whatsoever such as magazines, novels, papers or films;
  4. To take immediate police action to confiscate and destroy all child pornography in Australia and urgent appropriate legal action against all those involved or profiting from this sordid exploitation of children.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will protect all children and immediately prohibit pornographic child-abuse materials, publications or films.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gillard and Mr Shack.

Petitions received.

Broadcasting: Radio 3CR Melbourne

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

That Radio 3CR Melbourne be made to adhere to the required standards of broadcasting, as laid down for all other radio stations.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will enforce the required standard of broadcasting as laid down for all other stations, on community Radio 3CR; call on Federal Government to legislate against incitement to racial hatred and violence.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Roger Johnston and Mr Peacock.

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 the provision of payments for abortion through items of the Medical Benefits Schedule is an unacceptable endorsement of abortion which has now reached the levels of a national tragedy with at least 60,000 unborn babies being killed in 1977.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will so amend the Medical Benefits Schedule as to preclude the payment of any benefit for abortion.

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

Petition received.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

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

That the Government’s contractionary economic policies are unwise and pernicious, and that Government cut-backs in staff at the Australian Broadcasting Commission are particularly disturbing.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will request the Government to maintain the present staff level of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

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

Petition 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 Jarman.

Petition received.

Unemployment

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

  1. We petition that the Australian Government should take urgent action to reduce the level of unemployment.
  2. We request that the Government makes firm and public commitments regarding its policies for the reduction of unemployment.
  3. We request that these commitments include target dates for the progressive reduction of unemployment.

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

Petition received.

Aged Persons Accommodation

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

  1. That surveys reveal a substantial percentage of adults over the age of 55 years in the Loftus-Engadine-Heathcote and Waterfall areas of the Hughes electorate are in urgent need of special housing and nursing home accommodation.
  2. That many families in the area are experiencing difficulty in the placing of their aged parents in suitable nursing care, many cases having to be placed in care many kilometres from their families and consequently causing great strain on the relatives concerned.
  3. That this problem is aggravated by this area’s geographical and public transport isolation from the rest of the Sutherland Shire.
  4. That Government subsidised nursing homes in other parts of the Hughes and Cook electorate have long waiting lists and, in fact, have closed their lists to further inquirers.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will:

  1. Acknowledge that there is a need for the construction of an aged persons complex in this area as already acknowledged by the Federal/State Co-ordinating Committee for Nursing Home accommodation in N.S. W.
  2. Take immediate action to provide sufficient funds in the current financial year to finance the construction and maintenance of an agedpersons complex, providing hostel and nursing bed accommodation in this area.

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

Petition received.

South Africa: Detentions

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

The arrest and detention of Phelelo Magane Marcus Rodgers and sixteen other members of the South African Young Christian Workers Movement without reason or trial.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you condemn this unjust act and you call on the South African Government to release the Young Christian Workers or bring them to trial.

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

Petition received.

Medical Benefits: Abortions

To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. A petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That withdrawal of Government benefits under Schedule 6469 for first trimester abortion would discriminate against and disadvantage the least privileged in our society.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should:

Under no circumstances withdraw Government benefit under Schedule 6469 for first trimester abortion.

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

Petition received.

Imam Fahed Mahdi

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 sheweth that we, as members of the Lebanese community residing in the St. George area, feel the urgent need for a spiritual leader who holds our traditional beliefs and customs; therefore we thank the Lord that his respectful worship, Imam Fahed Mahdi was sent by the Shia authority in Beirut, to be among us, and we desire to keep him among us as our spiritual leader, as we have found that he is the perfect guide and the unifying force in our community, as the Shia sect forms over 95 per cent of the Lebanese community in this area.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that in your generosity to and concern about our community, as we have experienced it in the past; you will meet our request that the Imam be allowed to stay with us, as we have taken the step of setting up a trust committee to look after his respectful worship’s financial and material needs; with the exception of a few, the community has made its desire to keep the Imam among us known by their generous financial contributions to the trust fund.

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

Petition received.

Pensions

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 whereas the Fraser Government was elected in December 1975 after promising that pensions would be adjusted instantly and automatically in relation to quarterly Consumer Price Index figures; and whereas that Government subsequently announced that pension adjustments should properly be made half yearly each May and November; it is the current intention of the same Government to legislate for pensions to be adjusted only once a year, and this constitutes a serious breach of generally accepted ethics of democratic government and also deprives many needy pensioners of increases that are essential to their subsistence.

The foregoing facts impel the undersigned petitioners to request the Australian Government to uphold the principle that the trustworthiness of governments should at all times be above question, and to appeal to the Parliament to prevent the imposition of further economic hardship upon Australian pensioners by rejecting any Bill which has for its aim the introduction of annual adjustments of pension rates.

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

Petition received.

page 1429

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1429

QUESTION

TAX AVOIDANCE: FAMILY TRUSTS

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I refer the Prime Minister to his remarks yesterday on family trusts. My question is straightforward and I would request a straightforward answer. Will the Prime Minister reassure this House and the Australian people that he has not used his family trust for tax minimising and avoidance? As a demonstration of his credibility in this matter, will he, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has done, make public a statement of his assets and those of his family, as well as his taxation return last year?

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

-The honourable gentleman is trying to establish circumstances in which trusts held by any person are something improper or immoral. I was making the point yesterday that if the honourable gentleman is to take that rather omnibus view of this matter, presumably he will be wanting to take the same attitude in relation to business partners and obviously also, I would imagine, in relation to private companies. In these circumstances he could well be involving upwards of two million people in his catch-all approach to this sort of situation. I do not really believe that it makes a great deal of sense for the Opposition to try to suggest that any person with a trust is doing something that is wrong, immoral or outside a proper course of events. I think it ought to be noted also that this Government has legislated and has legislation in train, as announced by my colleague the Treasurer, to move very vigorously against improper tax practices.

Mr Armitage:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. I asked a straightforward question of the Prime Minister and requested a straightforward answer dealing with tax avoidance by family trusts. I was referring to those family trusts which are used for tax avoidance.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Mr Armitage:

– That is what my question relates to. I ask the Prime Minister to answer the direct question directly.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. The Prime Minister is entitled to answer the question as he sees fit.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The action of this Government in moving against practices which would have robbed Consolidated Revenue of vast sums of money hundreds of millions of dollars has been of a kind that has not been taken by other government. What the Treasurer has done in those matters demonstrates this Government’s credibility in the fight against tax evasion and the fight against the tax avoidance industry.

Mr Howe:

– Are you dodging tax or not? That is the question.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I think the honourable gentleman would do better to wait a moment or two because I want to make these general remarks. I will repeat them. This Government has legislated to prevent tax avoidance and to knock the tax avoidance industry in a way that no other government ever has. The Leader of the Opposition when he was Treasurer, or other Treasurers in the Labor Government, could have acted but they did nothing at all in this arena. They were not concerned. Members of the Opposition are concerned now because they believe that they can obtain some benefit out of a campaign of allegations about family trusts.

Sir Nigel Bowen is conducting an inquiry into what members of parliament ought to do in relation to their assets. He is conducting an inquiry into whether there ought to be a register- a public register, a private register or no register at all- of assets of honourable members, their wives and, presumably, other relatives who would also be involved in these matters. Quite clearly, the report of that inquiry will be looked at very closely by this Government and by all members of the Parliament. Whatever decisions are made will certainly be adhered to by members of this Government and members of the Government parties.

I think that what the honourble gentleman is seeking to do at the moment is to establish the circumstances in which a person with a family trust should feel obliged to do what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did. He made his tax return public. But he disclosed only one return, when there should have been two. Maybe he will publish the other- I do not know. I never volunteered to do that. Before the last election I never hid the fact that I had a family trust. I made it perfectly plain also that the purposes of family trusts have generally been to hold a family’s assets together, especially in industries that have been low in profitability, as rural industries and other small industries have. That has never been hidden. I also think that at the same time I answered the general question: Does a trust mean that less tax would be paid than otherwise would be the case? That is the general result of trusts. I do not know of any trust which has been established to look after the family interests which does not also have that result.

If the honourable gentleman really wants to know the purpose of the trust which I have, I am perfectly happy to let the House know. Several years ago, in the management of my family affairs, I wanted to establish circumstances in which, if it were necessary, I could remove myself from the management of those affairs. A trust was established to do just that.

page 1430

QUESTION

TAX DEDUCTIBILITY OF LEAVE PAYMENTS

Mr BUNGEY:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Has the attention of the Treasurer been drawn to the decision of the Victorian Supreme Court in the case of Nilsen Developments v. the Federal Commissioner of Taxation, concerning the tax deductibility of recreation and long service leave payments? Does that decision have implications for this year’s revenue collections? If so, what is the Government’s attitude to it? Will any action proposed by the Government involve retrospective legislation?

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

– My attention and the attention of the Government have been drawn to the decision of the Victorian Supreme Court at the end of July in the case referred to by the honourable gentleman. In summary, the judge held that, contrary to the long understood practice and meaning of the law, provisions of the law in respect of payments on account of leave entitlements were available under the Income Tax Assessment Act on an accruals basis as opposed to their being available when the outgoings actually were incurred. That decision has been the subject of an appeal by the Commissioner of Taxation to the Federal Court of Australia. Naturally, I and the House will await with interest the outcome of that appeal. That decision does have implications of quite a serious magnitude for this year’s revenue collections. I have been advised by the Commissioner of Taxation that that decision means that up to $600m of anticipated revenue collections this year will be under threat. I regard this as being very much in the nature of a freak threat to the revenue collections of this country. Obviously, in those circumstances the interest of the Commissioner in pursuing an appeal is very understandable.

The Government must respond to the possible loss of revenue of this magnitude. It has decided, therefore, to amend as soon as possible the Income Tax Assessment Act to make it clear that, with effect from 1 July 1977, deductions on account of payments for long service leave, annual leave and other forms of leave will be allowable only in the year in which the outgoing on account of that payment actually occurs. It is true, as the honourable gentleman’s question implied, that to amend the law back to 1 July 1 977 does, in a strict sense, involve retrospective application of the law. I make it clear to the honourable gentleman that in no way will this decision of the Government or the amendment of the Act alter the right of people to claim a deduction for payments on account of leave. All it will do is to restore the status quo and to put it beyond doubt that the deduction will not be available except in the year in which the outgoing is actually incurred.

It should be made plain to the honourable gentleman and to the House also that, faced with this problem, the only practical alternative available to a government which will not tolerate a blow-out of that magnitude of its deficit in those circumstances would have been to decide to impose a general increase in company tax of the order of five, six, or seven per cent, in order to raise the necessary revenue. I point out to the House also that, whilst in a strict sense the decision is retrospective, on one argument it is no more retrospective than an increase in the general rate of company tax announced in a budget because such an increase would have effect from 1 July in the immediately preceding financial year, which is precisely the date of the proposed commencement of this change which I have outlined. It is a matter of regret that it is necessary for the Government to take this action. It has given the matter very careful thought. It believes that it has no alternative but to take this action to protect the revenue. It would be failing in its duty to the general body of taxpayers to do otherwise. I believe that it is a decision which ought to receive the support of the entire House.

page 1431

QUESTION

TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE: EFFECTS ON EMPLOYMENT

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Will the Prime Minister be announcing shortly the appointment of an independent committee to investigate and report on the effects of technological changes on employment in Australia? If so, has he given consideration to appointing the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission as chairman of the proposed committee?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I have seen the suggestion that the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission should chair such a committee. The Government has established an interdepartmental committee to give it initial advice on this matter. I expect that its report will be examined by my colleague, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, in the first instance. I would not want to prejudge at this moment what might flow from that. I have raised the possibility of a permanent group- at a working level, but a high level- examining the problems of technology and technological change. It would involve those who are appropriately concerned- management and labour.

I think the Government has shown, over a long period, that it is interested in and concerned about these matters. I refer to the appointment of the Williams Committee upwards of two years ago and to the structural adjustment inquiry under Sir John Crawford. Quite plainly, when those reports are to hand not only the Commonwealth Government but also widespread groups within the community, and certainly the States, will be involved in the examination and, I would hope, the implementation of measures which might be recommended in the reports. I think it is a little early at this point to say what precise path of consultation will emerge in the future. At the same time we cannot ignore the National Labour Consultative Committee which, as I understand it, will be examining these matters in a few weeks time and also the meeting of the Ministers for Labour which will be further examining the problems of employment towards the end of November. A good deal is going on; it needs to be drawn together in a cohesive way. That, as I have indicated, will significantly be the task of my colleague, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, through his chairmanship of the Cabinet committee which was announced a couple of weeks ago.

page 1431

QUESTION

CHRYSLER AUSTRALIA LTD

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Have the Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd, General Motors-Holden’s Ltd and his Department argued that Australia would be better off without Chrysler Australia Ltd? Have the two companies told the Government that they could employ most of Chrysler’s staff and tradesmen? How many would be required to leave Adelaide to obtain employment with these Melbourne based companies? What would be the impact on the rest of Chrysler ‘s workers and importantly on the extent of employment opportunities in Adelaide? Can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will do everything possible to prevent GMH from withdrawing from Adelaide and Chrysler from closing?

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

– A great deal of misleading and ill-informed comment and speculation has appeared in the media in recent months concerning Chrysler’s future in Adelaide and Australia and the company’s position as a manufacturer under the Government’s motor vehicle plan. The

Government has developed a policy for the motor vehicle industry. Companies must make their own commercial decisions, within the framework of that policy, on what they produce and where they locate their activities. I repeat what I have said before in this House: It is not the Government’s role to underwrite the viability of individual companies. The Government is not aware of any likelihood of Chrysler’s ceasing operations. The matter has not been discussed with other vehicle manufacturers. Chrysler’s increased success in the market place, as evidenced by recent registration statistics, would hardly seem to suggest such a prospect.

What is being blown up out of all proportion in the dialogue which I have seen in the Press is that Chrysler, along with some other motor vehicle manufacturers, is presently experiencing difficulties in meeting its local content commitments under the motor vehicle plan. Problems that certain companies have in relation to their obligations under the plan are well known to the Government. A wide series of discussions has taken place with all the major people concerned. Some very complex issues are involved which the Government now has under careful examination in the context of the motor vehicle policy and the need to provide a sense of equity and fairness to all the parties involved.

page 1432

QUESTION

TRANSACTION BY INSURANCE COMPANY

Mr HOWE:

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer him to an answer he gave on 10 April regarding QBE Insurance Ltd and the Foreign Investment Review Board. Is it a fact that QBE Insurance Ltd, through a subsidiary known as Equitable Life and General Insurance, was involved in a transaction with the British Friends Provident Group? Did this transaction go before the Foreign Investment Review Board? Did this transaction which was not referred to by the Treasurer in his answer on 10 April take place over the period January to October 1977 while the present Minister for Industry and Commerce was Treasurer?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– That transaction, as I now understand it, took place at about the time the honourable gentleman suggested. My recollection- I will need to check that and advise the House if it is incorrect- is that the proposal in the question was referred to and decided upon by the then Minister Assisting the Treasurer, my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The proposal was not referred to in my answer on 10 April because I was not asked about it. I was asked about a proposal involving an

American property company. I will check my files and records to see whether there is any other relevant information on which I ought to inform the honourable gentleman.

page 1432

QUESTION

SPEECHES ON UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr MARTYR:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations noted recent public comments in relation to the speeches on the unemployment problem by himself and the Prime Minister? Does he believe that these comments make any constructive contribution to the debate on this subject?

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

– I have seen a great many comments on these speeches in the last few days since I have been back in Australia. I must admit that I have been dismayed- I cannot use any other word- at some of the comments I have seen which have come from Mr Hawke and other members of the Australian Labor Party, particularly the personal attacks made yesterday on the Prime Minister’s speech a few days ago on the employment problems. I note that comments of this kind are part of a consistent strategy that the ALP, both inside and outside this House, seems to have adopted. It is a strategy which is based on personal attacks rather than on making a constructive contribution to the debate. The only people on whom those comments reflect are the people making them. They make no contribution whatever to the problems that we face.

I make this point: Unless the industrial wing of the Australian Labor Party outside this place or its parliamentary wing inside this place set aside this technique they will be unable to make the contribution which they could make to the problems which we are facing. If they persist in this technique of personal abuse they will be judged accordingly by the Australian community. Where do we see a recognition of the role which industrial disruption- I am not talking only about strikes, I am talking about all kinds of bans and limitations- has played in our present unemployment problem? Where do we see a recognition of the key role that irresponsible wage claims have played in our present unemployment situation? I have seen very little evidence of that. I will be more impressed when I see some recognition from the Opposition of these tactics which have played such a very large part in aggravating the unemployment situation today. Unless we get such recognition it will gravely inhibit our capacity to improve the situation.

page 1432

QUESTION

REDIRECTION OF MAIL

Mr HOLDING:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Post and Telecommunications recently approved new arrangements whereby householders and post office employees are forbidden to redirect mail and cheques going to the unemployed from the Department of Social Security, and are forbidden to hold such mail for collection at post offices? What are the reasons for this infringement of personal rights and the alteration of traditional Post Office practice? Is the Minister not concerned that this decision will disadvantage unemployed persons moving around the country in search of seasonal work and those who, through no fault of their own, are without a settled address?

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

-The Minister for Social Security is concerned about some new by-laws, drawn up by the Australian Postal Commission, which, among other things, would not enable mail to be redirected. I had a brief discussion with her this morning when this matter was drawn to my attention and will have further discussions with her. But I make it clear that her Department has not agreed to take part in any such new system at this stage.

Mr Holding:

– What do you propose?

Mr STALEY:

– I propose nothing. The Postal Commission drew up regulations after having had discussions with officers of Senator Guilfoyle ‘s Department. The matter has been undertaken entirely at the Commission and officer level and was drawn to the Government’s attention only today.

page 1433

QUESTION

WORLD PRICES

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. What stage has been reached in arrangements for stabilising viable world prices for primary products? Will any such arrangements benefit not only Third World countries but also developed countries such as Australia? Will Australia contribute to funding any common fund that may be set up? Is the Government under any constitutional obligation to accept as policy any report of the sub-committee of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence which is inquiring into implications on Australia’s foreign policy and national security of proposals for a new international economic order?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I will deal with the last part of the question first. The Government is not under any constitutional obligation to accept as policy a report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Obviously I hope that the work of the Senate Committee on a subject as important as this will be constructive and helpful and its report one that the Government would want to take into account when considering the further development of its own policy. I hope that the work of” the Senate Committee will be of a quality to contribute to that result.

The issues raised in the honourable gentleman’s question are certainly very important ones. We need to understand that in the developing and less developed world over the last 1 5 or 16 years, because of changes in the terms of trade, official aid would have had to increase to about four times its present level to make up merely for the changes in the terms of trade. Under these circumstances developed and less developed countries obviously have had very great difficulty in maintaining their development programs. They have had very great difficulty in many instances in raising the standards of life of their own people and great difficulty in achieving fair prices for their products.

It is against that general background that many developing nations have sought some changes to their trading conditions which are heralded under the term ‘new international economic order’ and which they believe would give them a fairer world trading situation. The Australian Government believes that there is considerable merit in the claim of the developed and less developed nations that they have not always had access to markets on fair terms and that they certainly do not always have reasonable marketing arrangements for their products. Australia is still significantly a primary producing country and, until recent times at any rate, we have certainly been well aware of the very grave problems caused to this country because of the violent fluctuations in the price of wool, sheep, beef, sugar or wheat.

We sought to make our own arrangements which would lead to a more stable marketing situation and would ameliorate some of the adverse effects of unregulated market forces. As a result of that, we have the Australian Wool Corporation, which, I think, has done a magnificent job. It is one of the great success stories in Australia in marketing primary produce in a sensible way that now meets the approval of growers. At the same time, it meets the approval of sellers on markets around the world. In recent times, the Foreign Minister, other Ministers and I have used the Australian Wool Corporation as an example of what can be achieved with sensible marketing arrangements although it was easy for Australia to do that because it is really a marketing arrangement we run by ourselves. Therefore, it is easier to introduce and easier to get agreement than an arrangement involving many countries. Even so, it is worth noting that getting the Australian Wool Corporation to its present point took a battle by woolgrowers and those political interests supporting their cause about 20 years longer than it should have taken.

Another example in Australia which has endured for a long time and which I hope nobody- certainly nobody in Queenslandwould want to upset is the arrangements for the marketing of sugar which have led to stability and by and large over the years have led to an expansion of the market. This has been to the enormous advantage of a large part of Queensland and Queensland country towns. Without proper international marketing arrangements for sugar- in earlier times the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement- I believe that the development of Queensland would have been much less and the sugar industry would have contributed much less to the wellbeing of Queensland and to the Commonwealth than is now the case. So here we have operating in Australia arrangements in which Australia is participating- arrangements which affect the international marketing of two commodities which are of great importance to us. We would be very much worse off if we had a free and unmitigated private enterprise market utterly unregulated, as we used to have in the past and as used to be the case in relation to sugar a long while ago.

Against that background Australia, from its own experience, strongly supports the wishes and aspirations of developing countries to achieve more orderly marketing through the arrangements of a common fund. While the Government has made no decision -

Opposition members- Time, please.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Acting Speaker, this happens to be an important subject. It is important for reasons which are relevant to Queensland at this very moment. Australia, from its own experience, therefore supports the efforts of the developing world to achieve better marketing arrangements for its commodities through a common fund. We are actively contributing to the debate. We are actively trying to get movement from group B countries, taking them closer towards the group of 77. Also, we have had considerable success in modifying the views of some of the group of 77 to get on to middle ground so that sensible proposals can be advanced and, hopefully, accepted. We will continue on that path and we hope it will be successful. I hope that if there is anyone in Queensland who wishes to argue against these particular arrangements and against arrangements for orderly marketing of primary produce in Australia he will take note of the enormous advantage gained by the sugar industry, Queensland and all sugar producers because of the present marketing arrangements and the International Sugar Agreement. That should be the complete and absolute answer to anyone who wants to argue against such proposals.

page 1434

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Prime Minister: Is it a fact that unemployment every month of this year has been at least 55,000 higher than the respective level for each month of last year? Is it also a fact that the rates of unemployment for each month of this year have been the highest for at least the last 30 years? In the face of these indisputable facts, why did the Prime Minister, eleven days ago, say:

It’s possible to say that unemployment is going to Tall throughout this year, and it has.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-Unemployment peaked in the early months of this year, I think in February. It has fallen in the months since February as the records show.

page 1434

QUESTION

MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

Mr CARLTON:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce: Can he provide details of trends in investment by manufacturing industry contained in the recent survey conducted by his Department? In particular, can the Minister give any information about prospects for manufacturing investment for particular States on a per capita basis?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– Following my Department’s recent investment survey, it is possible to provide to the House information on investment trends as between the various States. In terms of total new investment, which includes committed investment as well as that which was foreshadowed in the survey, the figures on a per capita basis, using 1977 population data, are: New South Wales, $322; Western Australia, $4,218; Victoria, $590; Tasmania, $910; Queensland, $926; and South Australia, $818. Whilst the overall investment prospects as outlined in that survey certainly are encouraging and reflect the continuing success of the Government’s overall economic policies, it is disturbing that New South Wales is lagging substantially behind other States in attracting new investment.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– What about 7 October?

Mr LYNCH:

– In response to the honourable gentleman’s query, let me say that on the basis of the figures which have been provided to me by my Department, New South Wales ranks lowest of all the States in per capita terms.

Mr Keating:

– Whose fault is that?

Mr LYNCH:

– I realise the sensitivity of the honourable gentleman on this question. According to the survey, New South Wales is likely to attract only 13 per cent of new investment in Australia, which is a very substantially reduced figure compared with the average for previous years. Quite clearly, a number of the policies which have been pursued directly by the Wran Government in New South Wales have been inimical to industrial development in that State. As a result, a substantial amount of investment funds is being diverted to other States.

page 1435

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE: FLEXTIME

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I preface my question to the Prime Minister by reminding the Parliament that I was the Minister who was responsible for introducing flextime on a trial basis into what was then my Department; I was the Minister who was responsible for ignoring the warnings issued by the Public Service Board against an uncontrolled system of flextime; and I was the Minister who thought he could trust public servants to be honest in their use of flextime. Will the Prime Minister take action, if need be, to appoint an independent outside personnel or management consulting firm to look into the whole operation of flextime in the Public Service, to evolve some means of having a proper control over the starting and finishing times of public servants? Does the Prime Minister know that in recent times I have telephoned the central offices of three departments, including the Public Service Board itself, on a Friday afternoon and have been unable to get an answer from the switchboard?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I do not doubt for one moment what the honourable gentleman has said, but I certainly would be very concerned if it were general practice in this city to have the general switchboards of departments not operating effectively and efficiently. It is very important for the Public Service that adequate contact be maintained with those who need to deal with government departments. Over the counter services must be preserved and improved, and the Government has taken measures to try to ensure this. Obviously, therefore, switchboards have to be manned. If the honourable gentleman later would give me the names of the departments involved, I will pursue more specific inquiries. In addition, I will call for a report on the current state of flextime. I will get an assessment of it from departmental sources in the first instance. If it was thought necessary to have a wider examination of the matter I would not rule that out. I know that the honourable gentleman has a very strong belief that the people of Australia need good, proper, prompt and adequate service from the Public Service of this nation. I believe by and large that Australia is very well served by the Public Service, but that does not mean to say that we should not be vigilant and seek to improve it as and where we can. I think the honourable gentleman and I have common objectives, as is so often the case.

page 1435

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TOURIST INDUSTRY

Mr Ewen Cameron:
INDI, VICTORIA · LP

-Can the Minister for Industry and Commerce give the House any forward projection about the number of overseas visitors likely to visit Australia? Can the Minister indicate what the Government is doing to assist the Australian tourist industry other than providing increased funding for the Australian Tourist Commission?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– The tourist industry certainly is efficient and has sound long-term growth prospects. Apart from being a significant source of foreign exchange the industry makes an important contribution to gross national product. It is a major employer in this country. Some figures put the percentage of people employed by the industry at around five per cent, or approximately 300,000 persons. In 1977 short-term overseas visitor arrivals increased by six per cent to over 563,000. Because present experience indicates that visitors are staying longer in Australia foreign exchange earnings generated by that number increased by 1 7 per cent during the year to some $326m. I am encouraged, as the industry certainly is, by recent forecasts made by the Australian Tourist Commission which indicate that by 1 986 the number of overseas visitors to this country will exceed one million per year. I note that the estimates also include a figure of $800m for foreign exchange earnings by 1986.

The last Budget brought down by Treasurer Howard includes a number of very significant initiatives for the Australian tourist industry. The honourable member for Indi has mentioned the important lift in funding for the ATC which has enabled that significant marketing body for tourism in Australia to double its operations. Apart from that the Government has agreed to extend the export market development grants scheme to the industry. That decision has been taken in principle. I expect that the details of the decision will be announced by the Government during the course of the next week. In addition, we have provided specific funds to the Bureau of Industry

Economics to undertake a fundamental research exercise into the economics of tourism in Australia.

The House will be aware of course that apart from that we have established for the first time a travel and tourist advisory council. I had the opportunity of meeting with its members at lunch time. The funds which the Australian Tourist Commission has been provided with, together with the export market development grants scheme being applied to tourism, will, I think, give what is already an important industry which is running efficiently a very significant lift. I am encouraged by the figures which have been brought down by the ATC and believe that the anticipated results will be achieved.

page 1436

QUESTION

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LEGISLATION

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I refer my question to the Prime Minister. I refer to his AttorneyGeneral’s statement in relation to the freedom of information legislation in which he said that reports of committees and bodies outside the departmental structure would be available for public access when those committees make recommendations to the Government. In that context I ask the Prime Minister why he agreed to a request from the Queensland Premier not to release a draft report of the Industries Assistance Commission inquiry into the sugar industry and why no previous mention was made of the Premier’s power of veto. In view of the fact that no industry participants including the CSR Ltd have any objection to the release of the report and in view of the request for the release of the report by the cane growers, the soft drink manufacturers and the Food Industry Council, will the Prime Minister now seek the approval of the Queensland Premier to make public the draft report on that industry?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I will consult my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry on this matter to see what information I can give the honourable gentleman.

page 1436

QUESTION

SOUTH AUSTRALIA: CLOSING OF RAILWAY LINES

Mr PORTER:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Transport whether he is aware of the concern being expressed in South Australia about statements by Mr Virgo that many of that State’s country railway lines are to be closed by the Federal Government? Can the Minister give this House an undertaking that these services, especially those which will be required to carry grain during the forthcoming harvest, will not be closed?

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

– I am aware that the South Australian Minister for Transport seems to be making many statements these days- statements that are not always based on fact. But, as I told the House earlier, the Government asked the Australian National Railways Commission to give it a 10-year plan showing how it proposed to deal with the new circumstances which existed, it having taken over both the South Austraiian and Tasmanian railway systems, and also, how it proposed to tackle the massive losses incurred by ANR. It appears that the South Australian Minister for Transport who has, I might add, a representative participating in some of these studies, has taken the opportunity to use selected parts of the report to ANR- mark you, it is a report to ANR and not to the Government- for his own political purposes. ANR has no intention of closing down prior to the grain harvest any part of the railway system of South Australia. As to what will happen following the grain harvest, no decision has been taken in respect of the ANR system other than that the ANR is putting to study its proposals for the 10-year plan. Therefore, I am able to assure the honourable member that, as usual, the grain harvest in South Australia will be carried on the railway system. As to the position in future years, the proposals that ANR has for study will come to the Government, which will make appropriate decisions thereon.

page 1436

INCOME MEANS TESTING

Dr BLEWETTMy question is directed to the Treasurer. Given the Government’s decision to abandon the means testing of family allowances, can he state whether he will still pursue the objective of that measure, which he claimed in this House on 22 August was to deal with: . . trusts and other income-splitting devices (whereby) children receive separate income while their parents continue to receive the family allowance’? Cannot that objective be realised without taxing children’s personal earnings?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– I can assure the honourable gentleman for Bonython that the Government will continue its strong response to all forms of blatant tax avoidance, in whatever area and in whatever circumstances they occur. The honourable gentleman will be aware that, in respect of the decision of which I spoke yesterday, the Government did have in mind, in terms of expenditure saving, situations where significant private incomes had resulted from income splitting devices; but I repeat that this Government will act appropriately whenever evidence of blatant tax avoidance emerges.

page 1437

QUESTION

TELECOM: STD RATES

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Is he aware that the proposed reduction in daytime STD rates, of 20 per cent for 50-85 kilometres and 10 per cent for 85-165 kilometres, is being criticised by decentralised industry representatives as being of great value to those in the metropolitan fringe areas and of no value to industries and people living more than 165 kilometres from State capital cities? Will the Minister request Telecom to prepare a further series of STD daytime reductions which will be of value to those who live beyond the 165 kilometre mark and who, at the present time, are the most disadvantaged by Telecom ‘s policy.

Mr STALEY:
LP

– I would point out that the Government’s election commitment was to introduce significant reductions in off-peak calling rates. But when the time came to implement that undertaking the Commission decided that, in addition to providing very large reductions in off-peak rates between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m., there would also be reductions during the day, of in some cases 10 per cent and in others 20 per cent, for the intermediate distances mentioned by the honourable member. They are significant reductions of real benefit to very many Australians. However, of course, the Government would always be interested to see whether future savings would be possible to enable reductions during the day. I can make no commitment. I underline the fact that the introduction of the best and most modern technology enables savings which enable costs to the consumer to be lowered. Therefore, with the introduction of new equipment I hope that Telecom Australia will be able to continue to review charging structures and possibly further extend call charge reductions.

page 1437

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– I move:

I find it necessary to do this to allow -

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the Leader of the Opposition be not further heard.

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

AYES: 70

NOES: 29

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition has moved: ‘That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Notice No. 1 General Business in the name of the

Leader of the Opposition being proceeded with forthwith ‘. Is there a seconder of the motion?

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– I second the motion. It obviously gives the Government a golden opportunity . . .

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:
Mr YOUNG:

– … to discuss the matter of unemployment, which the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) said he was going to do. Why does the Government not accept the challenge and discuss the matter of unemployment?

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I move:

We have a proper procedure and I suggest that the Opposition should follow it.

Mr Young:

– You have been spending too much time with your pigs.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide will not persist in addressing the House when the Chair is doing likewise. The Leader of the Government has moved that the honourable member for Port Adelaide be not further heard.

Question put.

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

AYES: 70

NOES: 29

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put-

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

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 70

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1439

TRANSACTION BY INSURANCE COMPANY

Mr HOWARD (BennelongTreasurer)May I have the indulgence of the House to add to an answer I gave during Question Time?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The Minister is free to seek the indulgence of the Chair. If he does that he will be assured of a satisfactory response.

Mr HOWARD:
LP

-During Question Time the honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe) asked me a question about a foreign investment matter involving Equitable Life and General Insurance and the British Friends Provident Group. I have been able to check some of the details relating to that proposal. I can confirm, as I indicated at Question Time, that the proposal was approved by the then Minister Assisting the Treasurer who was then and is now the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) and not by the then Treasurer. I have also been informed -

Mr Young:

– Where does the ultimate responsibility lie? Do you separate them?

Mr HOWARD:

– No, I am just answering the question in a factual manner.

Mr Young:

– I went to Marist Brothers. I am a bit slow.

Mr HOWARD:

-I do not think that that is the reason you are slow.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair is under the impression that the Treasurer is correcting a statement he made.

Mr HOWARD:

– I am not. I am adding to an answer.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-A limited opportunity is available to him to do so. I ask the Treasurer to proceed quickly.

Mr HOWARD:

-Is there? I am sorry about that. I also inform the House that no objections were raised by any departments consulted and that the Life Insurance Commissioner raised no objection to the proposals. As a final comment, I also inform the honourable gentleman that the proposal was ultimately approved by the High Court of Australia exercising its jurisdiction under the Life Insurance Act.

page 1439

TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL AID TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Trade and Resources · Richmond · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable members I present an agreement on trade and industrial and technical co-operation between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Polish People ‘s Republic.

page 1439

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs for the year ended 30 June 1 978.

page 1439

FIRE HOSE COUPLINGS

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a report on the standardisation of fire hose couplings prepared by the Commonwealth Fire Board together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Administrative Services.

page 1439

NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE SYSTEM

Report and Ministerial Statement

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a report entitled ‘National Communications Satellite System’. I seek leave to make a statement relating to the report.

Leave granted.

Mr STALEY:

-The Government established a Task Force towards the end of last year under specific terms of reference to investigate and evaluate the social, economic, technical, policy and other issues associated with the establishment and operation of an Australian national communications satellite system. In brief, the Task Force was required to take into account the use of such a system to provide high quality radio and television broadcasting and other telecommunications services to all Australia, its application in the areas of health, education, science, transport and defence; its use by the private sector for improved communication information and other services; and the implications of a satellite on current radio and television services and the terrestrial communications system.

The Task Force also was required to study overseas experience in this area and assess a satellite proposal presented to the Government by Television Corporation Limited, now Publishing & Broadcasting Ltd, in August 1977. The report indicates that the adoption of a domestic satellite system in Australia would have many advantages. Above all, it could be a solution to our problems in providing communications to remote areas and isolated communities. The Government is concerned that some Australians still lack basic communications services; that they do not have television; that they are restricted in their access to radio; and that they suffer some cultural and social deprivation because they are beyond the reach of current communications.

Mr Martyr:

– That is a privilege.

Mr STALEY:

-The Government is determined to minimise communications disadvantages in Australia. A number of measures are currently being undertaken to this end. The point made by the honourable member for Swan is of interest. When I was travelling in outback Queensland the thought occurred to some people that those who are remote from some communications in this country are the privileged ones. The point I made to those people was that they ought to be free not to have to listen to whatever happens to be the current output of the particular media.

The Task Force drew on existing expertise in government departments and statutory authorities. It received submissions and conducted public hearings in all States. The resulting report received by the Government identifies the benefits for public telecommunications and broadcasting services which Australia could derive from a national communications satellite system. The potential advantages for people in remote and isolated areas are particularly highlighted. The report also identifies potential improvements with communications associated with defence, transport, health, welfare, and education. The Task Force comes down in favour of the introduction of a national satellite communications system for Australia. However, in doing so, the Task Force makes it clear that a degree of uncertainty exists in available relevant information on cost projections.

The Task Force also notes that any final decision to implement its recommendations to establish a national satellite communications system could not be made until confirmation of interest had been received from potential major users. It notes further that such confirmation would have to follow the calling and submission of tenders based on detailed system design for the development and launching of a national satellite system suited to Australian requirements.

The majority view of the Task Force is that a new authority should be established to operate the space segment of any satellite system. A further recommendation is that earth stations should be owned jointly by the proposed national satellite authority and users of the system. The Task Force makes some broad recommendations on possible ways of providing more extensive television programming services throughout Australia. I will ensure that detailed consideration is given to all relevant policy issues and community needs before any decisions are taken in this particular area.

The Task Force also focused on the practicability of establishing a national communications satellite system based on a direct broadcasting satellite service. It expressed the view that a general broadcasting satellite service, capable of broadcasting a number of programs directly into homes throughout Australia, would be impractical in the present state of technological development. It is also of the opinion that such a service would be premature in terms of the readiness of the broadcasting industry to accommodate general direct broadcasting of programs throughout the country.

Nevertheless, the Task Force does recommend that a direct broadcasting service, limited to provision of national television and radio services to isolated communities and homesteads beyond the coverage range of terrestrial broadcasting services, should be considered for inclusion in any national communications satellite system.

I would stress that the needs of remote homesteads and isolated communities are of great concern to the Government. This is certainly one of the options worthy of serious consideration in the context of moves to extend broadcasting services to those who do not now have access to any kind of radio or television programming. In fact, the Government will shortly be considering a proposal along similar lines.

On the subject of meeting community needs, the Task Force also highlights the possible value to isolated communities in health care, education and general welfare from improved communications which could be facilitated by satellite. The Task Force also emphasises the value of the system in times of national emergency or disaster where it could provide transmission diversity over long distances. It makes recommendations on inclusion of Defence channels in a satellite system. The Task Force stresses that a long lead time would be involved in obtaining a satellite system for Australia. In view of this fact, it outlined the advantages which could be derived from conducting trials using INTELSAT satellites and the terrestrial system. The Department of Finance representative on the Task Force recorded a dissenting view in the area of the immediately identifiable cost benefits of a national communications satellite system. He was not satisfied that the benefits of a national satellite system could be facilitated at less cost via satellite than by other means.

This report is one of which I believe the members of the Task Force can be proud. The Government appreciates the dedication and application with which the Task Force pursued the various matters involved. I have no doubt that Parliament will recognise the magnitude and complexity of the range of issues involved in matters dealt with by the Task Force. It is only right and proper that the Report should be made available to the public for the widest possible consideration, consultation and comment. Consequently, the Government has established a Working Group to consider the implications of both the Report and its recommendations. Also, it will be available to interested members of the public. We intend to allow a full three months for public consideration of the Report. I hope to see the broadest possible public input to Government deliberations on the Report. I now invite all interested individuals and groups to consider the Report and to forward submissions on it to my Department. The closing date will be 31 December of this year.

Government decisions on the matters dealt with in this Report will establish the pattern of development for Australian communications services well into the twenty-first century. To put it plainly, we must weigh the many undoubted advantages of a national satellite system- and in particular the advantages to remote communities- against the key questions of costs, timing and methods of establishment, all of which are yet to be resolved. This Report is today being released for public comment to encourage the fullest possible debate before decisions are made. Copies will be available from offices of the Australian Government Publishing Service.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– I commence by making a simple and direct confession, one born of sheer necessity. That is that I have not had time to read this report. There are more than 200 pages in it. We received it a short time before the House sat and at a point when I was pre-occupied with other matters demanding more attention. I recognise, however, that the Minister is giving no firm commitments as a response to any of the recommendations in the report and in fact is indicating to the House and to the community that this dramatic concept of a communications satellite is something that requires more consideration by government and more reflection by the community. I hope that all of these things take place.

There is a tendency for something as dramatically at the front of modern technology as a communications satellite to cause excitement in the community and the thought that Australia deserves to be there right at the frontier with the rest of the advanced countries of the world. That is a perfectly understandable response. When it is embellished with the justifiable points of concern raised by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) for people in isolated areas who to this point have been deprived of communications or are dependent upon unreliable or inadequate communications, I expect that the favourable response in many quarters is heightened. Of course the Minister made other points in relation to the sorts of services which can be contributed to the community in health, welfare and a range of other areas.

I repeat that I have not had the chance of reading all of the report. Accordingly I do not know whether the report has canvassed some of the disadvantages which may arise. For instance there are people involved in the communications industry in this country- media people- who provide an excellent service away from the major capital cities and who are concerned that the opportunity to allow local talent to develop by using local media may be snuffed out. There is a concern in some quarters on which I have not formed a conclusion; I merely mention it rather than indicate a personal view towards it. That is that the establishment of a communications satellite may lead to more uniformity in the sorts of communications that we receive through the visual media and that this may not be at all desirable. I am seeking to indicate that there are minuses as well as pluses in the proposal.

I move on to what may well be the greatest minus of the lot and one which worries me a great deal. Again I do not have a final conclusion on the matter because I need to meditate more upon the material available both in this report and from other sources. I refer to the cost factor. We already have an extensive terrestrial communications system in this country. It is one of the most advanced systems in the world. I understand that the investment in that not only adequate but also exceptionally satisfactory system of telecommunications in this country is of the order of $6,500m. It is not exceptionally satisfactory in all respects. For instance, the case of people living in isolated areas is one area of dissatisfaction. But,, on balance, it is an exceptionally satisfactory and exceptionally modern, efficient system of telecommunications. According to the financial sections of the report, the proposal for a national communications satellite will involve an outlay of something like $150m or $160m. The cost will be roughly of that order; it could be less, it could be more. That would be the capital cost without the operating cost. So, we are really moving into the area of weighing up the pluses and minuses, the advantages and disadvantages- what the economists refer to as the opportunity cost- of using this money in this area as against using it in other areas. We are moving into the area of weighing up the social and economic advantages to people.

Of course when I look at the financial aspects of this report I do so with a great deal of caution because the membership of the Task Force is top-heavy with engineers. Engineers are very good in their field but they have been responsible for many disastrous commitments by government when they have been too enthusiastic about some project and have infected their Minister with their enthusiasm without properly weighing up the costs involved- more specifically, the opportunity costs. The Minister was pertinent enough in his statement to say: . . The Task Force makes it clear that a ‘degree of uncertainty’ exists in available relevant information on cost projections. 1 would say that a very large degree of uncertainty exists.

Mr Cotter:

– What about the cost of the microwave system?

Mr HAYDEN:

– We have to weigh all these aspects up against the opportunity costs, against the advantages one may have had in some other area. It may very well be desirable to proceed with this proposal. I am not objecting at all to the report. I am raising questions- very important ones. We have only to look- dare I suggest it- at the Ord River project to see how engineers among others encouraged government to invest rather grandiously in a project which has proved to be a massive white elephant. We would not want to do that sort of thing again.

Mr Cotter:

– It will be the food bowl of South East Asia.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I have no doubt that my greatgreatgrandchildren may be inspired when that starts to happen but, in the meantime, we could have done a great deal with that investment which would have made conditions for my greatgreatgrandchildren and their contemporaries much better than they will be because of this unwise investment decision at this time.

I move now to the financial aspects of this report and to Annex A which is headed: Dissenting Statement on the Recommendation that a National Communication Satellite System Should be Established’. This dissenting statement is not provided by an engineer- thank goodness; it takes a fair bit of courage to say that because I have to address a congress of engineers on Saturday and I am rather hopeful that that comment will not reach them. This dissenting statement is submitted by a representative of the Department of Finance and he stated:

In my view the improvements to Australia’s communications capacity which could evolve from the basic model system are marginal improvements to a communications infrastructure which provides already a sophisticated, high quality service by world standards. I am not satisfied that it has been established that these marginal benefits could be provided necessarily at less cost by means of a satellite system.

He went on to say:

As far as the attractions associated with the possible additions to the basic system are concerned, I consider that it is premature to place weight on these in coming to a decision in favour of introducing a national communications satellite system. The Task Force has clearly indicated that each of these possible additions needs further consideration.

We are a very long way from the position where we can make a hard decision- a hard decision about a lot of hard-earned taxpayers’ money and a hard decision in circumstances of hard economic conditions. Not only that, it is a decision which will have long-term social and economic ramifications. It may well prove- I freely confess this; that it is a wise decision to proceed with this. But at this stage, on the basis of a quick gleaning of only some selected and limited sections of the report I would suggest that the case is far from established that we should make any firm decision to proceed with this project. Accordingly, I find it a little disconcerting, to put it at its mildest, that the Government proposes to allow a full three months I stress a full three months for consideration of this matter. In all his generosity, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) has allowed a full three months for consideration of this matter.

Mr Staley:

– But this follows the earlier period of public contribution to the task force.

Mr HAYDEN:

-That is true. The Minister was kind enough to arrange for some of my colleagues and me to speak to some of the people who were members of this committee. I can only say that whilst we were reassured in some aspects of the obligations undertaken and being considered by the inquiry, we were even more concerned about some other aspects of that inquiry and the way in which it was proceeding. That does not discount the fact that this report, on the basis of what the Minister has said and what I can glean, is not concrete and is quite unspecific. A statement on financial implications by the Department of Finance is contained in the report. That Department is about the only department of all those represented at the inquiry which is adequately qualified to deliberate and recommend on this matter. I do not see how we can proceed in a convincing and reassured way on this report when it comes to us in such a nonspecific condition. I am suggesting that it would be quite improper to seek to move quickly at the end of the threemonth period because this report opens up more questions than it answers.

I have only two more comments to make. One is that the Minister would be aware that a number of unkind comments have been made about the motivation for this report. I would discount them, but on the other hand, I would suggest that if there is any effort to accelerate the momentum towards concluding Government policy commitment on this matter, those rather suspicious minds outside this Parliament who have encouraged those sorts of comments they are quite extensive as the Minister would know would find that their suspicions have been incited. The other point I make is that for such a vague non-specific report to come before the Parliament on the financial aspects of this matter with such a large amount of capital involved, at this stage I suspect I may change my mind that

I will strongly urge my colleagues and presumably, if I am successful, I will strongly urge the Parliament that before the Government makes a firm commitment the report be fully explored by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure.

I repeat: Unwise decisions have been made by too many governments in the past I am not talking about governments of any particular colour in committing themselves to what seem to be exciting and spectacular projects because of their size or because of their position on the frontier of technology only to discover later that the grandiose description of the physical implications of the particular proposition were seriously undermined by insufficiently stated fiscal aspects. We do not want any fiscal irresponsibility. I know when I say that that my comments fall on receptive ears so far as the Minister is concerned. They are the only comments I want to make. I hope it is quite clear that I have the gravest concern about the deficiencies in this report on the financial implications of what is being proposed. I am surprised that such an important report with such important implications should come before us so defective in that important aspect.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hodges) adjourned.

page 1443

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

Wheat Tax Amendment Bill 1978.

Wheat Research Amendment Bill 1978.

page 1443

LEGISLATION COMMITTEES

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 1978

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Nominations of members to the Legislation Committee to consider the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill have been received. The Government members are: Mr Groom (member in charge of the Bill), Mr Baillieu, Mr Braithwaite, Mr Cadman, Mr Dobie, Mr Falconer, Mr Roger Johnston, Mr Katter, Mr Simon, Mr Thomson and Mr Wilson. The Opposition members are: Dr Cass, Mr Cohen, Dr Everingham, Mr Howe and Mr Humphreys.

Trade Marks Amendment Bill 1978

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Nominations of members to the Legislation Committee to consider the Trade Marks Amendment Bill have been received. The Government members are: Mr Macphee (member in charge of the Bill), Mr

Carlton, Mr Hyde, Mr Peter Johnson, Mr Lusher, Mr McLean, Sir William McMahon, Mr McVeigh, Mr Ian Robinson, Mr Shack and Mr Short. The Opposition members are: Mr John Brown, Mr Fry, Mr Holding, Mr Hurford and Mr Martin.

Patents Amendment Bill 1978

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Nominations of members to the Legislation Committee to consider the Patents Amendment Bill have been received. The Government members are: Mr Macphee (member in charge of the Bill), Mr Carlton, . Mr Hyde, Mr Peter Johnson, Mr Lusher, Mr McLean, Sir William McMahon, Mr McVeigh, Mr Ian Robinson, Mr Shack and Mr Short. The Opposition members are: Mr John Brown, Mr Fry, Mr Holding, Mr Hurford and Mr Martin.

page 1444

LIBRARY COMMITTEE

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

That Mr Jacobi be discharged from attendance on the Library Committee and that in his place Mr Barry Jones be appointed a member of the Committee.

page 1444

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Mr Hayden) agreed to:

That leave of absence for two months be given to the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) on the ground of ill health.

page 1444

RESTRUCTURING OF INDUSTRY

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I have received letters from the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns), the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) and the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by Standing Order 107,I have selected one matter, and that is that proposed by the honourable member for Lilley, namely:

The obligation to have regard to the economic and social consequences of decisions to restructure industry having regard to current developments within the tyre industry.

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 KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

-On last Thursday evening a news release was transmitted by the Olympic Tyre and Rubber Co. to its employees at Geebung in Queensland. I want to read out two sentences of that statement. They state:

The Olympic Tyre and Rubber Company will be phased out with a view to ending all operations at that site by the end of December, 1978. All Olympic employees at Geebung have been advised of this today.

In the third last paragraph the statement said that production was to be rationalised if that is the word to use and specialised at the company’s Somerton and Footscray plants, with steel tyre production being undertaken at Somerton and radial textile passenger truck and tractor tyre production being undertaken at Footscray in Melbourne.

It is not my intention this afternoon to lacerate the Olympic company or to lacerate in any particular way Firestone Australia Pty Ltd, which did something similar in another part of Brisbane 3 days later. I wish merely to indicate quite clearly that, in accordance with that statement, 380 men were sacked. They are out of work. Many of them had been working in that firm for 27 years and had taken only a few weeks sick leave in that time. They had been first class employees and they are first class men. Many of them have approached me. They are aged 52, 53 or 54 years. They say: ‘I am unemployable now. What am I going to do?’ There is nothing as heart-rending as being confronted with such a situation. The action of the Olympic company owes much more to the rationalisation within the tyre industry than to positive, calculated illwill.

What are the circumstances? This has not occurred because of a lack of demand within the tyre industry or a lack of competency on the part of the company’s Queensland staff. The Queensland company and its men say that they can make the tyres and have made them. Indeed, their tyres are made as efficiently and as well as any tyres made elsewhere in Australia. I refer to evidence which was given to the Industries Assistance Commission inquiry in October 1975 by Mr Beaurepaire, the Managing Director of the Olympic company, and Mr Watson, a senior official of that company. They said:

With the lowering of the migrant intake and the general level of employment in the areas where our plants are located, and because of the problems associated with shiftwork, et cetera, the availability of suitable labour is extremely difficult, especially in Victoria. The position in Queensland is somewhat better but over the two areas it is still difficult to maintain labour despite the reputed high level of unemployment.

This statement was made at the end of 1975; but in the muted words which businessmen use, it was really saying that the company’s Queensland work force was a very good work force, was capable and efficient, and was better than its work force in Victoria. This was said quite clearly and it needs to be appreciated.

Demand in the tyre industry is not down; it is rising now and certainly has risen since the days of the Labor Government when demand plunged quite disastrously. I am reinforced in this view by the latest data on new motor vehicle registrations, which show that the demand for supplying original equipment to motor cars has risen enormously. Let me cite two figures that are important. During the first half of August this year, there were 1,983 new motor vehicle registrations per working day for the six States of Australia. During the first week of September the figure rose to 2,380 vehicles. Although in that figure there is an estimate of the South Australian position, these figures show quite clearly that the demand for motor cars has risen by about 20 per cent. Therefore, demand for new tyres is not going to be down. The IAC report on the motor tyre industry illustrated that it was in the original equipment area that demand had dropped during those disastrous times of two or three years ago, and this is the precise area which is now enabled to pick up. Therefore, we cannot say that the men are being sacked and that the Olympic company is closing down its Queensland operations completely merely because the motor car industry lacks demand, as it certainly does not. Anyone who knows what happened to sales tax in the last Budget must realise this quite perceptibly.

There have been industry problems and they need a quite clear response from Government. What has happened in this instance is what has happened in every downturn in Australian economic history. In the four downturns since the end of World War II the outlying, unprotected States and the people who work in those States have become vulnerable because of the way public finance is organised during a recession. I do not want to indicate to the House that this is the crack of doom. A popgun is a popgun and nothing else; it is not the crack of doom. I want to indicate that there is another way in which recessions in Australia should be handled. An enormous amount has been done over recent years to assist the motor tyre industry. There has been a change in the nature of demand and the demand for steel belted radials has increased. The honourable member who will follow me in the debate knows of the enormous advantage that this increased demand has been to those who work in this industry in Adelaide. This industry is becoming almost totally centralised in Melbourne, with only small off-shoots in Sydney and Adelaide. There is far greater distress and unemployment in my State because of it.

Let us look at the protection given to the industry. What has it amounted to? Let me refer to it very briefly. In 1975, due to the depressed demand, a Temporary Assistance Authority report raised the amount of protection given to the industry- 15 per cent ad valorem- by adding a 10 per cent temporary duty protection. In June 1977 an IAC report recommended, and the recommendation was adopted at that stage, that the protection for the industry be left at 25 per cent, to apply for three years. Later, in September 1977, a Temporary Assistance Authority report recommended 40 per cent protection for the industry, to apply for 15 months.

What does this mean in real terms? It means that today the industry is receiving the equivalent of $25m a year in order to remain viable. That is the net subsidy equivalent of the protection. It ought to be remembered that 60 per cent of the total, or $ 15m, goes to the industry in only one State- Victoria- and that after the closure of” the Geebung factory 62 or 63 per cent of this money will go to Victoria. This means that for every person who works in the industry assistance of $3,300 a year will be given in order to keep that person employed. I do not argue with that and I am not putting forward a free trade argument.

However, when a recession occurs or there is a downturn in the economy and as a result expenditure is cut, that cut is made across the board; but the benefits of industry protection necessarily restrict themselves to certain parts of Australia. This results in my State receiving almost no benefit at all. I suggest that both these effects of Commonwealth intervention need to be taken into account. Industry protection should not amount to sweetmeats handed under the table while public expenditures are argued about at Premiers conferences, Budget discussions, Loan Council meetings and so on. Both should be considered in terms of their allocation between States, and that they are not is the overwhelming reason that my State and Western Australia have always suffered very seriously during a recession.

The transfer effects that occur due to trade protection policies go from those States that receive less than average protection to those States that receive more than average protection. Stated most explicitly, it is the States which are able to develop exports which ensure that industry protection can be paid to Victoria, and, effectively, to South Australia. New South Wales has about a line ball position. Therefore what is distressing is that those States which earn above their proportion of exports remain the vulnerable ones. For example, last year the exports from

Queensland and Western Australia were worth over $ 1,600 per person. The exports from the rest of Australia were worth something of the nature of $600 per person. I ask this House merely to look at the justice of that kind of transfer when those who do the subsidising are vulnerable, have a lower standard of living and are subject to unemployment to which the subsidised are not subject.

From the beginning of this financial year protection policies- tariff and quota- have been awarded and confirmed in respect of about nine industries. They are worth up to $ 1,000m. Victoria- good luck to it- is the principal beneficiary of every one of those policies except one, the one in respect of the refrigerator industry. I do not complain about that. The transfers which enable the economy of one State and therefore employment in one State to be kept up ought to be registered and ought not to go without being known. I believe that the Olympic tragedy illustrates the enormous gap and great defect in Australian federalism. An amount of $4,500m a year is redistributed in this way. We want to have that redistribution counted as other forms of redistribution count. The Olympic experience is a tragic example of what has happened in every Australian recession. There is not one example ever of a Victorian plant being closed in a recession so that activities can be rationalised into Queensland or Western Australia.

I suggest to this House that for the sake of equity and fairness three policies ought to be considered at this stage: Firstly, demand should be stimulated selectively, especially where there is surplus capacity, and funded through a noninflationary deficit. That means through capital works in those parts of Australia which suffer due to the way in which a recession is managed. Secondly, the $4,500m worth of industry protection policies must be discussed at Premiers Conferences and taken into account and not regarded merely as sweetmeats offered under another guise. The third point that I put forward is that the distribution of the Commonwealth’s capital works programs should then be reallocated having regard to the benefits of industry protection. They ought not to be considered separately from one another. Industry protection worth $4,500m a year cannot be granted and subsumed away, unseen. In terms of the tyre industry it is worth $2 5 m a year. We cannot ignore it or put it under the table and then argue about the distribution of some $ 1,500m to $2,000m worth of capital works programs in Australia. There are two layers to that cake and both layers ought to be considered together.

I come back to where I began. The facts are that in every recession in Australia public expenditure has been cut across the board. One could argue with the policy, but I do not take issue on that. In every recession in Australia from the time of Scullin onwards industry protection has increased. I do not argue with that, but the two hitherto have been considered separately. They ought to be considered together so that those parts of Australia which earn export income, which operate at less than average levels of tariff and quota protection- Queensland and Western Australia- shall not be the wood and water joeys of this country. Under the present position they have been made the wood and water joeyssufficient to earn export income for Australia but not sufficient to be able to share equally and fairly during a recession without having to carry the dray while others are able to ride in it.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-The 385 workers of the Olympic Tyre and Rubber Co Pty Ltd at Geebung that the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) has told us about and also the other 40 Firestone Australia Pty Ltd workers at Yeronga and some other branches of that Firestone company which I do not think he told us about -

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– I mentioned it.

Mr HURFORD:

– I beg the honourable member’s pardon. He may have mentioned it. I shall now tell the House about them anyway. These people from the honourable member’s State are the victims of two phenomena. Both of those phenomena are the fault of the Government which he supports in this Parliament. The first phenomenon is the low level of economic activity which this country is suffering today. The second phenomenon is the technological changes that are going on in our community. With regard to the first phenomenon, the honourable member for Lilley suggested that there should be a stimulus to demand. I agree with him. So does every other Australian Labor Party member in this House. We need him to organise Government members to support the stand being taken by the Australian Labor Party in this Parliament and throughout this country for those expansionary economic policies. I am bound to say that if the honourable member for Lilley were a Labor member he would have been able to raise this subject in this House today- I say that with the greatest personal kindness and respect to him- without facing the charge that he is acting cynically and, some might even say, hypocritically. He is supporting a government in this country which is following policies diametrically opposed to the ones he has advocated in this area of macro-economic policy. The second phenomenon is a technological change. Where was the honourable member for Lilley, and every other honourable member from the Government benches who feels the same way as he does- I hope there are others- during the divisions in this chamber earlier this afternoon when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) sought to bring on Notice No. 1, General Business, now standing on the Notice Paper?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– He opposed the Labor Party.

Mr HURFORD:

-He opposed us. He sat over there opposing this matter coming on. The objectives of that motion are the only way of bringing together all the necessary forces which have to be brought together in Australia to discuss properly and effectively technological change. I hope other members on his side feel as he does. At least he is a stage ahead of the other sycophants who sit on that side because he recognises the problem, and I give him credit for that. I challenge him to go further in the interests of the 385 Olympic tyre workers and the 40 Firestone workers and start to organise more effectively for the necessary changes in order to achieve these improved economic policies in this country.

Of course the Opposition agrees with the sentiments in the discussion of a matter of public importance put forward. There is need to have regard to economic and social consequences when industry is being restructured as is set out in the matter put forward. This applies to the tyre industry as it does to every other industry. Labor members have always supported this sentiment and have put it into action when we have had a chance to do so. Unlike our opponents we do not treat people like chattels. They are people and their social needs need to be looked after. Above all in this context, the economy of the country needs to be looked after. Demand needs to be stimulated in the way that has been suggested by the honourable member for Lilley, but he is sitting on the wrong side of the chamber to promote those sorts of policies.

Why have we a situation in which men and women in his own electorate, and in other parts of Brisbane- indeed in every part of this country- are being thrust on to the dole queues? It is attributable to the policies and actions of the Fraser Government, which he and others on his side of the chamber support. So many factories are closing that if we are to have an urgency debate every time one closes- and there is very good reason why we should, if only to bring home to the Government the tragic personal circumstances of those who are thrown out of work- the Government’s policy will have to be for Parliament to sit permanently.

Two years and 10 months ago the Liberal and National Country Parties- and the honourable member belongs to the Liberal Party- outraged our Constitution. I do not mind repeating this again and again because that grab for power inflicted deep wounds upon our society. They not only wrongly suggested impropriety on the part of the then Government- and we know now on which side of the chamber the improprieties have occurred- but also promised, two years and 10 months ago, that within three years they would bring this country back to a state of economic health. That was the promise that was made. The Government has two months to go, but things have gone from bad to worse and this urgency debate, which has been brought on by one of its members, merely highlights that fact. More and more factories are closing and the unemployment dole queues are growing daily. If we include the hidden unemployed, we now have at least half a million people in this country seeking work.

In 1974-75, when the Austraiian Labor Party was in power, there was an economic downturn in Australia. We do not hide that fact, but there were good international economic reasons why that happened. The same cannot be said of the situation today. The point that I make is that in this country expansionist policies are required, just as the International Monetary Fund has suggested them for the world generally, but the Government is not only putting the lid on our economy and forcing our dole queues to grow, but as the days pass we learn that it has the hide to lecture other countries, which believe in expansionist policies, on the need to put a lid on their economies also.

Mr Humphreys:

– No one listens to them, though.

Mr HURFORD:

-We hope that they will not listen, but we learn that the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) is presently in Washington telling fellow IMF delegates how to run their economies. They want expansionist policies because they know that only in that way will an increase in economic activity result. Only in that way will we restore to this country a state of economic health. That is why I make the serious charge- not that I like doing so- that the honourable member for Lilley must be acting cynically. He continues to support a government which acts in that way not only in this country but also overseas.

I have already indicated that ours are not only macro-economic problems related to budgetary policies. Before leaving that subject, I want to direct attention once again to the alternative Budget strategy, the alternative economic strategy, of the Australian Labor Party, as outlined courageously and in detail on 22 August by the Leader of the Opposition. Its adoption would help enormously to bring this country back to a state of economic health. It would set the necessary scene for technological changes to take place without hurting people in this countrynecessary structural changes if we are to become internationally competitive, increase our trade and in turn increase employment opportunities. We cannot achieve these changes in a time of economic stagnation. We must have that economic health which would result from the policies proposed in the alternative Budget.

I assert again that the economic policies of the Fraser Government will not work; that putting the lid on the economy just will not work. Indeed, it discourages confidence and because it promotes a reduction in real wages, diminishes the amount of money in the pockets of people. On the other hand, the alternative strategy would restore confidence, would encourage people to spend and would help to achieve the very necessary return of both consumer confidence and business investment, which would generate the jobs that are needed.

Our micro-economic policies also are vital. The restructuring which takes place must be a restructuring up, one which creates new jobs. There must be a regeneration of existing industries, but this can be done only when there is a high level of activity. Certainly, we need to be internationally competitive, but we cannot achieve that in the atmosphere that prevails in this country, which derives from a policy of relying totally on the marketplace for something to happen.

At Question Time today we had an answer from the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) relating to the motor industry. He repeated the Government’s philosophy of relying on the marketplace, of allowing such firms as Chrysler to make their own individual decisions. No wonder we wake up in the morning and find in the Courier-Mail headlines about ‘385 jobs to go as tyre firm closes’. If we continue to adopt the attitude that it is up to individual firms to make these decisions we will see other headlines about other firms closing and other jobs being lost. The situation is so serious that we need conferences such as have been outlined in the draft resolution of the Leader of the Opposition. We need a consensus. We need dialogue between employers, employees and the Government in order to achieve the necessary economic planning and so that we may know in which industries to concentrate our efforts. Restructuring henceforth must be restructuring up, into new jobs, not restructuring down out of jobs in the tyre industry, as has been indicated by the honourable member for Lilley. Our restructuring has to be into upgrading our minerals, into building jobs in research and development. This will not happen if we merely wait for the market place to act. It will happen only if policies such as have been advocated by the Australian Labor Party are followed. I refer to the establishment of a department of economic development, to the setting of targets for the medium and long term, to the making of government decisions as to which industries should be supported- all of this far more clearly than is being done at present. We cannot put off a technological conference, such as has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, in favour of some conference of Ministers of Labour that is to take place next November. The position needs urgent attention.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– New financial structures are needed to accompany the restructuring too.

Mr HURFORD:

– I agree with the honourable member for Lilley that new financial structures also are required. We must have a royal commission or committee of inquiry into the capital market also. For some time now we on this side of the chamber have promoted that idea. Indeed, from some of the things that we had read about what was going on on the Government side, we had become hopeful that the Government would take up that suggestion and ensure that an inquiry into the capital market would take place, but no action has been taken. All we are told, in answer to our questions in the Parliament, is that the Government is waiting for the Williams’ Committee report, or to hear from Sir John Crawford, or until some Ministers of Labour meet on 24 November, or for another interdepartmental committee to report. Every day that we wait we open our papers to find that yet another factory has closed, that another 385 jobs have been lost. One thing that can be said for the honourable member for Lilley is that by raising the matter in the House today he has drawn attention to the urgency of the situation. I fear that what he has had to say about his State applies to every other State in this country. I know that because my own State of South Australia is heavily based on manufacturing industry, the situation there at present is serious. But the situation is not related to the State Government in my State; it is related to the Federal Government. It is related to the macroeconomic and micro-economic policies being carried out by the Fraser Government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · Balaclava · LP

– The debate on this matter has roamed far and wide. I did not intend to enter into the debate, and I will not stay in it very long. Let me make a couple of comments on matters raised. Firstly, the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), who it seems to me strayed a fair way from the matter of public importance, said that we need another inquiry into technological change, as suggested by the Leader of Opposition (Mr Hayden); yet in the next breath he said that we have too many inquiries pending and that the Government is saying that it cannot do anything until it has the recommendations of this or that inquiry. I venture to say that if we had pending another inquiry such as has been suggested we would find a general tendency in the community and in the Parliament to hold off action until the report of the inquiry had been received.

One of the most important points to note is that a number of active policies of the Government are already being implemented. One such policy relates to the tyre industry. It was in respect of the tyre industry that this matter was raised today. I think it is important to note that the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns), acting with appropriate concern, not cynicism, of which he was accused by the Opposition, has raised a matter because he is concerned about the well-being of employees of a certain tyre company in Brisbane.

Mr Humphreys:

– Why did you not raise the matter?

Mr MACPHEE:

-The honourable member should listen to me. I will tell him about the matter. The honourable member for Adelaide has said that the Government rests too much on the marketplace. We believe most strongly- this is a philosophical point- that the role of government is to create the climate in which sensible marketplace decisions can be made. It is not for governments to indicate which companies will remain in business, where and how big their market size will be, let alone precisely what the structure of a given industry will be.

Mr Uren:

– That is the difference between you and us.

Mr MACPHEE:

-The honourable member for Reid is right. That is the difference. We do not believe that people in Canberra can dictate the precise nature and structure or corporate and market size of a company, which the Opposition seems to believe it can do. We believe that we have created for the tyre industry a breathing space within which it can examine every aspect of its cost structure. It can examine its marketing methods, location of plant, layout of plant, human relations, engineering, technology and corporate structure. As we understand it, that is what the company about which the honourable member for Lilley complains has actually done. The company has offered its employees employment with the same company in other States. Of course, not all of them would be keen to move to another State at their time of life. One acknowledges that. But the company gave them three months warning of its decision to restructure its operations. The honourable member said that it did not happen because of a drop in demand but, in fact, that plant was built for crossply tyres and they are the diminished sector of the market. So within the tyre industry demand for the products of that plant has dropped.

As a matter of policy, we have given the tyre industry temporary protection, with a clear request and an undertaking being given by the industry to enter into tripartite productivity improvement programs. That it has done. The management of the eight companies concerned, the unions and my department are working in a day by day study of the structural problems of the industry. We do not need a national inquiry into technology to understand what is happening in that industry. The eight people in management, the eight companies and the trade unions involved can see what shifts there are in the market forces, what shifts there are in the need for new technology, new systems of work, new plant layout, new location and even new corporate restructuring. These sorts of things are being tackled and inevitably, as a result of decisions made during the breathing space provided by extra protection, there will be some social and economic dislocation. I can only say that it would be infinitely greater if those moves were not taken. The Opposition would then be justified in being critical of the Government for upping the ante in terms of cost to the consumer and not delving into the deep structural problems which, in fact, exist. In fact, the industry is to be commended for recognising- one might say almost belatedly- very genuinely the problems which it has in a structural sense. The Government is giving it every assistance it can to face up to those problems. Of course we are concerned to minimise the dislocation as much as we can. It is a fact, and the honourable member for Lilley has pointed this out, that when companies decide to restructure they tend to move in a more centralised way. This means that States such as Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania have a problem. Our task, in conjunction with State governments, must be to try to make the climate attractive enough economically in those States- it is certainly attractive in other respects- in order to encourage investment in new industries there. It is one of the facts of life, and I believe we will see much more of it, that people in restructuring their product lines and relocating their factories will tend to centralise in Sydney and Melbourne. There may need to be some very positive initiatives from State governments to encourage industries to move to more country centres or to rationalise their plants in the capital cities or in other major cities in Queensland or South Australia.

I did not intend to enter into this debate for very long, but it seemed important to me that there should be some statement from the Government in respect of the whole range of matters which has been raised. We believe that it is inevitable that there will be some economic dislocation as a result of restructuring. The restructuring proposals are being made by the industry itself. I think that in this case the information given to me suggests that the company has done as much as it could reasonably do in respect of its employees. Had it not done what it did I am afraid that in the end it would have caused greater dislocation to all concerned.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-I did not intend to enter into this debate, but since the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) came into it at the last minute I would like to make a few points as a contribution to this debate from the Opposition. Firstly, it is perhaps ironic that one of the facilities in Melbourne on which the Olympic Tyre and Rubber Co. is concentrating its activity is now in my electorate. So I suppose I am on the receiving end of a change which has had quite adverse effects for the electorate of the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns). Since the level of unemployment in my electorate is quite high, I suppose that the change is a good thing for my electorate. Nevertheless, I can see the point which concerns the honourable member greatly. When a factory closes and causes some 380 people to lose their jobs it is indeed a tragedy for the people concerned.

We on the Opposition side of the House are concerned that it is happening not only in the electorate of Lilley but also in electorates all over the country. Over the last couple of years we have been saying to the Government that its policies would lead to this kind of action. Indeed, we are now seeing it at a greater rate than ever before. The level of economic activity now has fallen to the lowest level since the 1930s. It is inevitable that we will see closures such as the one mentioned- a rationalisation of production, as it is often called- with companies concentrating their activities in those plants where they have the greatest investment and where they feel that the activity would be the most economic. If this is going to happen- and indeed it will happen in the current economic situation in this countrythen there are various responses that governments ought to make. As the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) so clearly put it, one is to have a different macro-economic policy which would increase the overall level of demand, including demand in the vehicle industry, thereby generating a higher demand for tyres and providing much more work for existing tyre factories. That is one way in which we can overcome the problem; but no honourable member on this side of the House is asserting that that is the be all and end all of economic recovery in this country.

Time and time again we have called for the adoption of structural adjustment policies. When we were in government we introduced a number of structural adjustment programs which have been abandoned by the present Government. No such programs operate now. We provided income maintenance and relocation assistance. Whilst I suppose a relocation assistance scheme of some sort operates now and that could be regarded as providing some kind of assistance, income maintenance assistance has gone. The income maintenance scheme was an important scheme which helped some 30,000 people who had lost their jobs through competition from imports while the Labor Government was in office. We cared for those people by way of that income maintenance scheme. No such scheme is in operation now.

We provided also special assistance to nonmetropolitan areas- the so-called SANMA scheme. That scheme has been abandoned by the present Government. Under that scheme subsidies were provided for industries in rural and non-metropolitan areas. Some grantsfeasibility study grants and so on- were made under that scheme and the scheme was of some assistance. I am not suggesting that it made a tremendous difference. It was more or less a pilot scheme, but at least it represented a step in the right direction.

Another important scheme was the Regional Employment Development scheme- a job creation program- which was scorned by the then Opposition and abandoned by it when it came into government. That was a tremendously important program. It was the sort of program that a government should have, not just in periods of high unemployment but always if it is going to try to provide full employment. There will always be areas in which an unemployment problem is opening up, even when the economy generally has something like full employment. There will always be an industry or a firm which runs into trouble and, because it is important to a particular area, an unemployment problem is created in that area. In such a situation a program such as the Regional Employment Development scheme or other forms of job creation programs could be utilised if the Government had a will to provide jobs so that the unemployment effects could be cushioned in that area. No such scheme operates today.

One of the major scandals of our time is that a government, going through the highest level of unemployment in our post-war history, has no job creation programs in operation. That is a national scandal and something of which all honourable members opposite ought to be ashamed. They ought to be ashamed to be part of a government which is so uncaring for the unemployed that it will not even operate a job creation scheme of that kind. It is important for a government, if it has any concern about unemployment, to believe in the concept that the government should intervene to make sure that jobs are created, either through a job creation program or, as the honourable member for Lilley properly suggested, through capital works programs.

Part of the alternative Budget proposals presented by this side of the House was the proposal to expand capital works programs so that we can create jobs. We believe that we should try to create jobs particularly in areas where there are the highest levels of unemployment. It is important that that sort of scheme would create jobs not only in those areas with a high level of unemployment but also elsewhere as well. As every honourable member is aware, capital works programs have a very high multiplier effect.

Almost all of the materials used in capital works programs are produced locally; very few imported materials are used. Therefore, there is a high multiplier effect of job creation in other industries, such as the building supplies industries in providing bricks, glass, cement, steel, wood and so on. Capital works programs have enormous flow on effects. The economy can be stimulated generally and a lot of jobs can be provided everywhere by indulging in capital works programs.

I think that the point made by the honourable member for Lilley in that respect was quite correct. It was not entirely original; we on this side of the House have been saying it for some time. But I agreed with him when he said it here today. It is something that the Government ought to be doing. I hope that more honourable members on the Government side of the House think the way the honourable member for Lilley thinks and that they will push the Government into adopting some kind of program to expand capital works so that we will be able to stimulate the economy, to provide jobs in the areas where they are most needed and to start to get the economy moving back towards full employment. I must say I do not see any sign of that happening at the present time.

I do not think either that there is much sign of the Government adopting structural adjustment programs and the associated manpower programs which will be required if we are going to get back to a full employment situation. That is tremendously sad because we all know that we are going to be faced with greater and greater pressures for structural change as a result of the ever-growing challenge to our manufacturing industry from the growing manufacturing industry capacity of South East Asia. That is something that we know about. We know this is going to happen for the rest of the century and that it is going to get worse and worse.

We know that we have to respond to the pressure. The decision we make as to how we should respond to that pressure will be one of the most important decisions that a government of this country will make in the next few years. If we make the wrong decisions we could finish up being one of the poor countries of the world. If we make the right decisions we could finish up still being a quite wealthy country and being able to provide full employment. But whatever we do, it is going to require enormous structural adjustment programs so that we can face up to the changes which we know are going to be foisted upon us, like it or not. If those programs are going to be in operation in the near future they have to be worked out now. There is very little sign that they are being thought about in great detail by this Government.

Certainly some worthwhile activity seems to be going on in some areas. This is particularly true of the Department of Productivity, which has some innovative ideas, but I think that they are fairly limited at this stage. From what one can see of the activities of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs and the Department of Industry and Commerce, they do not seem to have much concept of the need to develop very important structural adjustment programs, which we will need to obtain full employment in the future. As the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) said, the Opposition feels that the honourable member for Lilley is on the right train in what he has said in this debate but we do feel that he is being a little hypocritical in supporting a government which is not adopting the kinds of policies which he suggested are needed, either in respect of macroeconomic policy orin the micro-economic area.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The discussion is now concluded.

page 1452

DEVELOPMENT OF ARMY SITE, BONEGILLA, VICTORIA

Reference to Public Works Committee

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Construction · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report: Development of Army site stage 1, Bonegilla, Victoria.

The proposal is for the construction of new permanent living, working and recreational facilities to accommodate: The Army Apprentices School at present located in sub-standard accommodation at Balcombe, Victoria; the School of Military Survey presently located in temporary accommodation at Bonegilla, Victoria; and recruit training for the Women’s Royal Australian Army Corp, presently in temporary accommodation at George’s Heights, Sydney, New South Wales. The main elements involved in the proposal are: Instructional facilities; messing and sleeping accommodation for all ranks; administration, stores and transport facilities; a combined dental and medical centre; indoor and outdoor sporting facilities; and ten on-site married quarters.

Low rise buildings are proposed throughout the complex, with a maximum of three storeys. Brick construction is proposed for the greater number of the buildings, with the few larger buildings in concrete. These latter buildings will be faced with coloured panels with a mixture of brickwork and timber panels to continue the domestic type treatment throughout the complex. The estimated cost of the works at July 1978 prices is $29.5m. I table plans of the proposed work.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1452

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 August, on motion by Mr Adermann:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr Uren had moved by way of amendment:

That all words after )That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted:

to maintain the present eligibility of members of the Defence Services for housing finance from the Defence Service Housing Corporation;

to permit Parliament to maintain adequate scrutiny of the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme;

because it introduces a fee for consideration of the application for a loan for the first time, thus increasing the cost to the applicant;

) because it introduces a discriminatory preference system between those with eligibility based on war service, and

because increased funds should be made available to restore the decline of SO per cent, in real terms, over the last 3 years’.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I join in this debate in support of the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). As the amendment was moved some time ago, to refresh the memories of honourable members I shall read it. It states:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted:

to maintain the present eligibility of members of the Defence Services for housing finance from the Defence Service Housing Corporation;

to permit Parliament to maintain adequate scrutiny of the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme;

because it introduces a fee for consideration of the application for a loan for the first time, thus increasing the cost to the applicant;

) because it introduces a discriminatory preference system between those with eligibility based on war service, and

because increased funds should be made available to restore the decline of SO per cent in real terms, over the last 3 years’.

That amendment was moved by the honourable member for Reid on 17 August. It was rather prophetic in one sense. A little less than an hour ago this incompetent and bungling Government, which never seems to be able to put together a

Bill correctly, distributed a document containing amendments to be moved by the Government to the Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 1978. It is a single sheet with a full page of printing on one side and half a page on the other. It outlines quite a number of amendments which are to be made to the Bill which is, in fact, an amendment to the Act. As I say, it is not uncommon for this sort of thing to happen with this incompetent Government. I do not blame the draftsmen. The reason is a lack of cohesion on the part of the Government. The document is a further indication of the Government’s lack of competence.

It seems to me that it is not in the best interests of informed debate in this Parliament if amendments such as these are circulated in the chamber less than an hour before the matter is to be debated. As honourable members are aware, attitudes have to be formed on these things and one can hardly pick up a document such as thisunless one is an Einstein; I do not profess to be one- and understand it One must refer to the parent Act before one is able to understand the amendments. Without the parent Act the amendments do not make a whole lot of sense. As I say, it is not the first time that this Government has done this sort of thing. It is not the first Bill that has had amendments made to it in this way. It is not the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) who is incompetent; it is the whole confounded Government. The honourable member for Reid was prophetic in saying that the Bill ought to be withdrawn and redrafted. So it should be. The Government concedes that the Bill should be redrafted; otherwise it would not have distributed amendments to its own amending Bill.

I have always had a great deal of affection for this Act. It has been with us since 1 9 1 8- for some 60 years. In that long period of time it has always been regarded by servicemen- prior to 1 972 only by servicemen who had had active service in a war zone- as being almost part of their working conditions. Having joined the armed Services, they were eligible, under certain circumstances, to take up what were then known as war service home loans which always have been at rather favourable rates of interest and on favourable conditions. I do not think that there is any quarrel in the community about that. There is certainly no quarrel from me or from my party colleagues. The thing that we find rather difficult to understand is why such a scheme could not be expanded to encompass larger sections of the community than, as is the case now, exservicemen and ex-servicewomen. We firmly believe that this could be done. We proposed such action up until 1972. If we had been left in peace during the period 1972-1975, without having elections every 18 months, I am sure that we would have moved a lot closer to expanding this scheme in order to make it available to large numbers of people who, without that sort of assistance, will never be able to move into their own homes.

This is another indication of where this cockeyed Government has gone off the rails, lt is taking a swipe at ex-servicemen on this occasion. The Labor Government said in 1972, and its statements became effective in 1973: ‘We do not believe that there will be any more wars. We do not believe that Australian servicemen will be called out. They certainly will not be called out under the dishonest conditions under which they were called out in the 1960s to go to Vietnam. We hope that young Australian men will never be called upon to serve in an area of war again’. We acknowledge that there is a need for defence forces. As an incentive, it was said that those who served a period of three years in the armed Services would become eligible for a home loan. It was said that those who were undergoing their national service training at the time had the option of either leaving or, if they served out their term, being eligible for a home loan.

This Bill states that the three-year period is far too short. It is effectively saying that these service men and women will serve nine years prior to becoming eligible for a loan. Servicemen or servicewomen become eligible after six years; but they must sign up for another term, which makes nine years of service. This action extends the eligibility provisions by at least three years. As I pointed out, it is a bit of a side swipe at the military personnel in this country. I think that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), who already has bruised shins over the by-election in Werriwa last Saturday, would do well to read the results of the election. For the first time ever, the successful Labor Party candidate, Mr John Kerin, who wiped the floor with his opponents, won the Ingleburn Army camp booth and won it substantially. Not only has the general community a lack of confidence in this Government to do things right- I pointed out that it cannot even draft a Bill properly- but also it knows that the Government is having another side swipe at military personnel who last Saturday in a byelection indicated quite clearly that they are fed up to the back teeth with this Government. The sooner the Government gets itself out of office, the happier a lot of people in Australia will be.

The Bill is not all bad. I would not want it to be thought that I oppose things just for the sake of opposing them. I compliment the Government on clause 3, which deals with de facto relationships that exist between men and women by choice. The Bill will ratify these sorts of arrangements and will acknowledge that the de facto relationship between a man and a woman is as solid and as strong as the normally accepted relationship of marriage. That oversight, I think, should have been corrected a long time ago. I pay credit to the Government for taking the initiative in that area and correcting the oversight. I am afraid that that is about as far as I can go in giving credit.

I see no good reason for any sort of charge upon people who apply for a loan. Such a charge has never been levied in the past. This Bill introduces a fee for consideration of an application. The Bill does not explain why such a move is necessary; to me it is an unnecessary impost. The Bill, in my opinion, places too much responsibility with the Defence Service Homes Corporation and takes the administration of the scheme away from parliamentary scrutiny to a very large extent. Features of the Act which require approval of the Parliament and of the Minister will now be handed over to somebody who is not altogether under the control of this Parliament or answerable to it, as is a Minister. We need to revert to a position where Parliament is able to maintain adequate scrutiny of the defence service homes insurance scheme. It is very important that the matter be looked into.

Members of the Government with which we have been saddled for the last two years- they have only two years to go; we will be rid of them then- seem to do nothing else but sit up in the evenings and go through the books. The Treasurer (Mr Howard) is acknowledged as the greatest bookkeeper in Australia. He would not be a Treasurer’s bootlace, but he is a pretty good bookkeeper. He sits up all night going through his books, with his little pocket calculator, trying to find out where he can lop another shilling off the boys who sell newspapers on street corners or where he can tax the incomes of handicapped people at 66 per cent, which is an even higher rate of taxation than I pay- and I am not a highly paid member of the community. He does all these little exercises. Anywhere he can find somebody on crutches he kicks the crutches out from under them. He takes great delight in letting down the pneumatic tyres on old ladies’ wheelchairs. He sits up all night dreaming up these little schemes. He has even treated this area like a bookkeeping exercise. Never is any account taken of the social effect on people. That, to me, is a very bad thing. Government ought to be about people and not about sitting up with columns of figures and pocket calculators trying to make the red column balance against the black one.

The Opposition finds a number of features of this Bill most distasteful. No explanation is given- I do not think the Government intends to give one- as to why it has never restored the decline in funds in real terms of 50 per cent over the last three years. The Government does not tell us- I suppose that it is pretty obvious- why it wants to extend the period of service from six years to nine years.

The Government also does not explain a very curious feature where for the first time people are divided into classes. If my memory serves me correctly proposed new section 27B allows the Corporation to determine the order in which advances are made to applicants in accordance with priorities determined on the basis of their division into different classes or where particular circumstances apply. Is this Government again contemplating sending young Australian men to a war that is not ours, a war that belongs to somebody else and which is fought at the behest of somebody else? If not, what sort of classes are we talking about? It is pretty clear to me that what is implied in proposed new section 27B is that the Government anticipates that situation. It will then give preference to those who go off to any dirty, grubby little war in which it manages to get Australia involved. For the first time it will divide people into classes.

At the moment the Act does not provide for classes of people. Servicemen and women who serve for three years and then re-engage are eligible for a defence service homes loan. Why does the Government want to change that? Why does it want to fiddle around with it? If there is nothing ulterior in what it wants to do why does it not tell us why it is doing it? Why has it now brought in at a very late hour these new amendments to its own amending Bill? It would be a job for a Philadelphia lawyer to listen to the debate that has taken place in the House and sort out the amendments without having reference to the parent Act. The Government has done some pretty strange things in relation to this Act as far as I can see. I am quite sure that Opposition members are studying this Bill to see what sort of effect it will have. It seems to me to be sheer incompetence on the part of this Government.

The Government talks about amending a section of the Act to exclude a whole host of people. I wonder why it has done this. Perhaps in his closing remarks- if he intends to close the debate- the Minister will give some explanation of why further amendments to the Government’s own amending Bill have suddenly become necessary. Until that is done- I very much doubt that it can be done in the time left for this debate- I strongly urge the Minister to withdraw the Bill, send it back to whoever was responsible for drafting it, get it redrafted and get it into shape. Frankly, the only way it can be got into shape is by leaving it the way it is. Rather than withdrawing the Bill and redrafting it, it ought to be withdrawn and shredded. There is no need for it. The Act itself is functioning quite well at the moment. The only thing that is not functioning well is the availability of funds and the waiting period service people must go through before they receive their loan.

I have read all the contributions that have been made on this matter. I think that the honourable member for Reid, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les johnson) and the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Stewart) summed up the matter very well. Each in his turn gave a scathing indictment of this Government and its incompetence. I do not think that I can add very much to what they said. I urge the Minister to take note of the Opposition’s amendment. Rather than withdrawing and redrafting the Bill I think that he should withdraw it and shred it.

Mr NEIL:
St George

-The Defence Service Homes Act is one of the most historic and important pieces of legislation that the Parliament has passed. It was one of the measures that came from the undertaking which Prime Minister Hughes gave to the ex-servicemen of Australia and the community at large that exservicemen would have an advantage after the war to compensate them for the terrible hardships and the great sacrifices which they had made. This Government has always supported the principles of the Act and the proper advantages in other areas that are given to exservicemen. When Senator Millen in 1918 introduced the Bill he said: we can add another section to the great work of repatriation, by the aid of which we hope to satisfactorily secure the re-instatement to civil life of members of the Australian Imperial Force.

He went on to stress that the Bill related to homes. He said that it was a Bill so that a man could borrow for the purpose of erecting a home which he would occupy as such. The present

Government has always ensured that proper and detailed consultations go on between the Government and ex-service organisations before decisions are made on these matters. Even on rare occasions when there has not been full agreement with ex-service associations after full consultation, this process has always been adhered to and respected by the Government.

That leads me to make a brief but deeply held tribute to two persons. The first is the retired National President of the Returned Services League, Sir William Hall, who, after a long and most distinguished period of service as President, has now retired. One could say of his work that he led the League through difficult times in a most exemplary fashion. He has continued the work of his predecessors in establishing the League as a force in the community for the benefit of ex-servicemen and a highly respected organisation. The other gentleman is the new President, Mr Bill Keys, with whom I have the privilege to serve on the Board of the Australian War Memorial. I wish him well. I am absolutely sure that the confidence that the members of the RSL have shown in him will certainly be well rewarded by his efforts.

I also congratulate the officers who have administered the Bill over the past many years in an efficient and sensitive manner. I also pay tribute to various Ministers and, particularly, to the new Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) who has taken over the portfolio. I have no doubt that he will be .seen by exservicemen to be one of the finest Ministers whom we have had handling this portfolio in Australia. It is unfortunate that some political matter has been brought into the debate. I know that underneath it all, members of the Opposition as well as Government members are firmly committed to the maintenance of proper provisions for ex-servicemen. The only aspect of the attitude of the Opposition about which I cavil relates to a statement made by the Leader of the Oppostion (Mr Hayden) in this House on 7 June 1978 when he said:

How unnecessary it is for this portfolio to have its own Minister. It can be comfortably handled as a secondary responsibility by some other Minister.

We know what happened previously when that was the case. The situation was not well received by the ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen of this country. I commend the Government for keeping to its promise to have a separate ministry. I commend the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) for his appointment of the present Minister who will carry out his duties in a most exemplary fashion.

The electorate of St George is particularly concerned with this Bill. A large number of exservicemen live in the electorate and the suburb of Earlwood was the largest soldier settlement in the world after the First World War. It was specifically chosen as a suburb to be a soldier settlement area under the new experiment that was brought in after the First World War. Since that time large numbers of ex-servicemen have continued to live in other suburbs of the St George electorate. In 1973 certain changes were introduced by the Labor Government. I do not wish in any way to take away from the sincerity of what it did or to suggest that it was not well intentioned. It was. The former Government, under the stewardship principally of the now retired Mr Barnard, did show a concern for the conditions of service of servicemen. In its time, it took initiatives to benefit servicemen. Unfortunately, there was also a high rate of inflation which did not help any person who wanted to build a home. There was, however, one aspect of the 1973 changes which I think would be considered by ex-servicemen to have been overgenerous and not in accordance with the original intention of the Act. That was the provision that any member of the Services who served for three years would be entitled to the war service or defence service home loan. That was pursuant to a desire of the former Government to entice persons to join the Services by offering a reward for serving for three years. It was not really in pursuit to the original objectives which were to help re-establish ex-servicemen in the community and to give them some advantage because of the loss of place on the rungs of the ladders of life that they had endured during their service.

The present Government proposes to make changes which have been criticised by the Opposition. But these changes are quite reasonable in all the circumstances. In broad terms the changes provide that to be eligible for the loan a person who has not had war service must be a member of the defence forces for six years and then undertake a commitment to sign on for a further period. If those two conditions are fulfilled, the person, subject to the other routine provisions, is entitled to be the recipient of a loan. That seems to me to be quite reasonable. It is a matter that has been canvassed in the community. It has not raised an outcry and it could not be said in any way to be an attack by the Government upon the conditions or the entitlements of members of the defence forces. It is a reasonable provision.

At this stage the Government has not implemented its stated intention to provide priority to ex-servicemen who have done war service over those who have not. I would have thought that in principle it would be preferable to provide that when the loans become available the persons who have done war service should have priority over those who have not. It might also be reasonable to have a priority system for those who have not done war service. For example a person who had served for 20 years would have a higher priority than one who had served for nine years, or for six years with a further commitment. The reason the Government is not going ahead with that previously stated intention is that the waiting period has had to be increased from 11 months to 14 months. Because the ratio of applicants with war service to those without war service is, I understand, about 4 : 1, if a priority system were to be introduced at this time the persons without war service would be subject to a much greater delay. They would have to wait much longer even than the 14 months. However, the sooner we can remove this waiting period the better it will be.

There was a period in the early 1950s when, because of financial restrictions, the waiting period was lengthy. We have now gone back to that position. In about 1975, lengthy waiting periods had to be reintroduced. This did not please those people entitled to the loan. Members of this House probably received a number of complaints at that time, particularly from those persons who had been in the course of negotiations to obtain houses and who I think in some cases had exchanged contracts. They had been given to understand that they would receive their loan. I will not go into all the details but in some cases persons who had legitimately expected to settle their affairs within a few weeks or months suddenly found that the loan was not going to come through and they had to take bridging finance. This was most regrettable. A waiting period was enforced- I am almost certain about this- in about the middle of 1975. Since that time, the present Government has not been able to find the money immediately to cut out the waiting period. Because of the recent number of applications, the waiting period has in fact increased by another 3 months to 14 months for the category of a person seeking to buy an existing home. Obviously, when one is able to build a home one can make one’s application and take up the waiting time during the period of building. However, the sooner the Government is able to get rid of this waiting period the better it will be for those persons entitled to the loan.

Ideally, a person who has an entitlement ought to be able to have it fulfilled very shortly after his application is made.

I will now deal with the question how the applications are to be processed. I said in this House some time ago- probably two years agothat there might well be administrative savings if a new system were introduced. I believe that it is feasible to bring in a system of having the detailed administration carried out through approved lending organisations such as the banks. This would reduce some of the paper work and it would reduce costs. I know that it would not concern the internal workings of the Department too greatly. The officers of the Department are very hard working and I am sure that they would welcome some relief. They would be able to concentrate on other activities. I do not think there is a large sub-group in the Department involved in any case. The suggestion merits consideration. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure referred to this matter in its report on the defence service homes scheme and made suggestions for administrative changes. Those suggestions should be considered very carefully by the Government. Another matter to which that Committee referred and which should be considered very carefully by the Government is a suggestion that the Act be amended to allow eligible persons to choose to receive either a housing loan or a cash grant which would also be used to acquire a residential dwelling. That seems to be a reasonable proposition. One would have to look into all the details of it. I have an entitlement to a loan; therefore I declare that interest. One would think that the proposition is reasonable. As I understand the Chairman of the Committee -

Mr Uren:

– Did you get a loan?

Mr NEIL:

– No, I have not applied for one. I understand from the Chairman of the Committee that it would save the Government money. It would reduce the cost to revenue not only in the long term but also in the short term, because the Government grants special interest rates. It would seem that many persons might welcome the proposition because it would help them to bridge the deposit gap. At present, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would well know of the difficulties young couples face in bridging the deposit gap. If such a scheme were introduced, no doubt that money could be put towards the elimination of the deposit gap and would achieve the purpose that Senator Miller referred to in 1918 when he emphasised that the conditions were to enable a man to erect a home which he can occupy. Of course, the purchase of an existing home would, for all intents and purposes, be the equivalent of erecting a home. I commend those proposals to the Government for serious consideration.

I now deal with one or two specific matters contained in the Bill. I would have thought that the insurance provisions are reasonable in all the circumstances. They have been criticised, but they do not seem unreasonable. One honourable member referred to the de facto provisions in the Bill and asked whether retrospectivity in relation to these provisions would be possible. He made a reasonable plea which might well be considered by the Government. I think that clause 9 bears consideration. It deals with the position of joint tenancies and a failure to be able to locate the whereabouts of one of the joint tenants following the sale of land or a dwelling. That clause gives the Minister the right to make such payments as he thinks proper to one or two or more of the joint tenants. Presumably, this applies in the case of desertion by a spouse. If one of the joint tenants cannot be found when the property is sold some appropriate provision has to be made for disposal of the funds. However, I would have thought the Minister would at least indicate that as policy he would follow any court orders that might be made when a marriage is dissolved or when property settlement is dealt with by the courts. There may be a case of a person who deserts and cannot be found. The wife- if it is the wife which it probably would be- may go to the court to obtain a court order for the disposal of the interests in the property. As a matter of policy, I would have thought that the Minister would indicate that in the event of any such court order having been given then he would follow the judge’s directions, if practicable. In the case of court proceedings the discretion of the Minister should be confined.

The Government is to be commended for what it has done for ex-servicemen. The slightest ungracious quibble of the Opposition about the introduction of some new amendments is not warranted. The Minister is bringing in a number of amendments which are consistent with the Act and which are of value to the ex-servicemen of this nation. They are brought in here by him because he is the Minister of the Department. Contrary to the Opposition’s proposals, he is a Minister who is able to carry out that duty in respect of a single department. The classes of persons referred to by one honourable member who spoke- he sought to read some sinister meaning into it- are, I am sure, referable only to those classes that might in future be determined to be in a priority order if the Government were to go ahead with any other proposal. There cannot be any criticism of the Minister or the Government for that particular clause. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the House. I commend the Government for what it has done and I look forward to the time when the Minister will be able to announce to the House that the waiting period will be eliminated.

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · Fisher · NCP/NP

– in reply- I thank all honourable members who have contributed to this debate. This Bill was introduced in the Autumn session by another Minister. It has been debated on a previous occasion and the debate will be finalised today. The Government, of course, rejects the amendments that the Opposition has brought forward. They presuppose some very wrong principles. First of all, there is an allegation that there is no maintenance of the present eligibility of members of the defence services for housing finance. We have preserved eligibility for all those who enlisted before 17 August 1977, the date the announcement was made. There is no backdating. No one has lost anything. The new conditions are intended to provide an additional incentive for service beyond the six-year point. That is where the main wastage of the defence forces occurs. In response to other statements that were made, it is necessary to point out that because of the different engagement and re-engagement arrangements of the Services it is just not practical to nominate a total period that a member of the defence forces must undertake to serve in order to qualify for a loan. The proposal embodied in the Bill will confer eligibility for a loan on all servicemen and women engaged after 16 August 1977 when they have completed six years full-time continuous service and are committed to further service either through the conditions of the initial engagement or re-engagement.

It has been alleged also that there will be inadequate scrutiny of the defence service homes insurance scheme. The new insurance arrangements will not prevent the Parliament from maintaining scrutiny of the insurance scheme. Amended section 38 provides for insurance to be undertaken in accordance with the statement of conditions. The original statement and each variation of the statement are subject to ministerial approval and must be tabled in each House of the Parliament. The Opposition then quibbled about a fee for consideration of the application for a loan for the first time. The fee is intended to offset part of the administrative costs involved in providing loans and, as such, is consistent with a practice followed by other lending institutions.

When an application is withdrawn or is unsuccessful, the Defence Service Homes Corporation may refund whole or part of that fee.

Regarding the allegation of a discriminatory preference scheme, I announced on 15 August 1978 that the Government has decided not to proceed at present with a previously announced plan to grant a measure of preference to war veterans because, in the absence of additional funds, it could have been introduced only by a substantial increase in the waiting time which applies to all applicants with only peacetime service. It has been decided to proceed with the proposed new section 27B so that in future if such a decision to grant that measure of preference is decided upon, it can be done without the need to await amendment of the legislation. With regard to the comment that increased funds should have been made available to restore the decline in money values, although the financial constraints on Government expenditure have prevented any increase in the maximum loan and it represents a smaller percentage of the cost of a home than it did some years ago- that is conceded- the economic strategy pursued by the Government has achieved a substantial reduction in the underlying rate of inflation. That has resulted in a consequential lowering of the rate of increase in house and land prices in most areas. This has been of benefit to all prospective home owners and is linked directly with the reductions in interest rates that have occurred among the major lenders of housing finance.

I note also that the Government has maintained the present highly concessional interest rates on defence service home loans and the long repayment period of 32 years. The increase in the value of the interest concession over the years has been overlooked- it is usually overlooked. In the years between 1945 and 1952 the interest rates on defence service home loans were slightly above the long term bond rate. Currently, it is 4.5 per cent below that rate and more than 5 per cent below the most favourable rate obtainable from the major lending institutions.

The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) said that there was to be an erosion of the defence service homes insurance scheme. There will be no erosion. The amendment is intended to allow the insurance scheme to operate more efficiently and more effectively for the benefit of people whose homes are insured. I have answered already the question that was raised previously regarding parliamentary scrutiny. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) mentioned the cost of the insurance scheme. Over the years the costs of the

Corporation have risen, but there has never been any cost to the Commonwealth from the insurance scheme. All costs are met from premiums paid by people whose homes are insured. The premium rate applying to loans insured was reduced from 1 July 1978 by about $5 for each dwelling insured.

The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Stewart) was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure which held an inquiry into the defence service homes scheme throughout most of 1977-78. Reference has been made to that inquiry. It was a very good inquiry. There was no reference in that Committee’s report to any opposition at that time by the honourable member for Grayndler to the application fee which was announced in August 1977. Nevertheless, he seems to be critical of it now. He and others have asked about the arrangements for consideration of that Standing Committee’s report. The report and recommendations of the Committee are now under consideration by an interdepartmental committee which will report to me. In accordance with normal procedure, I expect to be able to respond to those recommendations on behalf of the Government later this year.

I thank honourable members on the Government side for their support and their very constructive comments on this legislation. The honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) raised the matter of the amendments, but I will reserve my remarks on them for the Committee stage. The honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) raised the matter of court orders. What he said about them was correct. We will follow court orders, although very often there is not a court order to follow. All these points have been noted. Because of the time limit on this debate I will close with those remarks. I thank those honourable members who have made constructive contributions to this debate.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the GovernorGeneral recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · Fisher · NCP/NP

– I seek leave to move three amendments together.

Leave granted.

Mr ADERMANN:

-The three amendments are to clause 3, which reads:

Section 4 of the Principal Act is amended-

by omitting ‘deceased unmarried person so specified ‘ from the definition of ‘Female dependant’ in subsection (1) and substituting ‘deceased person so specified who was not legally married at the time of death’;

by adding at the end of sub-section ( 1 ) the following definition: “Widow”, in relation to an eligible person who died after the commencement of section 3 of the Defence Service Homes Amendment Act 1978, includes a woman who lived with the eligible person as his wife on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis, although not legally married to him, for not less than 3 years immediately before his death. ‘; and

by inserting after sub-section (3) the following subsections: (3a) A reference in this Act to the wife of a man shall, in relation to any time when a woman is living with him as his wife on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis, although not legally married to him, be read as including a reference to that woman if she has so lived with him for not less than 3 years immediately before that time. (3b) A reference in this Act to the husband of a woman shall, in relation to any time when a man is living with her as her husband on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis, although not legally married to her, be read as including a reference to that man if he has so lived with her for not less than 3 years immediately before that time. (3c) Where the Corporation is of the opinion that a person would, but for a temporary absence or an absence resulting from illness or infirmity, have been living with another person at any time on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis, the first mentioned person shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have been living with the other person on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis at that time.’.

I move:

  1. . At end of paragraph ( b ), omit ‘ and ‘.

  2. After paragraph ( b) insert the following paragraph: (ba) by inserting after sub-section (2) the following subsections: (2a) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of the definition of ‘Australian Soldier’ in sub-section (1 ), a person who is or was-

    1. a member of the Citizen Military Forces;
    2. a member of the Women’s Royal Australian Naval Service, the Australian Women’s Army Service or the Women’s Auxiliary Australian Air Force;
    3. a member of the Australian Army Medical Women’s Service but not a member of the Australian Imperial Force; or
    4. a member of the Voluntary Aid Detachment, shall not, by reason only of being or having been such a member, be taken to have been enlisted or appointed for active service outside Australia or on a ship of war. (2b) For the purposes of paragraph (c) of the definition of ‘Australian Soldier’ in sub-section ( 1 ), a person shall not be taken to have served in the Naval, Military or Air Forces of any pan of the King’s Dominions, other than the Commonwealth, unless he served in such Forces-
    5. in an operational area outside the country or place of his enlistment or appointment for service; or
    6. as a combatant in an active combat unit. (2c) Subject to sub-section (2d), an Australian soldier who, by reason of his misconduct or misbehaviour-
    7. was discharged from, or otherwise ceased to be a member of, the Naval, Military or Air Forces of Australia; and
    8. is included in a class of members specified in the Schedule to the War Gratuity Act 1 945, shall not be treated as an eligible person for the purposes of this Act, but this sub-section shall not prevent a female dependant of such an Australian soldier being an eligible person. (2d) Where the relevant misconduct or misbehaviour of an Australian soldier referred to in subsection (2C) consisted only of his absence without leave, the Corporation may treat him as an eligible person for the purposes of this Act if the Corporation, having regard to the quality of his service outside Australia, considers it appropriate to do so.”; and’.

  3. At the end of the clause insert the following sub-clause:

    1. Any person who, by virtue of sub-section 4 (2a), (2b) or (2c) of the Principal Act as amended by this Act, is not an eligible person for the purposes of the Principal Act as so amended shall be deemed not to have been at any time before the commencement of this Act an eligible person for the purposes of the War Service Homes Act 1918 or that Act as amended and in force from time to time. ‘.

The first amendment seeks to omit only one word and does not need explanation. The second and third amendments go together. Legal doubts have arisen as to the effectiveness of certain longstanding ministerial directions relating to the administration of the Defence Service Homes Act 1918. Three such directions, two of which were issued as long ago as 1946 and 1948- the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson), who was critical of them, ought to remember which government was in office then- affected the eligibility of persons for a defence service homes loan. Those directions have been followed continuously by successive governments from both sides of politics. In view of the legal doubts the Government has decided to take action immediately to embody the features of the ministerial directions in the legislation.

One direction, issued in 1948 and reaffirmed in 1973- those dates ought to be significant to honourable members on the other side of the chamber- prohibits the granting of assistance to a person who served during the 1939-45 War in the Citizen Military Forces or the wartime women’s Services unless that person served outside Australia. Another direction, issued in 1972 to confirm the policy introduced in 1956, affects the eligibility of persons who served in the armed forces of other parts of the Queen’s Dominion during the 1939-45 War after residing in Australia. A third direction, issued in 1946 and reaffirmed in 1974, specifies the guidelines for disqualification of persons dismissed from the forces for misconduct. Therefore, the Government is resolving the doubts about the standing of ministerial directions which have long been followed by governments from both sides of politics. As recorded in the Senate Hansard of 3 December 1974, Senator Cavanagh then reaffirmed the ministerial directions as supplied by the then Minister for Housing and Construction. They are the reasons for the amendments.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-The criticism levelled by the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) is reasonable because these amendments should have been introduced in August of this year when other amendments were dealt with. His criticism was that the Government was a bit sloppy, and that is a reasonable comment. I do not want to go into details of these amendments because my colleague, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson), will be dealing particularly with the last amendment which refers to persons dishonourably discharged. During the Committee stage I do not want to dwell on what took place in the second reading debate in another place, but I do want to point out that paragraph (e) of our second reading amendment called for increased funds to be made available to restore the 50 per cent decline, in real terms, in funds over the last three years.

I seems to me, from the total funds being made available this year by way of both revenue and grants, that it is obvious how badly servicemen are being treated. The honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) should be aware of this situation, being an ex-servicemen from Vietnam. For instance, last year alone there was a grant of $20m, plus the revenue, which made a total of about $90m. This year revenue has been cut back to $10m making a total, with revenue, of $78. 8m. When compared with last year alone, that is bad enough. The position is even worse when one considers what a Labor government made available in the 1974-75 Budget. It provided $130m, and in its last Budget it made available $ 122.5m. So one can see the priority given to this scheme under a Labor administration. It is a very fine scheme.

I get a little weary when the Government starts talking about the priorities given to exservicemen and the job it has done for them. The money that was made available is on record. The $15,000 loan under a Labor administration in 1974-75 certainly could purchase a great deal more in the housing field than it can now. The report of the inquiry into the cost of housing which was tabled in the House of Representatives last week shows that the average cost of land and a dwelling in metropolitan Sydney is about $36,000. One can imagine how far this $15,000 would go now. We believe that a greater total amount should be made available for defence service homes and also that it is long overdue that the loan be increased. It was increased under a Labor administration. I think it is fair to criticise that aspect. I do not want to go into lengthy details. My colleagues and I dealt with these in the second reading debate. Probably the most positive aspect of the amendments in the Bill is that at least they take the de facto wife out of the dark ages. It has taken a hell of a long time for this conservative Government to catch up to that situation. I am at least grateful for any crumb that falls from this conservative Government’s table.

A lot of technical aspects needed to be cleared up to streamline the administration of the scheme. This legislation first came before this Parliament 60-odd years ago. The defence service homes scheme in the old days was called the war service homes scheme. I would prefer to call it the peace service homes scheme. Maybe that is a little too advanced for this militarist Government. Be that as it may, I think that over the years this scheme has served well. It should certainly be brought back to being a greater reward for servicemen. The loan is only a pittance. It would not provide even 50 per cent of the amount of money required to purchase land and dwelling in the western suburbs of Sydney where costs are probably lower than in some of the more exclusive parts of Sydney. I would imagine that a house in the electorate of the honourable member for St George could not be bought for less than $40,000. The price might be even higher. The average price might be $45,000. Therefore the loan of $15,000 would provide only one-third of the cost of land and dwelling in that electorate. I do not want to delay the Committee any longer because I know that my colleague from Hughes wants to say something. Even though I administered this legislation for six months the honourable member for Hughes administered it for longer than any other Minister on our side.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I cannot help but feel that I have been dobbed in. Actually I was not going to say a great deal about the Bill, but I appreciate the introduction I have had from the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). I take the opportunity of welcoming the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs ( Mr Adermann) to his portfolio. Clearly he is a man of some capacity and intelligence. I have always regarded him as one of the brightest Ministers. I think that it is highly fortuitous that he has come into this portfolio to administer a matter which is very important to the welfare of ex-servicemen and indeed servicemen who, as a result of initiatives taken by the Labor Government referred to by the honourable member for Reid, are also eligible for assistance under the Defence Service Homes Act.

I do not want to be critical of other Ministers who preceded the new Minister in this portfolio but it is already evident that he has a good grip of the legislation and that he is prepared to take some positive action about it- not that there is any indication that he has taken any positive action in the legislation now before us. It is apparent from the clauses of this Bill that all the proposals emanating from the Government at this time are retrograde and against the best interests of ex-servicemen. Indeed the clause that has been the principal subject of the amendments which the Government has introduced is mainly to clear up an ambiguity that through misinterpretation possibly might provide benefit for somebody.

The Minister will admit that the amendment to clause 3 has no beneficial intent or objective in any way whatsoever. Lurking somewhere, I am inclined to think, in the Government ranks or indeed in the bureaucracy- although I must say that the bureaucrats who administer the defence service homes legislation are a very modern group of people- is somebody who has the sneaking idea that some servicemen or servicewomen who may not comply with all the technicalities possibly could qualify for a loan at 3% per cent interest. That person has thrown up his hands with grave concern at that possibility. So this amendment has been introduced to make certain that members of the Citizens Military Forces will not be able to qualify for a loan under the legislation. There must have been some fear that there were too many entitlements of women who have served so members of the Women’s Royal Australian Naval Service, the Australian Women ‘s Army Service, the Women ‘s Auxiliary

Australian Air Force, the Austraiian Army Medical Women’s Service and the Voluntary Aid Detachment are specified in this legislation. For what purpose? To make certain and to tie up the legislation in a legally watertight way so that these people cannot get a defence service loan unless they have served in a combat area at a time when the country was at war. That is the effect of the legislation.

The Minister, who has the right to reply in this Committee stage, is unable to indicate anything in the Government’s amendments that is intended to provide one iota of benefit to exservicemen. We know what it is all about. In the first instance the legislation is to make it more difficult for serving members of the forces to get a defence service home loan. I take it that the Minister’s silence represents acquiescence. Prior to this legislation going to the third reading stage and getting the assent of His Excellency the Governor-General serving members of the forces needed to complete only a three-year period of engagement to qualify for a defence service home loan. Under the Bill they will have to serve for six years and indicate their preparedness to sign up for yet another term! That is the major thrust of the Bill that is before us.

Dr Jenkins:

– I thought you said that he was a good Minister.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I said that I thought he had the potential. Let us put it that way.

Dr Jenkins:

– That is a better definition.

Mr Corbett:

– You should stick to your guns, Les.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-He is a National Country Party Minister. I cannot understand why the honourable member should be undermining a man who has just got the job. The Minister is obviously one of the most intelligent men in the Ministry and is entitled to a fair go.

I would like to raise a question that I think the Minister would readily be able to answer. He would be well aware that the Budget papers refer in money terms to matters involving this legislation. I refer in particular to the intention of the Government to dispose of land which is held for the purpose of defence service homes estates. The Budget papers indicate that the Government is to sell off this land for $6m. The honourable member for Reid would know of that. I want to know how it is that land which is in all States of the Commonwealth, and which at 2 November 1976 was said to comprise 1,223 hectares and to have a value in excess of $39m can now be written down, in Budget terms, to $6m.

The clauses of the Bill which relate to this matter expose a regrettable Government intention: No longer will servicemen and ex-servicemen who qualify for defence service homes be able to obtain one of these estate homes, which have been built in an aesthetic setting, with the benefit of town planning and architectural design, on land acquired on a bulk, raw acreage, basis and which hitherto have been made available without profit to the Crown, on advantageous terms to ex-servicemen. It is a deleterious and backward step that the provisions of the Defence Service Homes Bill should do away with that scheme, which has benefited many hundreds, if not thousands, of servicemen and ex-servicemen over the years. Why is it that a substantial stock of land, exceeding 1,200 hectares, which was built up so conscientiously by the Labor Government is now said to be worth only $6m? We have heard recently of land scandals. Sunbury and Melton are nasty words in parliamentary proceedings. I am glad to say that there has never been even a suggestion of that kind of thing in regard to defence service homes. Therefore, it is important that we be given a proper and effective answer to the question- to whom and in what way is this land to be sold, and is it a fact that although it is worth more like $S0m it is to net only some $6m? Its value in November 1 976 was put at $39.4m.

I regret that my time has almost run out. The Minister noted, in regard to section 27B, that no longer would he introduce differentiating waiting periods for loans. He has made that clear but, heaven knows, he ought not to. Since this Government came to office the waiting period has increased, because inadequate funds have been made available, from 11 months to 14 months. If, for the reasons stated, it is not his intention to give effect to section 27B, I would ask him to tidy up the legislation and withdraw that iniquitous provision, which creates discriminatory classifications as between applicants for defence service homes.

Many other clauses of the Bill demand ventilation, but I know that the House has to turn to other matters. I ask the Minister whether he would be good enough to answer the questions that I have raised. Perhaps at another time the Australian Labor Party will have an opportunity to restore the beneficial terms that enabled serving members of the Defence Force to enjoy the benefit of defence service homes, so that that provision, which encouraged recruitment and enticed into the services men of great calibre, can again become a feature of the defence service homes legislation.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Jarman)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · Fisher · NCP/NP

– We have only a moment left, so I will try to respond briefly to what was said by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson). First he said that the proposed amendments will not extend an additional benefit to any more people. Of course, they will not. I made that clear when I introduced them. They are designed to preserve a particular situation. Again, I would refer him to the Ministerial directive, issued in the Senate on 3 December 1974, which covered these particular classes of people. We are preserving that in the legislation. The Bill does not extend any additional benefit; nor does it take anything away, or make anything more difficult for the people whom we are talking about.

The honourable member made a comment about the sale of land. I will give him a more detailed response when I have had an opportunity to examine the matter but I can tell him at once that the $6m expected this year represents the sale of only part of those estates. Earlier I made clear to honourable members that, although we did not intend to activate section 27B, we would not withdraw it, and I gave our reasons for so doing. I thank honourable members for what I believe is their general support of this amendment. Certainly, I have not sensed any aggressive opposition to it from the other side.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) to comment specifically on the Government’s proposed amendment to clause 3, which would add to sub-section (2) of section 4 certain new sub-sections. I refer in particular to sub-section (2C), which reads, in part: (2c) Subject to sub-section (2d), an Australian soldier who, by reason of his misconduct or misbehaviour-

  1. was discharged from, or otherwise ceased to be a member of, the Naval, Military or Air Forces of Australia; and

And if I may add my own words- who, by reason of that process of being discharged becomes ineligible for the purposes of the Defence Services Homes Act. I take it that the intention of that provision is to ensure that a person who is discharged as a result of misconduct or misbehaviour will not enjoy the benefits of this scheme. If so, I would put it to the Minister that the contrary view has been proposed to successive Ministers, from both sides of the Parliament, in respect mainly of ex-servicemen rather than serving members, following cases in which servicemen have demonstrated gallantry in the field- in one case I believe recognition of that fact was givenhave subsequently, for other reasons, been discharged dishonourably from the forces and have, as a consequence, become ineligible for these benefits. My memory is somewhat vague on the matter but such a person might also have become ineligible for repatriation benefits. I ask the Minister whether more contemporary thinking ought not to be adopted on this matter. During the latter part of my term as Minister responsible for the legislation in question I had indeed, given thought to that aspect. Such cases had, in fact, been put before me. It just seemed to me that once a man established his eligibility by enlisting and serving in an overseas theatre his rights should not be taken away from him because of something that may have eventuated thereafter. Often a man has been discharged from the Services for offences which if committed by people in civilian life would not scar people permanently in their careers in the Public Service or in industry or commerce. They go to the courts and pay their penalty, and we do not pursue them relentlessly and deprive them of getting a decent living and having benefits and rights that other citizens should have. Why should a man who lands at Gallipoli or Balikpapan and serves his country voluntarily in an outstanding way and who, perhaps in a mood of celebration comes back and jobs his major, be ineligible for a defence service loan?

If I understand this amendment properly, there is to be some kind of tightening up, or at least there is not to be a loosening, of the arrangement that affects these people. Undoubtedly it has been the case that such a person has been deprived of eligibility under the defence service homes scheme. What is the criterion that guides the Minister and the Government in respect of this matter? Do they really believe that they can impose a set of circumstances that can take away rights which people can really think of in contractual terms when they enlist? I know that young men going into the permanent forces today look at the prospectus as it were. They say: What does a career in the Services offer me? After so many years, among other things, I can have a defence service home’. People might even take that view when they are enlisting to serve overseas in times of hostility. If they should then fall foul of somebody or commit a misdemeanour that seems to me to be a totally unjust reason to deprive them of a benefit which they have earned by virtue of two fundamental factorsfirstly, their enlistment, and secondly, the fact that their enlistment has taken them into a war theatre. I forget the proper terminology, but that is good enough to explain what I mean.

I put these matters to the Minister generally. I have had cases to this effect brought to my notice, and I know that other honourable members have also. I would like to see any impediment on such people removed and I would like the Minister, if not now, at some subsequent time to consider what I have put and maybe favour me with the benefit of his reply.

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · Fisher · NCP/NP

– What we are doing in this Bill is simply embodying into legislation the features of the ministerial direction referred to by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson). At this stage that is all that the second amendment is meant to do. Of course proposed new sub-section (2D) is relevant, but let me read the ministerial direction. It states:

  1. That assistance under the Act is not to be granted to a person dismissed from the Forces in circumstances where he was disqualified from payment of war gratuity under the War Gratuity Act or he would have been disqualified from payment of war gratuity had that Act applied to the period of service during which the misconduct was committed; provided that consideration may be given to the grant of assistance to an applicant dismissed from the Forces for desertion or absence without leave after his return to Australia, where, before the offence, the applicant gave reasonably good war service overseas. The current direction is based on a direction given on 17 October 1946 . . .

Certainly I will take notice of what the honourable member for Hughes has said, but all we are doing at this stage in the amendments is embodying the ministerial directions in the legislation.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

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

Third Reading

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

page 1464

LEGISLATION COMMITTEES

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The Government Whip has advised that Mr McLean, Mr Ian Robinson and Mr Shack have been discharged from the Legislation Committee considering the Patents Amendment Bill, and that Mr Chapman, Mr Dean and Mr Fisher have been nominated in their places.

The Government Whip has advised that Mr McLean, Mr Ian Robinson and Mr Shack have been discharged from the Legislation Committee considering the Trade Marks Amendment Bill, and that Mr Chapman, Mr Dean and Mr Fisher have been nominated in their places.

page 1464

COMMISSION TO ADMINISTER OATH

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-I have received from His Excellency the Governor-General a commission authorising me during any absence of the Speaker to administer to members the oath or affirmation of allegiance. I now lay the commission on the table.

page 1464

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-I present the third report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber.

Report- by leave- adopted.

page 1464

SITTING OF THE HOUSE

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The sitting will now be suspended until 10.15 p.m. or such earlier time as the bells are rung. The suspension will allow Legislation Committees to meet at 8 p.m. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill will be considered in House committee room No. 2; the Trade Marks Amendment Bill and the Patents Amendment BDI will be considered in House committee room No. 1.

Sitting suspended from 6.2 to 10 p.m.

page 1464

GREAT BARRIER REEF MAKINE PARK AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill reported from Legislation Committee without amendment.

Ordered that consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 1464

TRADE MARKS AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill reported from Legislation Committee without amendment.

Ordered that consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 1464

PATENTS AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill reported from Legislation Committee without amendment.

Ordered that consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 1465

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1978-79

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 26 September.

Schedule 2.

Department of Foreign Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $525,985,000.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-Last evening, before the debate on the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs was adjourned, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) replied basically to matters raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett). The Minister seemed rather touchy and uncharitable in his remarks on the matter of aid, including the amount of aid to be provided, the method of distributing it and the countries to which it should be distributed. Surely they are issues which are relevant to the attitudes that we in this chamber should adopt in relation to the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Tonight, I would like to deal with a few other matters connected with foreign affairs. Having only recently been a member of the Australian delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in Bonn, I feel rather depressed about the state of the world, as I did when I came back from attending meetings at the United Nations five years ago. It is only when one meets with people who basically ought to share one ‘s concerns and one’s attitudes especially representatives at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, where the pretence at least is that these people are parliamentarians and people who have a basically democratic attitude or when one participates in the debate and listens to the debate at such conferences that one realises that we share very little with a large number of participants at such world meetings.

I think that the simplistic way of looking at the world today is that the world is divided into two camps the right and the left. In olden days I think the Soviet Union used to have a slogan to the effect that the world was divided into two camps: On the one hand there were imperialist powers and, on the other hand, there were peace-loving countries led by the Soviet Union. This was obvious propaganda. Many people still believe whichever side they identify with that the world is divided into these two camps. Broadly speaking, they are the so-called right and the socalled left. My own view is that there is no basic difference between countries such as Chile and Cuba. The parties running those countries adopt fictitious and high sounding names such as democrats and socialists. Of course, they are neither. But it does not matter whether they claim to be members of one side or the other. There is no difference basically between Qaddafi’s Libya and Franco’s Spain apart from the religion. Both are or were religious military dictatorships. People may prefer one or the other religion or may disapprove of both of them. Hopefully all of us in this Parliament object to religious military dictatorships.

Two or three years ago many more members in this House would have disagreed with me, but now they can see the brutal wars that are going on at present between selfproclaimed socialist led countries such as Ethiopia and Somalia or Kampuchea and Vietnam. This shocks many people on our side of politics. The conservative side of politics is similarly shocked by the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China supporting Zaire, Somalia and Eritrea. We have to remember that few countries outside of Western Europe are democratic countries in our sense of the word. Only one country in South America Venezuela has a democratic form of government. Similarly in Africa, from the evidence that is available to us, only Gambia and possibly Botswana have what we would call a democratic form of government. Most of the other countries are either one party or military dictatorships. It does not matter what they call themselves. It is extremely unpleasant that this is happening; nonetheless it is happening.

One of the most unpleasant things that has happened in our area of the world since the end of the Vietnam war is the struggle which, to some extent, has actually ended in warfare between Vietnam and Kampuchea which was formerly known as Cambodia. The honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) when he was speaking in this debate last night referred to this matter. It is hard to believe that two countries which up until about three years ago were being bombed and devastated by outsiders by complete outsiders as far as Indo-China was concerned are now bombing and devastating one another.

Until fairly recently many of us tended to worry about the so-called domino effect of what was happening in Indo-China and feared that authoritarian and communist regimes would take over in Vietnam and spread down to Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. That obviously will not happen in that sense. There is no more obvious way to prevent people in those other countries who may have been sympathetic to communism from embracing communism or from devoting themselves to overthrowing the governments in those countries than for them to see what is happening at present in Vietnam and in Indo-China in general. There is no more obvious condemnation of the regimes in power there than the refugees who are arriving in this country and the many more who are arriving in Thailand, Malaysia, et cetera. I have here an article by William Shawcross which was published in the New York Review of Books of 6 April 1978 and is called ‘The Third Indochina War’. William Shawcross is a British correspondent who was very sympathetic to Vietnam during the Vietnamese war against the United States and her allies. In the article he discusses what is happening now in Indo-China. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the first part of the article.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

THE THIRD INDOCHINA WAR

William Shawcross

Two years ago I suggested that it was possible to see Cambodia only through the prism of propaganda.1 Since then the volume of the propaganda has swelled. But so has the body of evidence on which it is based. Consider the following letter published in the Vietnamese paper Nhan Dan and broadcast on Hanoi radio. It describes a midnight Khmer Rouge attack on a Vietnamese village last October, soon after the war between the two former allies began.

All of the houses were surrounded by Cambodian soldiers who immediately opened fire and used machetes, axes, sabers and sharpened sticks to slay the villagers … A fleeing child was caught by a soldier who cut off his leg and threw him into the flames. All seven members of Mrs Truong Thi Rot’s family were beheaded. Rot was disemboweled and had a seven-month fetus placed on her chest.

All the eight members of Nguyen Van Tarn’s family were beheaded and the heads were put on a table for amusement. All eight persons in Nguyen Thi Nganh’s house were disemboweled, the intestines [piled] in one shocking heap. Mr Quang’s wife was also disemboweled. The killers took out her five-month fetus, then cut off her breast and chopped her body in three parts. Her two-year old boy . . . was torn in two and dumped into a well.2

And so on. Such an account is fairly characteristic of the way in which totalitarian governments speak of their enemies in wartime and it might easily be dismissed as mere hyperbole. If it seems more credible than other propaganda this is because it matches refugee accounts of Khmer Rouge behaviour in Cambodia itself and the way in which the Khmer Rouge soldiers are known to have performed in the border villages where they have been fighting the Thais. With a few exceptions the stories which have emerged from Cambodia in the past two years have confirmed the impression, given by the early refugees, of a vast and somber work camp where toil is unending, rewards are nonexistent, families are separated, and murder is a constantly used tool of social discipline. Well before Hanoi published similar assessments. Democratic Kampuchea seemed to many in the West a uniquely atrocious experiment in human engineering conducted, in Hanoi ‘s words, by ‘infantile communists ‘ who pursued ‘a consistent policy of national hatred’ and were deliberately turning young Kampucheans into medieval butchers’ to indulge in ‘savage repressions’ and ‘bloody massacres’.

The New York Review of Books, March 4, 1976. 3Hanoi radio in English, January 12, 1978. All quotations in this article from radio broadcasts and from the Vietnam News Agency are from the BBC’s ‘Summary of World Broadcasts.’

Dr KLUGMAN:

– Very little time remains to me to speak tonight. It may appear that I am attacking only countries which describe themselves as leftist countries, but I cannot use my last minute without referring to my recent visit to East Berlin, when I travelled across from Bonn. I spent only two days in East Berlin and I would not consider myself an expert on East Germany. But anybody who could have any sympathy with what is going on in East Germany must surely be shocked by what happens when a person crosses by train from East Germany into West Berlin. The trains are searched. Alsatian dogs have their muzzles removed and are put under the trains to make sure that no citizens of East Germany leave East Germany for West Berlin. Surely this is complete proof of what is going on. It does not matter what other arguments there are about the benefits of one kind of regime or another. If people have to use alsatian dogs to prevent people from leaving a particular country, that country must be far from perfect.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drummond) -Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

-In speaking to the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs I would like, first of all, to refer to the Association of South East Asian Nations and Australia. The development of friendly and substantive relations with the countries of ASEAN both individually and collectively, has been a principal foreign policy aim of successive Australian governments which have endorsed ASEAN ‘s principal objectives of economic development, political stability and a region free of great power rivalry and domination. Formal links between ASEAN and Australia were established in 1974 when the ASEAN-Australia economic co-operation program was adopted. Several regional projects have been developed through this program. Since 1974, $A15 million has been committed to the program. The development of trade between Australia and the ASEAN countries has become an important issue in relations. This reflects the high priority ASEAN leaders have placed on economic development.

In their post-summit talks with the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in August 1977 in Kuala Lumpur, the ASEAN heads of government expressed their strong wish to increase their share of trade with Australia. During 1977, a number of important initiatives were announced to help develop further economic links with the ASEAN countries. At the post-summit talks the Prime Minister, to encourage Australian business involvement in the region, announced that Australia would host an industrial co-operation conference. This conference took place in Melbourne from 19 to 21 June and brought together ASEAN and Australian Ministers, businessmen and senior officials. They discussed investment and the transfer of technology to the ASEAN region. At Kuala Lumpur, the Prime Minister also indicated that Australia would sponsor, on a regular basis, an ASEAN trade fair in Australia. The purpose of the ASEAN trade fair would be to promote a greater ASEAN share of the imports that come into Australia. The first ASEAN trade fair will take place in Sydney from 23 to 28 October.

Further to and in part flowing out of the discussions in Kuala Lumpur on trade matters, the Australian Government decided to take steps to alleviate rigidities associated with the existing method of allocating quotas. Accordingly it reserved 15 per cent of the supplementary textile, clothing and footwear quotas for cases involving anomalies. ASEAN countries have benefited from this. The ASEAN heads of Government and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) also agreed that there should be an improvement in consultative mechanism, ‘to promote a cooperative and constructive approach to the development of mutual trade relations’. Australia has proposed that regular meetings between the ASEAN heads of mission in Canberra and the interdepartmental committee on relations with ASEAN take place to discuss trade and other problems before they become difficult or acute. These proposals have been accepted by ASEAN and the terms of reference -

Mr Lloyd:

- Mr Chairman, I am finding it hard to hear the speaker.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– So am I.

Mr Young:

– We all are.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drummond) -Order! There is too much audible conversation in the chamber. I call the honourable member for Maranoa.

Mr CORBETT:

-That is the standard of intelligence of honourable members opposite. That is the trouble. These proposals have been accepted by ASEAN and the terms of reference agreed to by ASEAN for the Australia /ASEAN consultative meetings are currently with Australian Ministers for formal acceptance. Mind you, Mr

Deputy Chairman, the last speaker was heard in silence. At Kuala Lumpur it was also announced that Australia would meet the cost of an ASEAN- Australia joint research project.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– In view of the fact that a prominent member of the National Country Party is speaking I draw attention to the state of the chamber. There are not too many members of the Government here who are prepared to listen to him.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN -The honourable member for Burke can draw attention to the state of the chamber, but there is no need for him to make a speech about it. The honourable member knows that very well. (Quorum formed).

Mr CORBETT:

-Before attention was drawn to the state of the chamber I was speaking about the terms of reference agreed to by ASEAN for these Australian-ASEAN consultative meetings. They are currently with Australian Ministers for formal acceptance. At Kuala Lumpur it was also announced that Australia would meet the cost of an ASEAN-Australia joint research project, the aim of which would be to establish a sound basis of knowledge from which a long-term economic relationship between ASEAN and Australia could be developed. A working group from Australia visited the ASEAN countries to discuss ways in which to implement and organise the research project. Currently, priority is being given to implementation of the arrangements announced during 1977. Progress is carefully monitored by the interdepartmental committee on ASEAN and the major issues in the relationship are reviewed by the ASEAN-Australia Forum. The Forum which comprises senior ASEAN and Australian officials will next meet later this year.

I now turn to multi-lateral diplomacy. I would like to talk about the growing importance to us of multi-lateral diplomacy. These days the international conference calendar is lengthy. The need for so many conferences may be questioned. The reality is that decisions important to Australia’s future well-being are being made in a wide range of on-going multi-lateral negotiations. There are crucial issues such as nuclear safeguards, the law of the sea and Antarctica to be dealt with.

I believe it is important that we should not lose sight of the less dramatic work carried out daily by our posts overseas. Relations between governments remain the basis of the diplomatic system. Foreign policy decisions, while they reflect our domestic priorities, must also take account of overseas trends and developments. Our assessment of these trends depends upon the patient and painstaking gathering and analysis of information carried out by posts and the establishment of contacts with foreign leaders and officials. This is not something we can neglect or expect others to do for us. I am confident that none of us in this House would doubt the need to maintain an effective and competent foreign service.

The inescapable fact of international life today is that, in making decisions about our foreign relations, we must look more and more to a much wider range of factors. Only through active and energetic involvement in many aspects of the diplomatic scene can we hope to protect and advance our interests. I emphasise the breadth of the Government’s involvement because it has a substantial impact on the Department’s overseas service. We provide representation to international organisations and members of delegations for meetings and negotiating conferences. As travel funds are not limitless this representation is being drawn increasingly from staff at posts, which also provide administrative support for delegations. Under the Prime Minister’s directive on the co-ordination of Australian diplomatic and consular arrangements the Department of Foreign Affairs provides common services at posts for attached officers from government departments. Despite restricted resources endeavours are made to ensure that these common services arrangements have not suffered. More generally, in fact, common services have proved to be more efficient and less costly to the Government. I should now like to refer to the world food program and the bilateral -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drummond) -Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-I commence my remarks by paying a compliment to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) for the manner in which he has conducted his duties. I believe that all Australians, irrespective of their politics, recognise that in this Minister we have a Minister whose standing and ability has been recognised throughout the world. I am very pleased, in the very short time available to me this evening, to pay that tribute to our Minister because I believe he is a Minister of whom all Australians can be proud.

On 29 May this year I directed a number of questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs with reference to the trial of Dr Yuri Orlov. I asked the Minister whether he had received a report of the trial in Moscow last week of Dr Yuri Orlov. I asked him whether he was able to say whether Dr Orlov was denied his basic right to defend himself and was harassed and publicly accused in court and whether the Western Press was excluded from these proceedings. I further asked the Minister whether the Government would exert the utmost pressure to secure the immediate release of Dr Orlov from prison. If he had received a report on the trial, I asked him whether it indicated that the trial accorded with the Soviet Union’s claim to be taking human rights more seriously in accordance with its minimal Helsinki Pact obligations.

In the absence of the Minister overseas, the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair), replied to my question. He indicated that a report of the trial of Dr Orlov had been received. He went on to say:

Dr Orlov refused to enter a plea to charges made against him after the judge prevented him from making a statement about his activities. According to Mrs Orlov, who attended the trial, together with her two stepsons, special ‘public representatives’ applauded and cheered as the judge passed sentence. The Western press was barred from the proceedings.

The Acting Minister went on to say:

As the Minister -

That is, Mr Peacock- . . clearly affirmed in his press statement on 19 May, the Government is deeply concerned at the trial and harsh sentence imposed on Dr Orlov. Consistent with the Government ‘s commitment to promote respect for human rights as set out in international instruments such as the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement and the UN Convenants on Human Rights, the Minister has in the past expressed the Government’s concern to the Soviet authorities about questions of human rights and will continue to do so.

Mr Sinclair continued:

I believe that the Minister’s statement as well as the publicly expressed concern of the Australian people at the treatment of Dr Orlov will demonstrate to the Soviet authorities the strength of our commitment to basic human rights.

The treatment of Dr Yuri Orlov, the treatment of Scharanski, the treatment of Ginsberg and the treatment of Petkus must make it clear not only to this House but also to the people of Australia that Russia is not entitled nor is Moscow an honourable place in which to hold the 1980 Olympic Games. I believe that if there are any people in this community who are prepared to stand up and be counted on the issue of human rights, they should now be prepared to stand up and be counted on the basic and fundamental question whether or not Moscow is entitled to hold the 1980 Olympic Games.

I take considerable support from honourable members such as the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon) and others in this Parliament who for a long time have been concerned about the question of human rights in the Soviet Union. I believe that if the 1980 Olympic Games are held in Soviet Russia the world will be repeating the mistake it made in 1936 when it permitted Nazi Germany to hold the Olympic Games in Berlin. I am absolutely convinced that those who say it is something on which we cannot make a stand, that those who say that we should not bring politics into sport, and that those who can come up with 10 1 reasons why we should not put ourselves out, should think again because no less a person- I should say no less a hero- than Dr A. K. Sakharov, in his book My Country and the World, made a statement which I believe should be the clarion call to those in the free countries of the West who believe in individual human rights. He said that ‘the West must not under any circumstances allow the weakening of its stand against totalitarianism’.

Must we first think of such eminent people as those who have been prepared to take a stand against totalitarianism behind the iron curtain, of the celebrated author of the Gulag Archipelago, of Petkus as he was taken away saying: ‘the West shall not forget me’, before we are prepared to stand up and be counted on this vital question? It is a matter which clearly crosses party lines. I have in my possession correspondence from the United Kingdom where an all-party parliamentary committee has been set up with the simple prime objective of taking the Olympic Games away from Moscow in 1980. That organisation has come to the conclusion that the only way that Russia is likely to respond to the pressure of world opinion is by something effective being done and that, in fact, means the removal of the 1 980 Olympic Games from Moscow.

Unfortunately, people behind the Iron Curtain will not have the opportunity to hear or read my speech or to read the speeches of members of Parliament in the United Kingdom or the United States Senate, but the campaign to remove the 1980 Olympic Games from Moscow is well and truly under way. There have been representations on this subject from the House of Commons, from the House of Lords, from the United States Congress and from the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. Senator Alan Missen has been elected by an international organisation as our Australian representative on that campaign committee. These are not matters for which we have a little support, and I draw the attention of the Parliament to the fact that over 35 members of the United States Senate have recently expressed the view that Moscow has disqualified itself from the 1980 Olympics. I draw attention to the fact that this week the parliamentary committee inquiring into the question of human rights behind the Iron Curtain will be taking evidence from a man who until six months ago was a prisoner behind the Iron Curtain. I draw attention also to the fact that Amnesty International has become involved in this matter and that in the United Kingdom the President of the Society against the Persecution of Soviet Jewry has said that we are seeing now exactly what happened in 1936. The cause, therefore, needs little arguing; its merit is self-evident.

Debate interrupted.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drummond) -Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I shall report progress.

Progress reported.

page 1469

ADJOURNMENT

Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament- Legislation Committees-Parliament House : Fire Protection- Victorian Football League Grand Final -Radio Station 3CR, Melbourne

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The point that I want to take up in the House tonight is the matter that was raised by the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) with the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) this afternoon. The questions that were directed at the Prime Minister by the honourable member for Chifley, it seems to me as just a humble, ordinary member of this Parliament representing some 69,000 Australian people -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! If I had been in the chair this afternoon frankly I would have ruled the honourable member out of order. I take the view that there was an imputation against a member of this House contained in the question asked. I thought I had better explain that because I would take the same attitude to the honourable member tonight.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-With the greatest respect to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the question was allowed. It seems to me that what you have just said is a great reflection on the Acting Speaker of the House, the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) because the question was allowed and answered. I take your point Mr Deputy Speaker. The point I am putting to you and to the whole House is that the question was asked and an answer was given. You may quote your Standing Orders as hard as you like but as a representative of 69,000 Australian people I am still going to have my say and I am not yet out of order. The question was asked as to whether the Prime Minister in fact had a family trust that enabled him to avoid taxation. Sir, a long rambling answer was given.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind the honourable member of Standing Order 76. It is not the job of the Chair to quote Standing Orders.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-If you are going to rule me out of order, it is.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Standing Order 76 says:

All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly.

Not disorderly, but highly disorderly.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-May I defend myself in this position? All that I have done so far in the short time that is available to me- you sir, seem to be intent on using up that time in irrelevancies- is to quote -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will not continue his speech if he reflects on the Chair.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I am not reflecting on you sir; I am saying that you are endeavouring to use up the time that is available to me; and it is only five minutes. All that I have done so far is to report to this House, to use statements of fact. If you are going to use the Standing Orders against me because I am using statements of fact it seems to me that the 38 members of the Australian Labor Party who sit in this House are wasting their time coming here if they are going to be stood -

Mr Baillieu:

– Hear, hear!

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Somebody on the Government side says: ‘Hear, hear’. That is a reflection on what you are now about. I have made the point that the honourable member for Chifley asked certain questions of the Prime Minister this afternoon endeavouring to get information from him about certain family trusts that the Prime Minister is alleged to have. It is also alleged that these trusts are set up for the purpose of avoiding paying income tax which I, sir, cannot avoid.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member now in my opinion is getting out of order. I wonder if he would return to his speech.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I would like you to tell me how I am out of order. I have made no imputations against anybody. I have only repeated for the sake of this House -

Mr Young:

– The Prime Minister admitted it.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-As my honourable friend from Port Adelaide said, the Prime Minister admitted that he does have family trusts. The point I am trying to make is that the allegation was made and the Prime Minister then conceded that he did in fact have family trusts. But he did not admit that the family trusts were set up to avoid paying taxation. The point that I am raising tonight is that the Prime Minister in my view was not entirely honest with this House of Representatives.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is out of order for a second reason now. No honourable member may imply that another honourable member is guilty of dishonesty.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-A11 right; do not waste my time, sir. I will concede that point. The point that I am trying to come to- I am being side-tracked on this whole matter- is that the Prime Minister did not answer the question that was asked of him this afternoon. He did not tell us- I think we are entitled to know; we, the members of this House, and the people outside it, those who either hear the debate or read the Hansard are entitled to know- the reasons for which his family trusts were set up. Are they to avoid the payment of income tax?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-That is where the honourable member is out of order.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Surely, sir, if we cannot -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Now you have run me out of time. Look at the clock. I have 30 seconds to go and you stand up and sit me down.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member need not blame me. If the honourable member wishes to impute any dishonesty or any impure motives to another member of this House he must produce a substantive motion.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I am not imputing anything. All I am doing is endeavouring to get an answer to a question that was asked this afternoon; and, as a consequence, I have been sat down, I have been interrupted and I have been disturbed. I am simply trying to elaborate on the question that the honourable member for Chifley asked this afternoon.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– And I still do not have an answer.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I will take the same attitude with anyone who makes imputations against the honourable member for Adelaide or anybody else in this House. If there is any difference in interpretation as between one occupant of the Chair and another, you will have to pick your occupant of the chair.

Mr CARLTON:
Mackellar

– I thought it would be appropriate if I mentioned that tonight I had the privilege of serving on one of the first two legislation committees. I thought it would be worth mentioning in the House at the earliest opportunity that it was a most worthwhile experience and that the kind of debate and discussion which is possible on a measure in such committees is the kind that perhaps we could see more of in the Committee of” the Whole House. It was possible for members of the Parliament to sit around a table without regard to party affiliation- the parties did not sit on opposite sides of the table- and it was possible during the discussion on the Bill to question the Minister in some detail. It was also possible for members of the Committee who had a particular expertise to add their explanations to what the Minister had to say.

It was even possible- I give this as an example of the much more civilised attitude that prevailed within the committee- for a member of one party to indicate, in the kindest possible way, to a member of another party that that member was actually looking at the wrong document, and nobody took advantage of that situation. That is the kind of behaviour- a civilised consideration of a measure- that I, as a relatively new member of this House, would like to see more of in this chamber. I felt that I should make that comment immediately following the first meeting of such a committee. I pay great tribute to the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins), who chaired the committee which I attended, for his excellent chairmanship. I also pay tribute to the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde), who did so much in the development of the idea of the legislation committees.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-I want to raise a matter which is of some concern to this House and which should be of concern to the members of it. There has been a lot of talk about

Parliament House- about security and other matters- in recent weeks. I want to draw attention to a matter which might have far greater consequences for the thousand-odd people who work in this building when the House is sitting. I refer to the ability to protect this building against fire. Two years ago during Estimates debates I indicated that the Press Gallery in this place is most likely the greatest fire trap in Australia. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to raise this matter with the Presiding Officers because I believe that the House is entitled to information about this, as are the people who work in this building.

It has been brought to my attention that a report by the Fire Commissioner in Canberra indicated that this building could be brought to what would be regarded as a satisfactory level of fire protection only by razing it to the ground and rebuilding it. I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that such a report does exist. I want to know whether the Joint House Department has taken that report into consideration; if so, what action has been taken upon it; and whether it has been drawn to the attention of the Presiding Officers of this Parliament. Fire is something which no one ever expects to happen. It is something for which this House ought to be prepared. If the fears which are being spread about the building about security ever come to fruition the extent to which it is possible to contain the fire, evacuate the people and control this building under conditions of fire would become of paramount importance in saving lives.

If this report exists- I am assured it does- I think that people in this Parliament are entitled to know that this is so. If the report is couched in the terms I have indicated- namely, that this building just cannot be brought to modern fire protection standards because of the manner in which extensions have been made to it, the nature of its structure and the complete lack of any rational communications or accesses within the building- I think that someone ought to say something about it and try to undertake the necessary corrective actions if possible. If, as I understand it is so, the only way that this is possible is to bulldoze the building to the ground, we at least ought to be told and the people who work in the place ought to be paid danger money.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-I will certainly pass on the honourable member’s comments to the Speaker on his return.

Mr SIMON:
McMillan

– I was rather aggrieved that the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) was not able to complete his speech in the limited time available to him in this debate tonight. I think that what he was going to go on to say if he had had sufficient time was that next Saturday in Melbourne one of the greatest events in Australian sport will take place at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. I refer to the grand final between North Melbourne and Hawthorn. Tonight I would like to pay tribute to the twenty or so sportsmen on each side who will run out on to that ground to the applause of 100.000 spectators and goodness knows how many millions of people who will be watching it on television in the typical Australian style, with a cigarette hanging out of their mouths and a glass of beer in their hands. I want to pay particular tribute to one team, namely, the Hawthorn football club, and to all its players. I would like to record in particular the names of 10 members.

I ask honourable members to listen to the names because they are so significant. I will divulge the reason. One player is Mr Peter Knights, who came from the Longwarry football club before he went to Hawthorn. Geoff Ablett came from the Drouin football club, as did Kevin Ablett. Mr Peter Russo came from the Pakenham football club. Mr Alan Goad came from Korumburra, which now happens to be in the electorate of the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon). Mr Peter Benmeth came from the Pakenham football club. Leon Rice came from Moe. Len Patch came from Yarragon, Barry Rowlings came from Moe and Peter Welsh came from Longwarry. The honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr N. A. Brown), who is a great follower of the sport of Australian rules football, is anxious to know from where those 10 players came. Of course, they came from the electorate of McMillan. Those players will take on anybody who is nominated by any member of this place. Even people from Perth recognise the significance of the electorate of McMillan when it comes to raising and breeding football players.

One could go on. If the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) were in the House I would have mentioned the name of Ray Card, who came from the Morwell area and played with Geelong. I am sure that there are honourable members on the other side of the House who are interested in this. Maybe even the honourable member for Burke would recognise the Footscray players, Terry Wheeler and Gary Wheeler. I will not take up the time of the House further. I wish both North Melbourne and Hawthorn every success. They will give a lot of pleasure to many people next Saturday. In particular, I am sure that the Hawthorn football club will be triumphant.

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

– Today, I received a publication from the Victorian Jewish Board of Deputies concerning broadcasts on radio station 3CR in Melbourne. This publication is a catalogue of short transcripts of extracts of broadcasts made on 3CR Melbourne over the last two years or so. The broadcasts must be taken to be extremely offensive not only to Jewish citizens but also to the whole cross section of Australian society. I had believed, before reading this publication that the station from which the broadcasts emanated, 3CR, devoted itself mainly to little more than extreme left wing rubbish and bad quality broadcasting. Having read the publication, I say that it seems that the situation is far worse than that. The Jewish Board of Deputies, in preparing this publication, should be commended for exposing a whole series of broadcasts of hate that have emanated from this station. The broadcasts are offensive and certainly should be regarded as being open incitement to racial hatred.

Let me draw attention to some of the broadcasts to illustrate what I mean by what I have just said. We find first of all a whole series of broadcasts designed to prove, in the words of one of the broadcasters, ‘the inherently fascist nature of Zionism’. The broadcaster went on to say:

  1. . we’re going to have a look historically at the close collaboration of the Zionist organisations with the Nazis during the Second World War.

What an outrageous statement that is. A series of extracts fall into a second category. I refer to the extraordinary allegation that- again I use the words of one of the broadcasters: the Australian Press as you may be aware is very much controlled by Zionist influence and Zionist infiltration’.

Many other extracts are designed to show that the media, including the Press, in Australia is under Zionist influence. Again, one can say what an outrageous and absurd allegation that is.

The vituperation and hatred which emanate from these broadcasts is not confined to the Jewish people. The station seems concerned also to attack Lebanese citizens and Lebanese who have migrated to Australia. The transcript reads:

The Australian Lebanese Association, which organised the demonstration, no way represents the majority of the Lebanese community. This Association is a front for Fascist and Right-wing forces who serve only the interests of the rich and powerful- four per cent of the Lebanese population.

This is nothing more than an attempt to incite racial hatred within the Lebanese section of the Australian community. There are extracts of speeches which are extremely offensive to individuals. I wish that I had time to list them in detail but let me give one example- a reference to Mr Dayan. The broadcaster said:

In reality Dayan is no more than a racist butcher of the Palestinian people . . . The Australian government supported the establishment of the illegal fascist State of Israel.

Many other people, including Mr Hawke of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, are defamed in these broadcasts in a similar way. One could go on, but I make the general remark that the extracts indicate that a fair proportion of the time of this radio station is devoted to broadcasts of hatred. They are broadcasts designed to inspire racial hatred in the Australian community. I hope that the Australian Government will investigate this radio station with a view to two matters in particular. In the first place, is any money from the Australian Government going to support these broadcasts of hate and this incitement to racial violence? Secondly, quite apart from the finances of the station, surely the Australian community can do without incitement to racial hatred of this nature. It is completely un-Australian and should be eradicated.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr NEIL:
St George

– I have sent notice to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) that I will be asking him to carry out his undertaking of 20 September to disclose the tax return of the Bowen family trust. I make it clear that, of course, family trusts ordinarily are quite proper. However, if one looks at Hansard one will see that on that night I said: Where is the tax return of the Bowen family trust? That is what we want to know ‘.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I have no intention of letting the honourable member continue in any way that imputes bad character, dishonesty or anything else against another member of this House.

Mr NEIL:

– There is no imputation at all.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member is getting very close. If he gets any closer I will ask him to resume his seat.

Mr NEIL:

– When I asked about the tax return the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that he was prepared to disclose that tax return. Today the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) invited him to disclose that tax return. The words used by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on 20 September were: ‘I am prepared to disclose that tax return’. That is the tax return of the Bowen family trust. I am simply asking whether the

Deputy Leader of the Opposition intends to disclose that tax return as he said in the House he would do. That is the simple issue. The reason it is important is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition told the House on two occasions that the asset in relation to the trust for his children was a real estate property that his children had either helped to build or that they had owned for six or seven years. He said that the asset concerned was a residential property. What I want to know is whether the asset is the same as that which he said he had an equity in when he gave an interview to Mr Oakes. Mr Oakes described a real estate project through the family trust, including a shopping centre at Mount Gravatt, in which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said he had an equity. Is that the same asset which he said in the House, was the piece of residential real estate which was the trust property of his children? One can readily see that the only way to settle that point is for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to do as he said he would and as the Prime Minister invited him to do and disclose the tax return of the Bowen family trust. The importance of the matter is this: Only by doing what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said he would do, namely disclosing the Bowen family trust, can two issues be settled. One is the issue I have just mentioned. The other is whether the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was being candid with the House when he said that he would disclose -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member asks whether the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was being candid. I take that as an imputation against the character of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I will not allow the honourable member to say that.

Mr NEIL:

– Well, you have disallowed it, Mr Deputy Speaker. All I want to know is this: In accordance with the statement of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on 20 September 1978 that he would disclose the tax return of the family trust -

Mr Keating:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. What about the honourable member for St George telling his constituents about the money he earns at the Bar -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the honourable member for Blaxland wish to take a point of order?

Mr Keating:

– Yes. He is a little grafter -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr NEIL:

-I point out to the honourable member that the matters he referred to are all matters of public record. Every single one of those matters is a matter of public record. What has the Opposition got to hide? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that he would disclose the tax return at the time the family trust situation was raised. When is he going to disclose it?

Mr Keating:

– You are a little grafter. You know you are.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Blaxland will not behave in this manner. I warn him.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– This is the second time that the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) has raised this matter. I had to come into the House on the last occasion that he raised it because he falsely accused me of diminishing my income. That was no so. I had disclosed my income tax return. He was named for his conduct on that occasion.

Mr Neil:

Mr Neil interjecting-

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I would be grateful if he would listen to me in silence. I asked him about disclosing his income tax return. I notice that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) also seems to be interested in my income tax return and I know that he mentioned it again today. I did make a submission to the Bowen commission on pecuniary interests. That commission was set up because a Minister of the present Government allegedly had organised a rapid profit by way of a family trust which diminished his income tax. The Prime Minister set up that commission. I gave evidence in open to that commission to the effect that I thought all members should disclose their income tax returns. I am disappointed to learn that the Prime Minister gave evidence in camera- that is, in secret- as to what he thought should be the situation. It is pretty clear that the Prime Minister’s view is that honourable members should not disclose their income tax returns because he has no intention of disclosing his. That is his privilege. I infer from what he said today and from what he has said on other days that that is the position.

The fact that he gave his evidence in camera creates the impression that he does not want what he has said about the situation to be on record. My evidence went on the record and I disclosed my income tax return. I am the only member to have done so. Ever since I did so I have been the subject of questions in this House as to whether I should not have done more. I say to the honourable member for St George: If he wants to have a look at the assets of my four children who are concerned he can come to my home at 10 o’clock on Friday. He can bring the Prime Minister with him. He can meet the four children and have a look at their bank books and income tax returns. That is about the level of conduct in this matter of the Prime Minister and the honourable member for St George. It is significant that this is the national Parliament, and the Prime Minister and the honourable member for St George are so worried about my four infant children that they are determined to flush out what their incomes are. How low can one get in a national Parliament? Are they so worried about their own integrity that they are also worried about my four infant children? I invite the honourable member for St George to come to my home at 10 a.m. on Friday and to bring the television cameras and the Prime Minister with him. Let us put the honourable member on camera right across the nation for what he really is. He has no interest in me. He would love to destroy my children. My income tax return has been disclosed. I think this is a pretty shabby trick.

I do not blame the honourable member for St George. He is the lackey of the Prime Minister in this matter. Again today in Question Time he referred to me. The Prime Minister could well eradicate all the suggestions that have been made about him by disclosing his income tax return. He does not want to do it. I have not asked him to do it and I never will. That is his privilege. But I think it is a pretty weak effort that because I did so my children are to be the subject of discussion in every adjournment debate and every Question Time. I ask the honourable member for St George to come to my home at 10 a.m. on Friday with the Prime Minister. He can have a look at my children’s bank books and he can see what money they have. He can have a look at their tax returns. The honourable member for St George, for the sake of his own character and integrity, should ask himself what he is achieving in this matter.

Mr Neil:

– What about the family trusts?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The honourable member is welcome to have a look at the papers at 10 o’clock on Friday at my home. He will be there, and he will bring the Prime Minister with him. I am happy to say that I think they are making a rather weak effort; but, in all honesty, I would welcome it if the Prime Minister brought his tax return with him.

page 1475

NOTICES

The following notices were given:

Mr Hunt to present a Bill for an Act to amend the National Health Act 1953, and for other purposes.

Mr Hunt to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Social Services Act 1947.

Mr Adermann to present a Bill for an Act relating to Repatriation and related matters.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 1476

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Crude Oil Supplies (Question No. 849)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 6 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that if present local consumption and production rates continue at current levels Australia will be relying on oil imports to meet twothirds of it oil needs by the mid-1980s.
  2. If so, what immediate measures is the Government proposing to take to avoid such a disastrous situation.
Mr Newman:
Minister for National Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) Current projections are that Australia will meet about 45 per cent of its crude oil needs from indigenous resources in 1985. Projections of self sufficiency in crude oil beyond the mid 1980s require many assumptions and can only be regarded as highly speculative at this stage. (2)I draw the honourable member’s attention to my press statement of 15 August 1978 entitled ‘The Implementation of the Government’s Energy Policies’.

Research by Australian Atomic Energy Commission (Question No. 1250)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 25 May 1978:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Australian of 4 May 1978 that the Secretary of his Department said, in reference to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, that it is not just a question of taking the word Atomic’ out, but of whether the Commission should be involved in other areas of research and that the answer should be in the affirmative.
  2. Has the Commission ever sought ministerial approval to undertake research in matters not associated with atomic energy or uranium.
  3. Has ministerial approval ever been granted to the Commission to undertake research in matters not associated with uranium or atomic energy, either on his initiative or at the request of the Commission.
  4. If so, what research matters were involved.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. , (3) and (4) See answer to Question No 595 (Hansard, page 2575).

Maternity Leave (Question No. 1265)

Mr Shipton:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 26 May 1978:

  1. What has been the cost of maternity leave in his Department during the years (a) 1976 and (b) 1977, 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 was paid for maternity leave for the (a) first, (b) second and (c) third child in each of the periods.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Cost of maternity leave: 1976- $ 15,352. 18 (this excludes the costs for staff who comprised sections of the Department transferred to form the Department of Productivity in November 1976).

1977- $20,175.60.

1 978- $9, 1 8 1 . 23 ( to 3 1 July 1 978 ).

  1. Total hours of leave in respect of these employees 13,954.
  2. Number of employees who resigned or retired within one month of the end of the leave period in: 1976- Nil.

1977- 3.

1978- Nil(to31 July 1978).

  1. One officer only has availed herself more than once of maternity leave in the period 1 976 to 1 978. The costs were:

First child (born in 1977)-$4,470.75.

Second child (born in 1978)- $754.63 (to 31 July 1978).

The Department’s records do not show whether maternity leave taken by other officers was in respect of the first or subsequent child.

Statutory Authorities, Corporations and Undertakings (Question No. 1363)

Mr Lusher:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for National Development, 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 Newman:
LP

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

  1. Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation, Australian Atomic Energy Commission, River Murray Commission, Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. The Pipeline Authority.
  2. Details of the appropriations for the authorities included in the Budget in the last three years are:

Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation

  1. (i) $270,000

    1. $293,000
    2. $800,000.

  2. On one line in 1975-76 and 1976-77 and two lines of one Division in 1977-78.

Australian Atomic Energy Commission

  1. (i) $33,799,700

    1. $22,826,000
    2. $22,853,000.

  2. On one line in each of three Divisions.

River Murray Commission

  1. (i) $7,024,000

    1. $8,906,900
    2. $7,850,900.

  2. On two lines.

Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority

  1. (i) $4,673,000

    1. $1,500,000
    2. $850,000.

  2. On one line.

The Pipeline Authority

  1. (i) $72,184,000

    1. $43,452,000
    2. $33,780,000.

  2. On one line.

    1. The AuditorGeneral audits each of the authorities listed in ( 1 ).
    2. Details of the legislation under which each authority is established and the year of establishment are:
  1. A review of the activities of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation was undertaken by the Ministerial Council responsible for the development of the growth centre in 1977. Decisions taken by the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victorian Governments as a result of the review have been made public.

The River Murray Working Party, comprising senior Commonwealth and State officers, was established by the four governments party to the River Murray Waters Agreement in March 1973 to consider possible changes to the Agreement and the role of the Commission. The Report of the Working Party was tabled in Parliament on 2 1 October 1976.

No reviews or inquiries have been undertaken of the other organisations.

New Atomic Reactor (Question No. 1392)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 30 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) In relation to the authorisation given to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to commence a design cost study for a new isotope protection and research reactor to replace the HIFAR reactor at Lucas Heights, N.S.W., will he indicate (a) the terms of reference under which the design cost study is to proceed, (b) whether an environmental impact statement has been ordered and (c) if public hearings will be held before a decision is made on the construction of a new reactor.
  2. Will he also determine whether a new reactor is needed and, if so, whether it should be sited at Lucas Heights.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The designcost study will embrace selection of a suitable reactor/fuel element combination, modification of the chosen concept to meet AAEC requirements relating to radioisotope production, safety criteria and reliability, consideration of environmental factors and possible sites, and estimation of capital and operating costs. Any proposal which the Government might make in the future for the construction of a new reactor following review of the study would of course be subject to the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act.

Guidelines for Provision of Information to the Parliament (Question No. 1665)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

What are the guidelines used for deciding whether information will, or will not, be given to the Parliament.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

The Government takes all measures necessary to ensure that the Parliament is kept fully informed on all relevant matters.

Provision of Information on a Confidential Basis (Question No. 1666)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is there any information known to public servants in his Department which he will give to (a) Cabinet, (b) an individual Minister and (c) a parliamentary backbencher on the (i) Government benches or (ii) Opposition benches on a confidential basis, which he would not give to the Parliament.
  2. If so, what are the classifications of such information.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Decisions on information to be provided to the Parliament are the responsibility of the Government and of individual Ministers. Such decisions are taken on the merits of each particular case, and it is not possible to generalize in the manner apparently sought by the question.

Department of Social Security: Manuals and Circulars (Question No. 1675)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

Will the Minister allow members of the Parliament to see the departmental manuals and internal circulars which are made available to the public servants employed in the Department of Social Security.

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

-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question.

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to question No. 1674, page 1 174, Hansard, 19 September 1978.

VIP Insurances Ltd (Question No. 1688)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to press reports that the liquidator investigating VIP Insurances Ltd revealed that the reinsurer, the All State Insurance Company of the United States of America, had a back door agreement with VIP which enabled the reinsurer to pay less by way of reinsurance than was revealed to the Insurance Commissioner as required under the Insurance Act 1 973.
  2. Will he demand from All State Insurance Co. a full explanation as to why it entered into a back door agreement and will he instruct the Insurance Commissioner to examine all reinsurance contracts affecting all Australian companies where the All State Insurance Co. is a contracting party.
  3. If the All State Insurance Company’s explanations are unsatisfactory will he take steps to declare this company as an unsatisfactory reinsurer.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) The honourable member will be aware that a liquidator has been appointed under the New South Wales Companies Act to wind up the affairs of VIP Insurance Limited (in Liquidation). An inspector appointed by me under section 52 of the Insurance Act 1973 is currently monitoring various matters associated with the failure of VIP Insurances Limited (in Liquidation), including those referred to in the Question, and it would not be appropriate for me at this stage to take any of the specific courses of action proposed by the honourable member. He can be assured, however that these matters are well under notice and will be fully considered on completion of the investigations now being undertaken.

Aluminium Smelters (Question No. 1695)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

  1. Has he noted reports that Gove Alumina Ltd and Swiss Aluminium Australia Ltd are studying whether or not to establish Australia ‘s 4th aluminium smelter.
  2. What is the Government’s attitude to this industrial development.
  3. At a time when there is so much restructuring down, with consequent loss of jobs, is it not essential that this project, along with the possible new Comalco smelter at Gladstone, Queensland, both examples of restructuring up, should be given every encouragement
  4. Is it not essential that the Government should use its export powers to insist that such projects are proceeded with and that Australia does not merely continue to be, to such a large extent, a quarry for the rest of the world.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) I draw the honourable gentleman’s attention to the Government ‘s policy statements on foreign investment and to the White Paper on Manufacturing Industry.
  3. No.

Sales Tax on Gold Coins (Question Na 1705)

Mr McLean:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

  1. 1) Is it a fact that in June 1977 the Government imposed a sales tax of 15 per cent on all gold coins other than those minted in Australia for or on behalf of the Government.
  2. ) If so, why was this sales tax imposed.
  3. Is it a fact that, at the time this sales tax was imposed, citizens of Australia were permitted to hold, possess and deal openly in gold coins of any nature in Australia, without having to seek the approval of the Reserve Bank of Australia.
  4. Is it also a fact that, at the time this sales tax was imposed, Australian citizens were not forced to hand in to the Reserve Bank of Australia stocks of gold sovereigns or half sovereigns over and above a certain prescribed ownership level.
  5. By imposing the sales tax of 15 per cent on overseas gold coins, did the Government anticipate or intend any interference with the rights of Australian citizens to use freely gold coins minted in Australia for any purpose seen fit by the owners of those coins.
  6. Has the Government instructed the Reserve Bank of Australia to cease trading completely in gold sovereigns and half sovereigns minted in Australia and in the possession of the Reserve Bank of Australia.
  7. If not, is there any reason for the Reserve Bank of Australia ceasing to have dealings with legitimate gold jewellery businesses in Australia, who in the past have used or sold gold sovereigns and half sovereigns for numismatic purposes, or as articles of adornment.
  8. Is the Reserve Bank of Australia permitted to continue to hold such stocks of Australian minted gold sovereigns and half sovereigns as are currently in its possession.
  9. Is it a fact that the minting of gold sovereigns and half sovereigns no longer takes place in Australia.
Mr Howard:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (5) The Government did not act in June 1977 to impose a sales tax on gold coins. Action to collect sales tax on taxable gold coins was initiated by the Commissioner of Taxation under existing provisions of the sales tax law when it came to his notice that some coins that were being imported did not qualify for exemption under item 69b in the First Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. That item exempts imported coins that are entered for home consumption under Customs Tariff item 99.03 as collections, or collectors’ pieces, of numismatic interest.

  1. Suspension of Pan IV of the Banking Act on 30 January 1976 removed the necessity for Australian residents to seek the approval of the Reserve Bank of Australia to hold, possess or deal in gold coins of any nature in Australia.
  2. Yes. See answer to (3) above.
  3. No.
  4. I am informed that the Reserve Bank has not for many years sold gold coins to jewellery businesses or other dealers and there was no change in this practice as a result of the suspension of Pan IV of the Banking Act.
  5. Yes.
  6. Yes. There are no Australian gold coins at present being minted.

Consumer Price Index: Impact of Budget Provisions (Question No. 1828)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1978:

What is the expected impact on the Consumer Price Index in each quarter of 1978-79 from the Budget announcements relating to each of the following items: (a) the increased excise tax on beer; (b) the increased excise tax on tobacco products; (c) the increased excise tax on potable spirits; (d) the additional duty on imports subject to import licences and tariff quotas; (e) the increase in the crude oil production levy; (0 the reduction in sales tax on motor cars and station wagons, and (g) the changes to the health insurance arrangements.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

There will be no impact from budgetary measures on the September quarter 1978 because the prices of goods that are affected were measured, for compilation of the index, on or before IS August.

As stated in the Budget Speech, it is estimated that a direct impact of 0.7 percentage points on the December quarter Consumer Price Index might flow from the change in crude oil pricing policy; further indirect price effects are expected in that and later quarters. Excise increases for beer, tobacco and potable spirits will be partially offset by the effects on prices of the reduction in the sales tax rate on new motor cars and station wagons; the net effect on the Consumer Price Index of these changes will be an increase of about 0.5 percentage points, which should be evident in the December quarter measurement.

The Government’s new health care arrangements are expected to subtract significantly from the Consumer Price Index for the December quarter. The total direct effects of all the budgetary measures is likely to be a small deduction from the movement in the index for that quarter

In subsequent quarters there will, as noted, be further small indirect effects of the change in crude oil pricing policies, but it is not possible to allocate them to specific quarters. The immediate effects of Budget measures, taken as a whole, on the Consumer Price Index are expected to be broadly neutral.

It should be noted, of course, that the Budget takes its place as pan of, and reinforces, an on-going strategy aimed at a constant bearing down on inflation. Its longer-term effects for the Consumer Price Index, as for other indicators of price change, should therefore be favourable.

Australian Government Analytical Laboratory, Sydney: Staffing (Question No. 1868)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 23 August 1978:

  1. How many technical staff have been employed in the Australian Government Analytical Laboratory, Sydney regional laboratory, at each level, in each of the last 7 years.
  2. Has the laboratory experienced staff shortages at any time during this period.
  3. 3 ) If so, have these shortages caused delays in performing any program of analysis.
  4. If so, which programs have been affected, and to what extent.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Staff in the Sydney Laboratory engaged on analysis as at 30 June for each of the last 7 years was as follows:

(2), (3) and (4) The demands on the laboratories services are open ended and controls have to be applied to the use of their resources. Some programs may have fallen below the expectations of client Departments but, in general, by mutual arrangement their essential needs have been met. Some programs such as the Market Basket Survey have taken longer than originally intended but nevertheless are progressing.

Imprisonment under the Provisions of the Family Law Act (Question No. 1513)

Mr Shipton:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 8 June 1978:

  1. How many persons have been gaoled under the provisions of the Family Law Act since its enactment.
  2. What are their names.
  3. 3 ) What are the terms of imprisonment in each case.
Mr Viner:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) The number of persons that have been imprisoned by order of State courts exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act is not conveniently available in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The total number of persons imprisoned by the Family Court of Australia, Territory Courts and courts of the other States under the Family Law Act since its commencement is 24. This number does not include persons sentenced to imprisonment who were released on suspended sentence or recognisance without going to prison.
  2. Section 12 1 of the Family Law Act prohibits the publication of particulars of proceedings under the Act, and, accordingly, I do not propose to provide the names of persons gaoled under the provisions of the Act, except where publication has been authorised by the Court in a particular case.

I am informed that the Full Court of the Family Court authorised publication of the fact that on 24 November 1 977 Daniel Henry Kramer was imprisoned for 3 months by order of the Full Court for contempt of the Court

  1. The terms of imprisonment actually served by the 24 persons referred to in ( 1 ) above are as follows:

New South Wales (6 persons, including Mr Kramer)- 14 days; 2 days; 14 days; 14 days; 1 month; 3 months.

Victoria (4 persons)- 2 days; 1 day; 2 months; 2 months.

Queensland ( 1 person)- 3 months.

South Australia (3 persons)- 14 days 1 day; 14 days.

Western Australia (3 persons)- 6 days; 24 hours; 1 month.

Tasmania (5 persons)- 14 days; 1 month; 3 months; 2 months; 30 days.

Australian Capital Territory (1 person)- 5 terms totalling 1 year 1 1 months 6 days.

Northern Territory ( 1 person)- 6 months.

Answers to Questions Upon Notice: Nuclear Energy (Question No. 1909)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 12 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the fact that he is the only Minister with several questions on notice unanswered for over 6 months, and that less than SO of the first 800 questions remain unanswered, most of these being directed to him.
  2. When will he inform the House of the Government’s intentions to promote alternatives to nuclear energy as asked in some of the questions referred to in part ( 1 ).
Mr Newman:
LP

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

During the period 22 February to 8 June 1978, 1 16 questions on notice were addressed to me. Answers have been, and are being, provided as quickly as possible, having regard to the preparation time involved and the staff resources available. As at 26 September, 17 remained unanswered.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 27 September 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1978/19780927_reps_31_hor111/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant