House of Representatives
8 May 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1979

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1897

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Pensions

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

That restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments “that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate” is not valid.

Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

  1. Restore twice-yearly pension payments in the Autumn session.
  2. Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of AWE.

And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baume, Mr N. A. Brown, Mr Burns, Mr Carlton, Mr Dean, Dr Edwards, Mr Malcolm Eraser, Mr Graham, Mr Les Johnson, Mr Charles Jones, Mr Martin, Mr Neil, Mr Ruddock, Mr Simon, Mr Sinclair, Mr Thomson, Mr Willis and Mr Yates.

Petitions received.

Metric System

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country does not have the support of the people;

That the change is causing and will continue to cause, widespread, serious and costly problems;

That the compulsory tactics being used to force the change are a violation of all democratic principles.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilize whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so desire;

That weather reporting be as it was prior to the passing of the Metric Conversion Act:

That the Australian Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional mile units to be restored to our highways;

That the Australian Government request the State Governments to procure that the imperial and metric systems be taught together in schools.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr N. A. Brown, Mr Les Johnson, Mr Lynch, Mr Nixon, Mr Scholes and Mr Yates.

Petitions 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 the decision of the Australian Government to depart from its 1975 election promise, a promise re-affirmed during the 1977 election campaign, that pensions would be increased twice-yearly in line with increases in the CPI, will seriously add to the economic burdens now borne by those citizens who are wholly or mainly dependent on their pensions.

Your petitioners are impelled by this fact to call upon the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to review the abovementioned decision, and to determine-

That pensions will be increased twice yearly in line with rises in the CPI as promised by the Prime Minister in 1975 policy speech.

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

Petition received.

Pensions

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

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that we the undersigned wish to protest in the strongest possible terms the Government’s decision to abolish the twice-yearly review of Pensions. that this decision will cause untold hardship for people on fixed incomes who will now be a full year behind rising prices.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will request the Government to reintroduce twice yearly pension reviews in line with the Consumer Price Index. by Mr Hodges.

Petition received.

Stokers Siding Post Office

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the people of Stokers Siding N.S.W. and surrounding areas are strongly opposed to the possible closure of the Stokers Siding Post Office.

We are opposed to the proposal because: 1.it will dramatically reduce the amount of contact the members of our growing community have with each other,

  1. it will almost certainly mean the closure of our local store,
  2. we believe that it will cause a decline in postal services, and
  3. we believe that it could reduce jobs in a community with a very high level of unemployment.

Your petitioners call on the Federal Government as a matter of urgency to act against the possible closure of our Post Office.

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

Petition received.

Metric System

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

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

Petition received.

Australian Work Force: Retirement Conditions

To the Honourable the Speaker and honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned citizens of North Queensland, support this protest at the unjust treatment by the Federal Government of people depending on the old age pension, which is considered to be below the poverty level.

That we protest at the Federal Government’s failure to provide all sections of the Australian community with conditions of retirement more comparable to that section who now retire in comfort under superannuation and long service leave schemes.

That immediate action be taken to provide that all sections of the Australian work force be allowed to retire under a more comparable level than that which exists at present.

That we protest at the re-introduction of the means test for people over seventy years of age, especially those people who have already been assessed by the Social Security Department before being placed on a full age pension.

That we protest at the Government’s failure to honour their promise to have pensions adjusted in line with the C.P.I. cost of living adjustments, which is applied to all other sections of the community.

That the amounts allowed for earnings by single and married pensioners should be increased to a more comparable level to the high cost of living, before it affects the pensions.

That the amount allowable before a pensioner pays income tax which covers all forms of income, including the annual pension, should be increased, as the high cost of living warrants this consideration.

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

Petition received.

Letter Box, Dimboola

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

The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Division of Mallee respectfully showeth:

The necessity for the replacement of a letter box on the corner of Upper Region and High Streets Dimboola Victoria, which has been removed to the disadvantage of the citizens.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the letter box on the corner of Upper Region and High Streets be replaced.

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

Petition received.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

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 say we are concerned about the deteriorating standards of ABC radio and Television programmes.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament take immediate steps to appoint an independent inquiry into the ABC which:

  1. Investigates the practical experience and qualification of the commissioners to perform their duties.
  2. Determines the effects of staff ceilings and reduction of funds, in real terms, on standards.
  3. Thoroughly reviews the organisation to determine its present effectiveness.
  4. Ascertains if any external or internal censorship exists.
  5. Makes recommendation to reduce censorship and improve the efficiency and standards.

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

Petition received.

Pensions

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 in his1977 election speech the Prime Minister supported by a majority of Members of the House of Representatives gave an undertaking that in exchange for electoral support he would guarantee the retention of twiceyearly adjustments of social security pensions in accordance with movements in the Consumer Price Index.
  2. That this undertaking of the Prime Minister and a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives has been repudiated causing severe hardship to pensioners.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will take action to require those Members who have not honoured their undertaking, to resign from the Parliament in order that the people of Australia can choose members who will represent the wishes of the electors and who will honour any undertakings they gave.

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

Petition received.

Pensions

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 restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1978-79 budget is of vital concern to offset the rising costs of goods and services.

This has a very big drain on the Elderlies’ pensions and we would like to see the rises brought back as soon as possible.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the pension rises be paid every six months as promised by the ‘Prime Minister’.

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

Petition received.

Slaughter of Harp Seals

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 slaughter of young seals in Canada is of grave concern to the people of Australia.

Accordingly your petitioners call upon the Government to use all its good offices with the Government of Canada to bring an end to this needless slaughter and to use every opportunity presented particularly at international forums to express this view.

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

Petition received.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport

To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose any expansion of the facilities of Kingsford Smith Airport which entails the buildings of a new runway as it would have the following detrimental effects:- (1 ) The loss of one mile of waterfront, including Lady Robinson’s Beach and a huge pan of Botany Bay; (2) The loss of up to 1,230 houses and a drop in value of remaining neighbouring properties; (3) The creation of more noise pollution in the area; (4) The creation of more traffic congestion on streets leading to and from the airport; (5) The forced diversion of Cook’s River and further damage to the ecololgy of the area.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will not consider satisfying the airport needs of Sydney by extending Kingsford Smith Airport and that any decisions related thereto are not taken before there is an opportunity for adequate consultation with any community particularly affected.

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

Petition received.

Replacement Constitution

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 believe that Australia ‘s constitution is undemocratic and should be replaced by a democratic constitution. This new constitution should be drafted at a representative directly elected people’s convention following extensive public debate, and then put to a referendum of the people.

The petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament as a matter of urgency, will help to promote such public debate and will arrange for the holding of such a people’s convention and referendum.

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

Petition received.

Major Airport Needs at Sydney

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of Australia in Parliament assembled.

The petition of residents and workers in the Newtown area ofSydney:

Respectfully showeth that the people of this inner city area will be considerably disadvantaged with regard to noise from aircraft and increased traffic hazards, from road transport to and from the airport, by any new runway at Mascot as proposed in the MANS Enquiry.

Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will reject any such proposals.

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

Petition 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 child-abuse 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 Martyr.

Petition received.

Lone Parent Pensions

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 say that we are concerned about the discrimination which exists against the children of those parents who are in receipt of the Supporting Parents Benefit in comparison with children of Single Parents who receive the Widows Pension. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament take immediate steps to ensure that this year’s budget allow for Lone Parents to be given the right to receive a pension with the same benefits as are given with the Widows Pension, and we also request that Parliament take immediate steps to instigate one (1 ) category of Lone Parent Pensions to eliminate the discrimination currently experienced.

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

Petition received.

page 1900

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

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

- Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland) leave Australia today to attend the meeting of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in Manila. The Prime Minister is expected to return next weekend and Mr Garland on 27 May. During their absence I am acting as Prime Minister and Minister for Special Trade Representations.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) left Australia on 5 May to attend a meeting of the International Energy Agency and a meeting of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Ministerial Committee on the Environment. He is expected to return on 26 May and during his absence the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay) is acting as Minister for National Development.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) left Australia on 3 May to visit China, Europe and North America on cultural and sporting matters and matters concerning the arts. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) is acting as Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory until the Minister’s return on 27 May.

page 1900

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION ACT 1942

Notice of Motion

Mr BURNS:
Isaacs

-I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move;

That in the opinion of this House, sub-sections 4 and 4a of section 116 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 should be repealed.

page 1900

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1900

QUESTION

PROVISION OF ENTERTAINMENT BY SERVICES

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

-I ask the Minister for

Defence whether it is a fact that arrangements have been made for the Special Air Service regiment to provide entertainment at the birthday party of Mr Lang Hancock. Who will meet the bill for this entertainment? Will the same provisions be made for the costing of this entertainment by this regiment as are made for the provision of Service bands to organisations such as the ex-servicemen’s widows association and others who have sought and been charged for the use of Service facilities? What cover will be available to members of the regiment for risks they may incur during parachute jumps or other operations in which they are involved?

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

– The honourable member for Corio will appreciate that the normal practice is that wherever there is Service participation their is a recovery of costs. I am bound to tell my honourable friend that I know nothing of the assumptions, allegations or suggestions that he has put to me. I give him an undertaking that I will set in train at once such inquiries as may be appropriate and advise him forthwith.

page 1900

QUESTION

LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE

Mr BURR:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– I refer the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Eighth Session of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea which concluded recently in Geneva. What progress, if any, was made at this Conference? Being mindful of the years already expended at numerous previous conferences, is there any prospect for an eventual negotiated agreement on law of the sea issues?

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

– As the honourable member for Wilmot rightly points out in his question, there have been innumerable sessions of the Law of the Sea Conference. I am happy to say that real progress was made at the last session, the Eighth Session, which concluded last month. Whilst there have been a variety of sessions rolling on, it was one of the most significant conferences in that it endeavoured to find equitable solutions for both developed and developing countries. The session which has just concluded was one of considerable achievement. The conference decided to revise the current negotiating text. The revised text incorporates new formulations on a number of the most difficult outstanding issues before the conference. Therefore, in order to maintain momentum, the session will resume meeting in New York in two months’ time.

Important progress was made on the most complex issue facing the conference, namely, that of the regime for the exploration and exploitation of the deep sea bed beyond national jurisdiction. These negotiations are part of the ongoing north-south dialogue on resource issues. Certainly, there are now grounds for optimism that the revised formulations developed in Geneva will bring developing and developed countries closer to agreement. An issue of absolutely major and fundamental importance to Australia and one which has caused considerable difficulty at the conference in the past is the extent of a coastal state’s jurisdiction over its continental shelf. The importance of this will be obvious to all honourable members. A significant achievement was to bring that issue closer to resolution by the incorporation of a text defining the extent and the limits of the continental shelf.

I might add that the conference also completed informal negotiations in the area of the protection and preservation of the marine environment. This is a major step forward in the development of international environmenal law. So after many years of negotiation I am now more optimistic that these developments will bring the conference closer to a comprehensive and widely-accepted convention regulating all aspects of the use of the oceans and their resources. There are now better prospects that an agreement on the outstanding hard core issues may be within sight. Such an agreement would be a major step forward in reducing tensions and the risk of conflict in the oceans of the world.

page 1901

QUESTION

COMPANY PROFITS

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask a question of the Treasurer and refer him to a statement in today’s Melbourne Age, in which he is reported to have said that he is seriously concerned that company profits are too low. I ask the Treasurer: In view of the spate of recent announcements of higher corporate profit figures, including the announcements that the profit of the Leyland Motor Corporation of Australia Ltd is up 180 per cent, that of W. R. Carpenter and Co. Ltd is up 76 per cent, that of Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd is up 65.4 per cent and that of the ANI Corporation Ltd is up 25 per cent, what does he consider is an adequate level of corporate profitability? Does his concern about low levels of corporate profitability mean that the current wave of speculation about company tax increases is without foundation?

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

-The Leader of the Opposition has referred to some very good company figures. I am delighted that those companies have made larger profits because that is good news for their employees and for the confidence and profitability of Australian business. The fact of the matter is that, on an historic basis, according to the most commonly-used measure of Australian companies, the profit share is still significantly lower than it has been over a period. I think that, using that traditional measure, with which I am sure the Leader of the Opposition is very familiar, the comparison is that the profit share is now under 14 per cent, as opposed to an average over the years of about 17 per cent. So I do not think that we have anything to crow about as far as corporate profitability is concerned. As far as speculation about corporate tax levels is concerned, I think the Leader of the Opposition will know that it is not my practice to respond to speculation of that character.

page 1901

QUESTION

AIR FARES

Mr CADMAN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and relates to reports in today’s Press of the successful outcome of air fare negotiations between Australia and the Association of South East Asian Nations officials in Kuala Lumpur. Can the Minister advise the House what has to be done before cheap air fares can be introduced for travel between Australia and the ASEAN countries? When is it likely that cheap air fares will be introduced? Are reports that Australia will allow ASEAN airlines limited access on the direct point-to-point Australia to the United Kingdom-Europe advance purchase excursion fares correct? If so, has the Government deviated from its internation civil aviation policy and has the policy been jeopardised in any way?

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

– May I say first how delighted I am that the negotiations with the Association of South East Asian Nations proceeded so well over the weekend and reached a satisfactory and successful conclusion? A tribute should be paid to the officers of my Department, led by the Secretary, and the officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs, led by the Deputy-Secretary of that Department. I am delighted that we have proceeded so far with the ASEAN countries. Insofar as the introduction of cheap air fares is concerned, the timing of talks between the Australian Government and the different ASEAN Governments will depend on the timetable that those countries set. It will be necessary now for bilateral negotiations to take place, to discuss further the principles as to cheap air fares that were agreed upon at the Jakarta meeting by Ministers in attendance. Therefore, the matter of the timetable is really more in the hands of the ASEAN nations than those of this Government. I hope that the talks can take place quite swiftly so that Australians will be able to take advantage of cheap air fares to the ASEAN nations and so that tourists from that area will be able to visit Australia.

As to the question of deviation from international civil aviation policy, I should point out that the main intention has always been to arrive at a policy which allows cheap air fares to be negotiated with a whole host of countries that have bilateral agreements, or with those carriers coming to this country, as well as in relation to the points that Qantas services outside of this country. That is the main purpose of the policy. We have been pragmatic in its implementation. We have tried to meet the various demands and requirements of the individual countries with which we have negotiated. Therefore, international civil aviation policy has not been deviated from in any sense that would endanger the main principles of that policy.

I put on record that we now have cheap air fares to the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, Yugoslavia and the Netherlands. Now that the ASEAN talks are entering the bilateral stage we will, I hope, succeed shortly in our negotiations with Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia. We have reached almost the final point of negotiations with Hong Kong, Greece and Italy and are in the course of discussions with Japan. On that basis, I think that the Australian Government has achieved something of which to be proud.

page 1902

QUESTION

SANKEY CASE: COUNSEL

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I preface my question to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral by referring him to the fact that in what is known as ‘the Sankey case’, the Commonwealth was obliged to pay out $150,000 of taxpayers’ money by way of legal aid and direct legal costs. I also refer to the fact that yesterday evidence was given before a Senate Estimates Committee that payments made or due to Mr Rofe, Q.C., in the Greek conspiracy trial had already totalled $60,000. Is the Minister aware that Mr Rofe, Q.C., and the two junior counsel briefed by the Commonwealth in respect of what is known as the ‘Greek conspiracy trials’ are the same counsel as were briefed by Mr Sankey in the conspiracy action?

Mr Ruddock:

– So what?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I will tell the honourable member. Will the Minister ascertain the basis of Mr Rofe’s appointment in the Greek conspiracy trial to rebut any inference that the appointment related to his acting against the four former Labor Ministers? Further, will the Government now undertake inquiries to establish that no persons associated with the Government maintained Mr Sankey in his action in order to assist him with legal costs, which would appear to be well above his capacity to pay?

Mr VINER:
Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs · STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am quite sure that the Attorney-General approved the appointment of Mr Rofe in the Greek case for very sound professional reasons, having regard to the skill and competence of Mr Rofe, and also the junior counsel.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– They are the same.

Mr VINER:

– The honourable gentleman, being a solicitor, knows the professional basis upon which counsel is briefed. However, I will refer the question to the Attorney-General and obtain a detailed answer for the honourable member.

page 1902

QUESTION

HOUSING: FINANCE

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

-I ask the Minister for Housing and Construction: Is sufficient finance readily available to meet the requirements for housing, both public and private? What has been the movement, in the last 12 months, in the cost of housing in respect of, firstly, materials and, secondly, labour?

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Housing and Construction · BRADDON, TASMANIA · LP

– The question contains two parts. As far as the first part is concerned, the situation is that finance for housing is now readily available in all States of the Commonwealth. The availability of finance is not in any sense a constraint on the level of activity in the housing industry. This has occurred because of strong growth in the amount of funds flowing from the major lending institutions over the past 12 months but, in particular, since the time of the last Budget because of decisions which were announced in that Budget. The total volume of lending by banks and permanent building societies in the current financial year is forecast to be about 15 per cent higher than the amount flowing from those major lending institutions in the financial year 1977-78. It would be of interest to honourable members to know that the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures on lending for housing by the permanent building societies for the March quarter were released at noon today. The key points in respect of the loan approvals by those societies are that total approvals in the March quarter of this year were 14 per cent higher than approvals in the December quarter of last year, 41 per cent higher than approvals in the March quarter of 1978- the same period of last year- and at the highest level of any calendar quarter since the December quarter of 1 975.

The second part of the question related to building costs. Certainly, there has been a great improvement in relation to building costs in recent times. If we look back to the financial year 1974-75 we see that under the Labor administration the cost of home building materials rose by 2 1.2 per cent in that financial year. In the calendar year 1978 the price of new houses increased on a national average basis by only 3.2 per cent, which was a really significant improvement. The price of house building materials rose by a relatively low figure of 7.3 per cent in the year to March 1979. The Government’s intention certainly is to continue with its policies. No doubt, further successes will result from those policies. They have placed home ownership clearly within the reach of many more people within the Australian community and they are leading to a good, solid and steady recovery in the building and construction industry in Australia.

page 1903

QUESTION

CRICKET TELECASTS

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

– With respect to the first part of the honourable member’s question, the Government has made it clear on a number of occasions that it will not be making decisions about a communications satellite for Australia which will have the effect of destroying the good work done over many years in building up a system of regional commercial stations which enables local and regional identity to be effected in the telecasting in a particular area. With respect to the last parts of the honourable member’s question, I do not know the sorts of conditions on which Mr Packer’s organisation has offered telecasts to commercial regional organisations. As I understand it, the question of any relationship with the Australian Broadcasting Commission has not arisen at this stage, although the ABC has stated that in the event of an approach it would be prepared to reconsider its position. The Commission will meet on Friday of this week. Of course the details are not my responsibility. I simply say that the Government believes that if a commercial organisation or any organisation wins sporting telecast contracts for a certain area of Australia, it is in the national interest for great sporting events to be carried to the whole of Australia if at all possible. For that reason, the Government has asked the Australian Broadcasting Commission to consider what it might do in these circumstances.

page 1903

QUESTION

AIR FARES

Mr JULL:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Transport, and follows that asked by the honourable member for Mitchell. Following the decision to allow airlines from countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations some access to the Kangaroo route to the United Kingdom and Europe, what controls will be used in the allocation of seats to the various carriers? Will this move virtually allow an open slather situation in the sale of seats into and out of Australia, as has been reported? Will the Minister also confirm that the entry of charter operators on the Kangaroo route will be reconsidered in 1980 as claimed by Mr Athol Guy of Laker Airways as reported in this morning’s Courier Main Do any restrictions now apply to ad hoc charter operators or tour operating firms wishing to package Australia as a tourist destination?

Mr NIXON:
LP

– One of the problems throughout the negotiation with the Association of South East Asian Nation countries has been, if we were to meet their wishes in allowing access, how we could prevent an open slather situation. This is the very question that the honourable member for Bowman raised. The Australians have proposed to the ASEAN countries, in order to make sure that there is some control over this matter, that any tickets written to the United Kingdom and to the other European carriers will be on Qantas and British Airways paper. This is the method which has been proposed to control that situation. Insofar as charter operators are concerned, please understand that Sir Freddie Laker is only one charter operator who may be interested in operating services to Australia at some time. He has certainly already sought to do so. As I have said before, further consideration of charter operator services will not be given until towards the end of 1980 when the international civil aviation policy proposals, the cheap air fares proposals, are accepted by all the countries with which we have been negotiating and there has been time for the situation to have settled down. We can then take a cool look at what is required to add further stimulation to the tourist industry in regard to travel both inward and outward. That will not take place before the end of 1 980.

Finally, with respect to restrictions of the proposals on any proposed charter operators, I point out to the honourable member that charter services are mostly based on affinity, although ad hoc, non-affinity passenger charter proposals have been agreed to when we have considered them to be an effort to boost the Australian tourist industry. I point out further, that in the last couple of years, as a means of boosting the Australian tourist industry, we have agreed to some 200 charter operators flying passengers to this country. Unfortunately, after they receive approval, not all of them operate services.

page 1904

QUESTION

MINERAL EXPORT GUIDELINES

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Acting Prime Minister: What is this Government’s present position on mineral export guidelines? How does he react to the intermittent attempts of the Minister for Trade and Resources to disagree with them?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– I want to state quite categorically to the House that there is no disagreement between the Acting Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade and Resources. Maybe those two stand alone. The question of guidelines has been debated in this House. The whole question of export controls was brought up in this place last week in a debate on a matter of public importance. I thought that adequately covered the Government’s position. A definitive statement was put out after our meeting in Perth. That statement gives the Government’s position. There will be consultations with the States regarding a mechanism to bring about a consultative arrangement between the States and the Commonwealth for the operation of export controls. In the implementation of these controls we want to look at the possibility of consultations also with the industry. I think everybody in this country wants to see a concerted effort between the States and the Commonwealth to ensure that we maximise the development and benefits of Australia’s mineral industries. I am sure that there is no difference of opinion in that respect.

That is what the Government is aiming to achieve.

page 1904

QUESTION

TRANSPORT STOPPAGE

Mr SHIPTON:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

-Is the Minister for Industrial Relations aware of a threatened transport stoppage that is likely to affect Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania? Could the Minister give the House the background to the wage claim which has led to this situation arising? Is it likely that the national wage case which commenced in Melbourne this morning could be prejudiced by any such stoppage?

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

– I am aware of the threatened stoppage to which the honourable member referred. I understand that transport union leaders announced this morning that there would be an indefinite stoppage in Victoria and involving the Australian National Railways Commission in South Australia, commencing at midnight tonight. I understand that the claim is for a $10 a week increase which would restore relativities with employees of the Public Transport Commission of New South Wales. The history of this matter dates back to 1977 when Commissioner Walker of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission made a recommendation- not a decision- in relation to those employees of the Public Transport Commission of New South Wales who were covered by federal awards to bring them up to the same amounts as were paid to those employees of that Commission who worked understate awards.

Subsequently, unions in other States sought to incorporate this increase. Commissioner Walker then sought to include an amount of $6 in the relevant awards. That decision was appealed against by the Victorian Government, the Federal Government intervened in support and the Full Bench upheld the appeal. The present claim for $10 follows an announcement that the question would be brought before an anomalies conference of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on Thursday of this week. The Federal Government is currently considering what action it might take in relation to that. The Federal Government will be approaching the Full Bench this afternoon seeking an adjournment of the national wage case unless the Australian Council of Trade Unions is successful in getting the threatened strike action called off. The Federal Government will be supported in that course of action by the Victorian Government. I urge all the unionists involved to consider this matter very carefully. Not only will they be prejudicing their own earnings but also their threatened action could lead to the stand-down of thousands of their workmates.

page 1905

QUESTION

HOUSING MATERIALS

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask a question of the Minister for Housing and Construction. It follows an answer he gave a little while ago in which he said that there had been an ‘improvement in building costs in recent times’. Is it a fact that for the 12 months to October last year home building material costs increased by 5.1 per cent but that for the 12 months to March this year the increase had accelerated to 7.3 per cent? Is it a fact that on the objective evidence available the costs for building materials are increasing, contrary to the impression he gave in his answer to that question? Further, is it a fact that cost movements of this order will add about $400 to the average price of a home?

Mr GROOM:
LP

– One must take an overall view of the situation. As I pointed out in my last answer, one sees a significant improvement between the situation prevailing in 1974-75- when I think the Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer- and the situation prevailing now. There has been a dramatic improvement in that time. I think it is fair to say that in recent weeks and months there have been some inflationary pressures which have resulted, to a very large extent, from the wages push and an increase in pressures in that area. But we believe, on advice, that this is only a pause in the general downward trend. With a continuation of the policies we have adopted, which are proving extremely successful and are recognised as such by the building industry and those who want to buy houses, it is clear that that success will continue and that the trend will be downwards.

page 1905

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN DESIGN RULE 27A

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I direct my question to the Minister for Transport. I refer to the recent refusal by the Labor governments of New South Wales and South Australia to abandon the introduction of the last stages of fuel consuming vehicle emission controls. In view of the fact that these controls will benefit only users of the tunnel approaches to Sydney Harbour Bridge, does the Minister have a view on that refusal? Is the decision of the New South Wales and South Australian Labor governments likely to mean that every motorist in Australia will pay more for petrol next year? Will their selfish decision have a catastrophic effect on Australia ‘s fuel supplies.

Mr NIXON:
LP

-At the Australian Transport Advisory Council meeting in Sydney a couple of weeks ago New South Wales and South

Australia indicated that they would be pressing for the introduction of the third stage of Australian Design Rule 27A on the given date in 1 98 1 . It is a fact that the only area affected, as described in the honourable member’s question, is a very limited area in the central part of Sydney. I do not think any area in South Australia is affected. At least, statistics have not been given to demonstrate that any area in South Australia is affected. Because New South Wales and South Australia account for approximately 50 per cent of the total Australian market, it has been put to me by one or two car manufacturers that they will be forced to impose the third stage of ADR 27A on all motor cars sold. Therefore the increased cost of meeting that rule will be forced on all motorists throughout Australia. Indeed, the increased fuel consumption which will flow out of the third stage being introduced will be imposed on all motorists throughout Australia.

Following the ATAC meeting it was agreed to take up with the Federated Chamber of Automotive Industries ways to offset this unnecessary impost on the motorists of Australia to meet the needs of the few. The tragedy of the whole question is borne out by the statistics given by the State Pollution Control Commission of New South Wales, which demonstrate that as far as car emissions are concerned, the third stage is not likely to improve the situation even when introduced in 198 1 in the New South Wales area, until there is an evening out in 1985. The tragedy is that all this cost will be imposed on the motorist, probably without any general good at all to the health of the New South Wales community.

page 1905

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE: PERMANENT HEAD

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question to the Minister for Defence by referring to reports that the permanent head of the Department of Defence may shortly retire. Is it a fact that the Minister is considering appointing a lady in his place, to continue the example set by the Minister in having a lady jockey, Linda Jones, ride his horse Pay The Purple’ when it won the Labor Day Cup this weekend?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is out of order, but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s answer.

Mr KILLEN:
LP

- Mr Speaker, that makes two of us for a start. I am grateful to be able to inform the honourable member that at long last he has struck oil, and for the first time in my recollection his question is based on fact, lt was a matter of splendid agreement to me yesterday that Mrs Linda Jones rode ‘Pay The Purple’ to win of all trophies, the Labor Day Cup. My one regret was that I was not there to receive the trophy. They would have had to put the next race back half an hour because it would have taken me that time to sum up the Australian Labor Party. It is true that the Secretary of the Department of Defence, Sir Arthur Tange, is due to retire in a few weeks or months. I do not know what Boadicea ‘s politics were but we need a person of that character to fill his shoes.

page 1906

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL SUGAR AGREEMENT

Mr MILLAR:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he can inform the House as to the present prospects of the United States ratifying the International Sugar Agreement?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– I have pressed the United States Administration to try to get through Congress as quickly as possible the ratification of the International Sugar Agreement. A few weeks ago when I was in Washington I emphasised to the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr Bergland, and to the Assistant Secretary of State, Mr Cooper, how important it was to the sugar world that America ratify the Agreement. Until America does this there will not be an improvement in the price because the world is in doubt as to whether the International Sugar Agreement will be sustained and made workable. I emphasised that in Australia, where the industry has imposed severe disciplines on itself, it is expecting some reward for the sacrifice it has made. The industry wants a response in the market price as a result of the reduction in supply.

Also, I was interested to see the remarks of Ambassador Young who is visiting Australia at the moment. The other night on an Australian Broadcasting Commission program he pointed out that one of the greatest ways of helping the developing world was through commodity agreements. He pointed out that if we could get the International Sugar Agreement ratified by the United States- and, of course, if the European Economic Community would show a sensible approach to the Agreement- there would be a more beneficial effect on the developing countries than there is with all the aid given by the United States and Australia. I think that this is a clear indication of the great benefits that can be derived by a sensible, co-ordinated and co-operative approach by the world to commodity arrangements. The Prime Minister, during his visit to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, will stress Australia’s view of wanting to co-operate with the integrated commodity program and to try to bring about more stability in international prices. I hope that the United States will move quickly to see that the ISA is ratified. The United States has given assurances that it wants the Agreement ratified, but it has had a domestic problem in getting the acceptance of Congress. However, once the Agreement is ratified, all pressure will be applied to the EEC and let us hope that it will adopt a responsible approach to this matter.

page 1906

QUESTION

PETROL PRICE INCREASE

Mr HAYDEN:

– 1 ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it is a fact that since the Government came into office the price of petrol has increased by over 50c a gallon? Does this mean that as a result of his Government’s policy on the price of crude oil, motorists now have to pay around $5 extra to fill their petrol tanks, or over $250 extra in running costs a year? Will the Acting Prime Minister give an assurance that the Government’s oil parity price to be announced on 1 July and the Budget will not add to the burden already being carried by the Australian motorist?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– I think it is obvious that every country has had to bear a heavier price for oil as a result of the pricing decisions of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries and the general scarcity that is prevailing because of the oil supply situation in Iran. To imagine that there would not be some increase in price during that period is to show complete ignorance. Of course, what the Australian Government has done with a good deal of consideration is to move onto import parity- a situation which most countries have had to face up to and accept. Even in the great United States, which has been trying to avoid this situation, the President has now accepted that it will have to move towards import parity. Unless we move towards the market price for such a precious and vital commodity as oil then we get the allocation of energy resources into imbalance.

What we want in this country is to ensure that there is the maximum development of alternative forms of energy. Unless we have realistic pricing for oil people will not be diverted to these other sources of energy. The more we can encourage people to use coal, gas and solar forms of energy and the more research we can encourage, both by government and industry, to find alternative means of energy to that of oil, the better off this country will be. But it would be ludicrous to take the attitude adopted by the Labor Party of not accepting world parity price for oil. The adoption of such an attitude would put this country into a very vulnerable position.

page 1907

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF

Mr BIRNEY:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. I refer the Minister to a statement made this morning by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate on Sydney’s Channel 7 program Eleven A.M. when he stated that the Government was negotiating with oil companies and the Queensland Government on the renewal of licences for drilling on the Great Barrier Reef. Is there any truth in substance or in fact in the statement made by Senator Wriedt?

Mr Young:

– It is out of order. The Minister is not responsible for Senator Wriedt ‘s statements.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Port Adelaide has a habit of interjecting. I will take the interjection as a point of order and I will deal with it accordingly. The Question is not out of order. The honourable member for Phillip was asking for confirmation or otherwise of a statement of fact. If the statement had been challenged I would have required the honourable member for Phillip to authenticate it. The statement was not challenged and the Minister is therefore entitled to answer the question.

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have to confess that I did not see the program or hear the announcement. I have no doubt that the facts as given by the honourable member for Phillip are correct. If so, what the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate had to say was purely a figment of his imagination and was totally untrue. This Government places great importance on the protection of the Great Barrier Reef. We would not allow any mining or drilling which would do anything to damage that reef.

page 1907

QUESTION

AIR FARES

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. In view of the obvious collapse of his much-stated international civil aviation policy principles in the Association of South East Asian Nations talks at the weekend, I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that Department of Transport officials at the talks were instructed at the weekend to abandon the Government’s previous stance and his Department’s policy so as to prevent continuing embarrassment to the Prime Minister at the coming United Nations Conference on Trade and Development talks? If not, why was the dramatic change in stance delayed for so long and allowed to create such damage to our ASEAN trading partners? Further, will the Minister now explain precisely how the ASEAN agreement, which has been announced and which deals with the transport of people from

Australia to Europe by non-originating or terminating carriers, to use his own words, does ‘not deviate in any way’ from the third and fourth freedom principles which he has espoused so often? Will the same opportunity be afforded now to Air New Zealand?

Mr NIXON:
LP

– The honourable member must have been out of the House when I answered an earlier question on this matter because as usual he certainly has his facts mixed up. The first point to make is that the matters which were discussed with the ASEAN countries by the delegation that went to Asia were matters upon which the Government had decided some weeks ago. They had nothing to do with the Prime Minister’s forthcoming visit to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. In fact I do not think that at that time the Prime Minister had decided to go to UNCTAD. So the principles on which the settlement was to take place were decided some time ago. The third and fourth freedom principles of the international civil aviation policy are the main principles upon which the cheap air fare regime has been based. As I said in answer to a question a while ago, the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations agreed with us in all our discussions that the cheap air fare proposals should not be prejudiced by whatever result came out of the negotiations.

One of the difficulties we had was to arrive at some compromise that would allow them part access to the route without prejudicing the cheap air fares. We do not believe that allowing some 350 passengers per week to be carried by ASEAN carriers will prejudice the cheap air fares, but we believe that it will help the ASEAN countries to accept the proposals we have been putting to them in seeking cheap air fares to ASEAN countries. The major principles of the international civil aviation policy upon which the cheap air fares are based stand firm. As far as we can, we have met the wishes of the ASEAN carriers to meet their particular circumstances.

page 1907

QUESTION

STEEL BELTED RADIAL TYRES

Mr GOODLUCK:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

-Is the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs aware of a report that the Police Association of New South Wales has recommended to the State Police Department that in the interests of road safety steel belted radials should not be fitted to police motor vehicles? Will the Minister call for an urgent report on this serious allegation which affects and reflects on thousands of consumers, local tyre manufacturers, tyre importing agents and motor vehicle manufacturers who fit steel belted radials as original equipment?

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

– I am not aware of the report that has been referred to by the honourable member for Franklin but what he has said in the House today concerns me. I will make immediate inquiries. However, I am able to say that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety has been engaged recently in certain inquiries in relation to steel belted radial tyres. I am not sure of the stage the Committee has reached with its inquiries, but obviously the House will be advised in due course of the outcome of those investigations. I am able to say that the Commonwealth-State Consumer Product Advisory Committee is also active in this field and is investigating a number of complaints and reports that have reached it. When those investigations have been completed the Committee will report to State Ministers and to me, representing the Commonwealth Government. The recommendations made or the findings brought forward, will be considered very carefully and seriously by all governments. This matter is being kept under very close surveillance by the appropriate authorities. Any action that needs to be taken in the interests of public safety will be taken.

page 1908

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF ANIMAL HEALTH

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

– For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Australian Bureau of Animal Health for the years 1974-78.

page 1908

QUESTION

LEAVE TO MAKE STATEMENT NOT GRANTED

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

- Mr Speaker, in reply to a question today the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay) said that there was no force, no validity and no substance in a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) in relation to an alleged proposal of the Government to allow, or to consider allowing, drilling for oil on or near the Great Barrier Reef. I ask your indulgence, Mr Speaker, to correct the misleading comments by the Minister for Administrative Services.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Before I proceed any further, I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether the substance of what he is about to say is that the statement attributed to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate was not a factual statement?

Mr HAYDEN:

-No. I am about to produce a letter from the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) to the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) which shows that it was a factually correct statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman has no basis on which to proceed. He has not been misrepresented in any way. I am afraid that if I were to grant an indulgence it would only initiate a debate out of turn in the order of proceedings.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Mr Speaker, with the indulgence of the House, I seek leave to make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Anthony:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Then, Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the documents which relate to this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Anthony:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

page 1908

VISIT TO NORTH AMERICA AND JAPAN-MARCH 1979

Ministerial Statement

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

- Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Hayden:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I will anticipate what I think the Leader of the House is about to do. I again ask the Leader of the Opposition or the honourable member from the Opposition in charge of business: Is leave granted to the Acting Prime Minister to make a statement?

Leave granted.

Mr ANTHONY:

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. Honourable members will be aware that the prime purpose of my recent overseas visit was to finalise important bilateral negotiations with the United States of America and Japan. These negotiations were part of the bilateral settlements within the Multilateral Trade Negotiations, or the MTN. Because of the wide range of trade issues addressed in the MTN their outcome will shape the world trading environment for at least the next decade. As a major trading nation Australia has a vital interest in the outcome. The MTN has now substantively concluded as far as the multilateral aspects are concerned. At a meeting in Geneva on 12 April representatives of the world’s major trading nations adopted the texts of a number of agreements about international trading rules which will form the central part of the final result. These agreements are now to be considered by governments.

The timetable for the formal finalisation of the MTN is linked to United States congressional examination and approval. Under Congress’s legislation it must accept or reject the package in its entirety- it cannot amend it. This process must be completed before the end of 1979, when the President’s mandate will expire. Whilst some negotiations are still to be completed, for all practical purposes no further changes of substance can be negotiated into the draft accords already reached. It is up to governments either to accept or reject them. The package encompasses the results of both bilateral negotiations and multilateral negotiations on new trade rules. Among the latter are arrangements or ‘codes of conduct’ on trade in civil aircraft, customs valuation, government procurement, export subsidies and countervailing duties, import licensing procedures, standards and the settlement of disputes on trade issues. At a later date I intend to report to the House on the MTN outcome in its entirety.

The bilateral agreements which I have concluded with the United States and Japan are an important part of the overall MTN package for Australia. A central objective in these negotiations was to secure effective guarantees for our beef exports to these key markets. Predictable and firm access arrangements are essential to the future well-being and planning of the Australian beef industry, which exports more than half of its production. Well over half of our beef exports are marketed in the United States and Japan, where there have always been strong protectionist pressures.

Honourable members will be aware that in recent years our beef industry has suffered more than any other Australian industry as a result of restrictive trade policies. In 1974 the problems of our beef producers were worsened by the precipitate imposition of total bans on meat imports by Japan and the European Economic Community, compounded by the introduction of restrictive quotas by Canada in the same year. In the following year the United States imposed restraints on imports at a level significantly below that of the immediately preceding years.

Although not in government at the time, we resolved that we would do everything we could to ensure that never again should such a vital rural industry be subject to a collective shutout or severe restriction in its traditional markets; to see that never again should our beef producers not have minimum access assurances in their key markets; that never again should their prosperity be crippled by the lack of government action to secure existing markets and to gain new markets. This Government has taken energetic steps in these directions. In our two major beef markets of the United States and Japan we have negotiated access commitments of at least 380,000 tonnes a year or almost a third higher than our actual exports in 1974-75. 1 will explain the basis of these commitments in a moment.

I understand that some members of the Opposition have been critical of the beef arrangements 1 have negotiated. They say the amounts are lower than the current access levels. Such criticism completely misses the point of the value of access assurances. Those members of the Opposition ignore the fundamental stability and basic insurance for the beef industry that such secure access levels provide. They ignore them in exactly the same way as in 1974-75 the Labor Government ignored them and presided over the disastrous market shutouts that helped to put the beef industry on its knees. The agreements that I have just concluded with the United States and Japan will guard against a return to this situation. They will act as a form of insurance for the future by providing secure opportunities to sell at times when, without the discipline of such arrangments, importing countries might again be tempted severely to restrict access for Australian beef. Now that these understandings have been reached with the United States of America and Japan, we are looking for similar settlements with other major trading partners, especially the EEC and Canada.

With the security of all these new arrangements, the Australian beef industry will be able to plan ahead with new confidence. The Australian industry, the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, the Australian Trade Commissioner Service and others promoting beef exports will be able to seek new market outlets and consolidate gains made in other markets in the knowledge that exports to Australia’s traditional and major markets will not be restricted below the floor levels negotiated. Considerable efforts have already been made in this area of new market development and are showing very positive results- particularly in such areas as South Korea and the Middle East. Australia’s exports to the Republic of Korea have increased from 500 tonnes in 1976 to around 59,000 tonnes in 1978, with the expectation that Korea will import up to 100,000 tonnes from Australia in 1979. Exports to the Middle East have also shown considerable growth in the last three years, from around 21,000 tonnes in 1975 to an estimated 68,000 tonnes in 1978.

The settlement that I have concluded with the United States is particularly significant and I would like to give the House more details of it. Since 1964 the United States has had legislation to restrict imports of beef by means of quotas. We have never had any continuing formal understanding with the United States as to a minimum or floor level for those quotas. At a time when protectionist pressures were increasing in the United States, this was a matter of particular concern to the Australian beef industry. The new agreement gives a guarantee that in any circumstances global imports will not be restricted below 1.2 billion lb per annum, or 544,000 tonnes. On the basis of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade rules regarding performance in a previous representative period, Australia can expect to be allocated at least 279,000 tonnes of this global figure. This gives us a virtual guarantee of access at that level. When the base quota calculated in accordance with the present United States meat import law is at or above 1.2 billion lb per annum and voluntary restraint agreements are in effect, a global access level of at least 1.3 billion lb will be provided; that is, 590,000 tonnes. In that case, Australia could expect, on its present performance, to be allocated at least 303,000 tonnes of beef.

The agreement also provides for a useful duty reduction on beef from $US.03 per lb to SUS.02 per lb, representing a possible increase in overall returns to the Australian industry of around $6m to $7m a year. In addition, I have received renewed assurances that the attitude of the United States Administration towards any new countercyclical meat import legislation is unchanged from that announced in 1978. The Administration’s position is that if there is to be any such legislation it should contain an access level for meat imports of at least 1.3 billion lb annually, and should maintain the authority which the President has under the current import law to increase meat imports if such action is necessary in the public interest.

In the case of Japan, the Japanese Government has indicated that it expects imports of beef to increase steadily until the end of the Japanese fiscal year 1982. At this time it is expected that the global import level will be at least 135,000 tonnes. Under this arrangement we can expect that imports will reach at least 142,000 tonnes in 1983 and that this growth will be part of a pattern of continuing expansion in the Japanese beef market. Within these figures, Japan has agreed to co-operate with us in an effort to exploit the demand for high-quality beef with a view to lifting global imports by 14,000 tonnes by Japanese fiscal year 1983. Our two governments will also assess jointly the possibilities for imports of high-quality beef on a full-sets basis. We will also co-operate in examining the nature of the Japanese manufacturing-beef market, which is expected to increase substantially up to 1983. These arrangements, and their development beyond 1983, will be the subject of new inter-governmental consultative arrangements between Japan and Australia. This commitment to continuing policy consultations is something of a breakthrough in our relations with the Japanese on beef and should provide a sound basis for our industry to plan its future shipments to this important market.

The MTN .arrangements reached with the United States have also achieved most useful concessions on a range of other products. After generations of effort on the part of successive governments, we have at last succeeded in negotiating a reduction in the United States duty on raw wool. It is proposed that it will be reduced by 60 per cent over a period of three years. This was the maximum reduction which, under their legislation, the United States negotiators were authorised to make, and over the shortest period permitted. It is gratifying, at long last, to have achieved some movement by the United States on this long-standing impediment to one of our great export industries. Australia’s quotas for cheese in the United States market will more than double from the pre-MTN quota level of 1,600 tonnes to 4,000 tonnes. In addition, we now have an entirely new quota for a dairybased product called chocolate crumb. Duty reductions have also been negotiated on a range of other Australian export items to both the United States and Japan. The process of negotiation is naturally two-way and other countries have sought improvements in access for their goods into Australia’s market. In tabling a formula offer in July of last year we issued a challenge to our trading partners to improve greatly their offers to Australia. This challenge was not met and accordingly our offer has been substantially scaled down. What we have now offered matches what we will receive.

As negotiations with some of our other trading partners are still in progress and there is a need for ratification by Japan and the United States through normal procedures of the overall settlements reached in the MTN, it is not appropriate to disclose at this stage the details of the concessions offered by Australia. This will be done as soon as practicable. However, I can assure Australian industries that the Government is satisfied that their interests have been adequately protected. Australia has undertaken in respect of a relatively small list of items to bind tariff rates against future increase. With the exception of two items, one of which relates to the concessional duty on tobacco, all rates negotiated with the United States and Japan are at currently applied rates. Hence there will be no reduction in the current level of protection afforded via the tariff.

While we have not achieved all our objectives in the MTN, I am satisfied that the bilateral settlements reached with the United States and Japan are fair to both sides and will facilitate an expansion of trade on a mutually-advantageous basis. However the broader trade policies of major importers of agricultural commodities remain restrictive and we will have to continue our efforts to moderate those policies. The MTN has opened up opportunities for this in the form of new international commodity agreements on meat and dairy products. It is my intention that Australia use these new arrangements and all other means at its disposal to press our case for better trading conditions for agricultural commodities.

During my visit to North America I also had useful discussions with the United States Secretary of Agriculture, Mr Bergland, and the responsible Canadian Minister, Mr Otto Lang, on the outcome of the recent United Nations wheat negotiating conference. These talks confirmed the need for better co-operation between major wheat exporting nations in the absence of a fullyfledged international wheat agreement. It is up to exporters to do what they can to help ensure stability in the world wheat market until a substantive international agreement involving both exporting and importing countries can be negotiated. The precise form of future co-operation between exporters will be worked out at a highlevel meeting later this month at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, at which Australia will be represented. However, no one should think that the world ‘s major exporters envisage increased co-operation developing into any form of price cartel. Competition between exporters is a fact of life and will remain so. But co-operating governments and industries will exchange information on wheat policies and marketing in order to ensure that decisions affecting wheat trade are consistent with market realities and the need for stability and improved world food security.

Whilst the multilateral trade negotiations and wheat matters were the main matters discussed I was able to make use of my visit to explore a range of other matters of current interest to Australia, including energy and resource problems. My discussions with Dr Schlesinger, Secretary of the United States Department of Energy, underlined the importance of developing policies aimed at the full utilisation of Australia ‘s energy-producing potential. Australia has a particular interest in securing access to the United States market for natural gas. I was able to impress upon Dr Schlesinger and other senior United States officials Australia’s potential as a stable supplier of liquefied natural gas and have suggested further detailed discussions at official levels aimed at enhancing Australia’s opportunity to supply natural gas to the West Coast of the United States. It is clear that, even if the current world oil supply situation can be brought into balance in a relatively short time, the future economic growth of the United States, and therefore of the Western world, depends upon developments aimed at producing energy as economically as possible. Australia has a major role to play in this area and I believe that the future oil supply and price situation will strengthen Australia’s ability to win a share of the United States market for natural gas.

In Japan I also discussed the important question of the upgrading of Australia’s raw material exports. This is an area in which there is great potential, over a wide range of mineral commodities, for future co-operation between Australia and Japan. It involves significant benefits for both countries in terms of additional employment and greater utilisation of resources for Australia and lower costs for Japan. Upgrading of minerals in Australia will involve high levels of new investment and I have told the Japanese that Australia would welcome a share of the investment funds generated through Japan’s balance-of-payments surplus. It has always been the Government’s policy to move towards more processing of minerals before export, but as we move into the 1980s progress in this area is likely to be more rapid than it has been in the past. I have no doubts that the arrangements I have entered into and the discussions I have been able to have as a result of this visit have helped to advance Australia’s interests in the area of trade and resources. Naturally I attach particular importance to the MTN settlements reached with the United States and

Japan. I am sure they will be of lasting economic value to Australia and will help to underpin the broader bonds of friendship which exist between the United States, Japan and Australia.

I present the following paper:

Bi-lateral Negotiations- United States and JapanMinisterial Statement, 8 May 1979.

Motion (by Mr Street) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

- Mr Speaker, we welcome the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) of some of the results of his visit to the United States of America and Japan, and the information he has provided on the progress of the multilateral trade negotiations generally. Regrettably, the statement is as significant for what it does not say as for what it actually says. In summary, the Deputy Prime Minister has reached agreement with leaders in the United States and Japan on access we may have to those markets in future, as a result of bilateral negotiations which took place in the context of the MTN. Further incomplete bilateral negotiations with the European Economic Community remain. These involve further discussions later in the month. Let us review these developments.

A great deal of credit is due to the Carter Administration in the United States for moving the MTN into a more active phase in 1 977. However, the response of the Australian Government to that development was sluggish. It began in June 1977, when the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), after a brief European visit, including one day in Brussels, decided to take responsibility for these matters out of the hands of the Deputy Prime Minister and appoint a Minister first known as the Minister for Special Trade Negotiations, later known as the Minister for Special Trade Representations. At the outset that plan was intended to rough up the Europeans and force them into concessions to Australia on trade. That effort has been conducted with an unprecedented degree of maladroitness, rudeness and .bravado. It did, nevertheless, characterise the strategy of this Government generally, and its trade strategy in particular. That is, it was an attack on an old issue, with blind disregard for the realities of our limited leverage and without proper consideration of the future.

The charter of the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland) has remained largely limited to Europe. He has, however, from time to time sought to make a name for himself elsewhere, as when he visited member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations in August 1978 and was told that AustralianASEAN relations would be in trouble if Australia continued to pursue the Government’s international civil aviation policy. The response of the Government to that warning was, as we know, to disregard it. We now know what the results were. Such is the sophistication of this Government’s diplomacy. Even when a warning is delivered, it is ignored. Perhaps by then, however, the Government’s reaction had been deadened by the blunt exchanges that the Minister has a habit of making. The worst point in our trade relations with Europe was reached in June 1978, when the Minister for Special Trade Representations visited Europe to put forward Australia’s trade proposals. On the day before he reached Brussels he told a public audience that he was going to negotiate with schizophrenics.

Fortunately that Minister has been restrained from such a broad role in our trade relations with Japan and the United States. These have, however, been subjected to the interventions of the Prime Minister. Fortunately the Prime Minister was not allowed by the United States Government to visit Washington in June 1978, although he waited six days in New York for an invitation. Otherwise he may well at that time have announced success on the subjects which the Deputy Prime Minister has now put before us. That, however, had to await the Prime Minister’s visit to the United States in January this year. In Honolulu on 6 January the Prime Minister on his way back to Australia from Washington, told reporters travelling with him that he had won a guaranteed fixed level of beef exports to the United States for Australian cattlemen. The whole thrust of the Prime Minister’s claim was that a deal had been clinched, that agreement had been reached. The Parliament on 22 March was told by the Deputy Prime Minister that negotiations had not been concluded, and he was forced to make that admission. When I asked the Deputy Prime Minister why it was necessary for him to go to Washington for these trade talks, he had to concede that agreement had not been reached. As had happened before, the Prime Minister was so intent on justifying another overseas trip that he was prepared to make any claim with complete disregard for the facts. What he will claim when he returns from Manila we do not know. The Prime Minister said:

The Carter Administration had agreed to a 60 percent reduction in the wool levy and to allow greater access for Australian cheese.

This, on the basis of the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement today, was also a false claim. The

Deputy Prime Minister’s statement is circuitous but the fact is that no minimum level of access for Australian beef to the United States market has been agreed.

The Prime Minister’s statement in January was a deliberate deception to disguise his failure to reverse the United States’ intention to secure counter-cyclical legislation. Regardless of the floor access arrangement, the counter-cyclical legislation and the prospective downward movement in beef prices in the United States several years from now will be disastrous for Australian cattlemen, in the absence of any orderly marketing arrangements and rational export policies. The Deputy Prime Minister’s statement made today does not alter that situation. He tells us that the United States Government’s attitude to counter-cyclical legislation has not changed. Indeed it has not changed. What has changed is the attitude of the Australian Government, which sought in 1978 to prevent any such legislation. That failed then. Why does the Government not admit its failures honestly? The Deputy Prime Minister notes that I and other members of the Opposition have been critical of the beef arrangements he has negotiated. He neglects to mention the criticism of the arrangements by groups such as the Cattlemen’s Union. We recognise the agreements with the United States and Japan, particularly on beef, have value. But they do not solve the major national problem of fluctuating markets. We have referred to the need for orderly marketing arrangements. The Opposition has also proposed in legislation when it was in Government the establishment of an Overseas Trading Corporation. The Deputy Prime Minister described that at the time as a device for dealing with our commie friends, because of his Communist paranoia. Subsequently, however, not only New South Wales, with a Labor Government, has established such a body, but also no less a person than Sir Charles Court, in Western Australia, has moved to do so, because, as he put it, even if he did not want to do business on that basis, other countries did, and thus we had to. If we look at orderly marketing, . particularly of lamb in Western Australia, we will see that it is by an orderly marketing board which has complete acquisition and which is doing very well for the primary producers in Western Australia with Middle East markets and with legislation supporting that situation.

The ostrich approach of this Government to trade has thus resulted in divided operations by separate States. This reflects a failure of the national Government. We want new marketing arrangements and t more active approach to finding new markets. The Minister has said nothing about concessions made by Australia. He notes that we have initialled a multilateral trade text in Geneva in April. He notes that we have agreed to bind some tariffs. He has not told us anything about the April document. He has not told us what tariffs will be bound. This hardly surprises us given that the Government has as yet to provide this House with any statement of the impact on industry of its MTN offer of June 1978. 1 am aware, without this House being told, of the offer running into some 50 pages and embracing well over 500 items. This is the sort of secrecy in which this Government indulges.

But the fact is that the Australian Financial Review on 5 April published a list of some items. The failure to inform the Parliament of that list is not just the act of an ostrich but of an ostrich without any eyesight at all. We do not know, and in all probability the Government does not know, the industrial impact of what it has agreed to. The sole significant achievement identifiable in this statement is an export market for chocolate crumb. The costs are unstated and unknown.

The final insult in this statement is the wording of the Minister’s statement in regard to his conversations with the United States Energy Secretary, Dr James Schlesinger. A person knowing nothing of the subject might think the United States had agreed to buy Australian natural gas and that that sale was critical to the international economy. The truth is quite different. The prospects of our selling liquid natural gas to the United States are very remote. Dr Schlesinger has opposed purchase of LNG from Mexico by pipeline because of cost and because he wanted to press American gas distributors and users into using domestic sources of gas. The fact is that LNG in bottles from Australia would be far more expensive than gas via pipes from Mexico. What the Minister has told us in this regard has no substance.

I am supported in what I say by my colleague, the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), the shadow Minister in this area. He reminds me of these very significant points. We have a massive project known as the North West Shelf project. Some $300m is required to assist in the development of that project. The correct way to do this would be to encourage the United States to enter into a 20-year take or pay contract for LNG. But it will not do that. This is a very significant thing. The reason that the United States will not do this is, as the Minister says- I think there is plenty of evidence to support it- that the United States is interested in Mexico because the

Mexican gas trade requires only pipelines. It does not require any liquid handling. In other words, there do not have to be any problems for the United States in accepting it in liquid form and then bringing it back into gas form. There is significant economic value in that, and Dr Schlesinger has turned down Australia’s proposals. It is no good just talking about beef, cheese and pious hopes and about what we are going to do with natural gas when we have not been able to convince the United States of what it is all about. That leaves us in a very vulnerable position, as I am again reminded by my colleague, because the only two markets for LNG that we have if the United States will not take it, are Japan and Korea. Japan is not ready to take the gas either. Here we have a massive project with the Government not able to understand the realities of the situation. The people who are involved in the project are very disappointed at the Government’s failure to understand the problems, of what it would mean from the point of view of economic viability, and the necessity to obtain long term contracts. Japan has made no firm proposals. One can see that Japan would be rather pleased from the point of view of normal Japanese expertise if the Americans would drop out of negotiations and the Japanese would be the only bidders for the gas. As has been pointed out to me, why should we not be suggesting that the Koreans might be interested, because Korea would certainly have a need for it.

Last week a Korean delegation, including the Korean Prime Minister, visited Australia. It has been put to me that this matter was not even discussed with the Koreans when they were here. There has been a feasibility study in relation to this project, covering approximately 1 8 months. It is about to expire in 3 to 4 months time. It has cost the Australian people some $50m, and still there is no market. It is a waste of time to be making suggestions of the kind that have been made here. One of the significant points is that I notice that in the Minister’s speech as given to me is different from the speech he read. When he talked about whether there would be a quid pro quo in respect of tobacco, he omitted the words that I thought he was going to say. These are the words:

The Government is satisfied that the interests of the Australian tobacco industry have been adequately protected.

He did not say those words.

Mr Anthony:

– It was meant to be in your copy. It is in my copy.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I am aware of the opinion that this could have been done away with, from the point of view of the negotiations. Finally, the Minister tells us that Japan wants to invest in Australian resource projects. That is not new. It is an established fact. We would like to see Japan invest, particularly in new projects, rather than in old projects. Rules exist for foreign investment. These apply equally to all comers, and Japan is welcome. On that note, let me again support the guidelines that the Minister has been anxious to try to survive against the likes of his own Prime Minister and Sir Charles Court. Australia welcomes investment, as long as there is an Australian equity of a substantial kind. A majority position is what we favour. Any honourable members who have been to Japan know how one producer is played off against the other in Japan, to our detriment. To that extent the Minister is to be supported in his negotiations, and not to be left to the sort of machinations of State premiers, whether they be in Queensland or in Western Australia, who act not in the national interest at all, and have made us a laughing stock from the point of view of international price negotiation. We take note of the paper, but we must also take note of its omissions and deceptions.

Mr Anthony:

– I wish to take a point of order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) made a reference to an exclusion from my speech. I have to apologise to the House. I had that section of the speech to which the honourable member referred written into the final draft but it was not put in my reading copy. It was meant to be included; it was not deliberately left out, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition might have interpreted from my not reading it. It was written into the copies to be circulated and it should have been included in my reading copy.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-The right honourable gentleman has the retrospective indulgence of the Chair to make that explanation.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hodges) adjourned.

page 1914

NATIONAL EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION STEERING COMMITTEE

Report and Ministerial Statement

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · Balaclava · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report of the National Employee Participation Steering Committee entitled ‘Employee Participation: A Broad View’. I seek leave to make a statement relating to the report.

Leave granted.

Mr MACPHEE:

– I would like to inform the House that in the past 24 hours I have been privileged to participate in two highly important functions both of which had a direct bearing on my portfolio. This morning in Melbourne, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Bob Hawke, and the principal employer spokesman, Mr George Polites, joined me in launching a slim but significant booklet entitled ‘Employee Participation: A Broad View’. This booklet sets out for the first time in Australia on a national level an agreed view on employee participation policy by employers, unions and government. The fact that Bob Hawke and George Polites were prepared to find time to launch this booklet is a testament to the importance they place on the development of a consensus approach to employee participation.

The other function also involved Mr Hawke. We were both guest speakers in Melbourne last night at the Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation centenary dinner.

Mr Holding:

– You both went well, too.

Mr MACPHEE:

-The honourable member for Melbourne Ports was there as well. The presence of a Federal Minister, along with employer representatives, signifies the success of the tripartite approach to the difficulties which have been encountered in the footwear industry. For a long time the footwear industry has been in decline, but that situation is changing. Eighteen months ago my Department initiated a tripartite footwear industry productivity group. Employers and unions sat down with government to discuss their mutual problems. As a result of these deliberations, a consultant was hired and recommendations were made to improve the state of the industry. I am pleased to say that those firms which participated in the program have recorded productivity gains of between 8 per cent and 20 per cent. Consequently some of these firms have increased their work forces, in one case by nearly 200 employees and in another by 400 employees.

Returning to the booklet, the publisher is the National Employee Participation Steering Committee of which I am the Chairman and whose members include the Secretary of the ACTU, Mr Peter Nolan, the Director of the National Employers Council of the Confederation of Australian Industry, Mr Bryan Noakes, plus other representatives of employer and union peak councils, the Commonwealth Public Service

Board and government departments. The Committee was established in June 1978 following the adoption by the Commonwealth of an employee participation policy and charter. As a first step, the Steering Committee decided to publish information about employee participation and how it may be achieved. The significance of this publication is that very senior representatives of the peak employer organisations, including the Public Service Board and national trade unionswhite collar, blue collar and professional- have come together in a spirit of co-operation for a highly important common objective.

The Government sees employee participation as an essential tool for productivity improvement as well as improving the quality of” work life. The restructuring of industry- in order to improve productivity, our competitiveness and our capacity to employ people- involves redesigning and restructuring traditional methods of work. The need for developments in employee participation at the same time as other productivity initiatives is obvious. This booklet is an important step in encouraging management and employees to develop employee participation as part of our changing industrial scene. ‘Employee Participation: A Broad View’ brings together the views of the Steering Committee members on the nature of employee participation in Australia and the range of aims, forms and processes involved. It is aimed at overcoming some of the confusion and misunderstanding which still exists about the various terms used, and the best methods of implementing those for Australia. The booklet points out that the responsibility for action ultimately lies within individual enterprises and urges employers and employees to take the initiative and jointly work towards the development of new working arrangements.

I have kept in touch with the State Ministers for Labour who are responsible for these matters and have been heartened by their response. In due course I hope that State governments will be able to endorse the principles outlined in this booklet and thereby work with State employee and union organisations which are already identified with these views through their peak councils. Employee participation and productivity improvement are both about reorganising work so that employees work more effectively. This must involve more two-way communication, information sharing and job redesign so that people are better motivated and derive more job satisfaction. The co-operation and consensus between employers, unions and government, evidenced by the book launching this morning and the dinner last night, means that those objectives are closer to becoming realities rather than merely being cliches. I present the following paper:

Employee Participation- Ministerial Statement, 8 May 1979.

Motion (by Mr Street) proposed:

That the House take note of the papers.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-On behalf of the Labor Opposition in this national Parliament, I have much pleasure in welcoming this ministerial statement. I do so for two reasons. The first reason is the fact that the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) has had the courtesy to take this Parliament into his confidence by telling it what he has been up to over the last 48 hours or so outside of the Parliament. Secondly, and more importantly, I welcome the statement for its general nature. The Opposition has no major objections to it, although we have some comments to make and qualifications to outline. Like the State Government of Queensland, the statement is in two parts. The two parts of this statement live together rather more happily than the two parts of the State Government of Queensland.

I wish to make a few remarks about the footwear industry, which is one of those two parts dealt with in the statement. Before getting to the substance of what the Minister had to say in his ministerial statement about the tripartite footwear industry productivity group, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to and to congratulate the Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation on its centenary. 1 have valuable associations with that trade union, particularly with Mr Stan Bidmeade, its federal secretary, and with a number of the State secretaries. I take the House into my confidence by stating that the State secretary in 1969 was my campaign manager when I came into this place, so I have a very warm affection for the Boot Trade Employees Federation. As the Minister knows, there is enormous co-operation from that trade union in a number of areas. He mentioned the co-operation and the establishment of the tripartite footwear industry productivity group. Perhaps if he had had an opportunity to make a longer statement he might have mentioned the Footwear Industry Advisory Council, which was one of the 1 1 or 12 councils which grew out of the Jackson Committee study into the manufacturing industry. The Whitlam Labor Government must be congratulated on the report which resulted from that study, inasmuch as it chose the personnel who conducted it.

As honourable members know, that Committee recommended the setting up of these industry councils. As a member of the Footwear Industry Advisory Council, I have attended a number of meetings and have noted the growing co-operation between the unions and the employers, with help from the Government, in those tripartite discussions. It is good to learn publicly from the Minister’s statement- of course, I did know privately- of the continuing valuable work of the productivity group. It is valuable to note that productivity increases are taking place. As one of the qualifications in respect of his statement, I would suggest that it is a little less than accurate to suggest that the major reason for the work force increase in the footwear industry was the work of the tripartite footwear productivity industry group. I think the Minister would concede that, indeed, the quotas that were put on the industry were enormously important in bringing about stability and security in the industry and allowing the productivity increases to take place.

I take this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to that part of the recommendations of the Crawford Study Group on Structural Adjustment which suggested that this country ought to have what the group called ‘industry specific policies’, a term it borrowed from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. I think this would be better described as specific policies for certain industries in this country. Clearly, one of the industries which the Crawford Study Group had in mind was the footwear industry, because it is a highly labour intensive industry and thus a very sensitive one. The Opposition has been advocating these specific industry policies for at least a year now. I am on public record to that effect. The Opposition is glad to note this particular recommendation, among other recommendations, of the Crawford Committee. The Opposition has gone a stage further now and has led the way in announcing that it would set up a textiles and clothing authority for the textiles and clothing industry. This is relevant because currently the Opposition is negotiating with all the relevant parties within and without the footwear industry concerning improved machinery for determining the future of the footwear industry.

I want the House to know that the Opposition, in developing this policy, hopes that the reaction will not be the same as it has been from one narrow quarter in relation to our announcement concerning a textile and clothing industry authority. I refer to the 4 May 1979 copy of Inside Canberra written by Mr Rod Chalmers and his staff. Every sentence of a paragraph headed ALP Swings to High Protection ‘ is incorrect. Mr Chalmers, or whoever he got to write this particular paragraph, built the statement on a Press release put out jointly by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) and myself. I have ascertained that Mr Chalmers did not have the courtesy to get in touch with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He certainly did not have the courtesy to get in touch with me. I can assure the House and anybody else who is interested in this matter that the setting up of an authority in this area, as indeed would apply to the setting up of an authority in the footwear area, does not mean a swing to high protection. It would mean a proper integration of the work that is going on in the Industries Assistance Commission, work that is going on in the Quota Review Committee and, in this case, the work that is going on in the tripartite footwear productivity group within the Department of Productivity. The Opposition believes that integration is necessary for the proper ordering and better management of an industry such as the footwear industry.

I would have liked to have the opportunity and time to go over in detail each of the incorrect statements made in the inaccurate paragraph by Mr Chalmers on the setting up of a textile and clothing authority. I believe I would have been relevant if we had already made an announcement about the setting up of a footwear authority. However, I may be testing you a little Mr Deputy Speaker, if I spend more time on the textile and clothing industry instead of getting back to the footwear industry. I end this part of my comments on the Minister’s statement by saying that it is vital to have that better machinery for the proper integration of government action to assist this industry. The Opposition is glad to see work going on in this productivity group and it is glad to see the work of the Quota Review Committee, but there might be merit in bringing them together. On that regard further announcements will be made by the Opposition at a later date.

The other part of the Minister’s statement concerned his launching of the booklet ‘Employee Participation: A Broad View’. He did so not only as the Minister for Productivity but also as Chairman of the National Employee Participation Steering Committee. The Opposition is glad that the Minister has overcome the conservative thinking of his colleagues and, indeed, the conservative thinking of many industrialists in this nation by getting on with the job of drawing attention to the value of worker participationthe value of what is called, in many quarters, industrial democracy. It would be deficient of me if I did not take this opportunity to pay tribute to the pioneering work in Australia by someone in government- the pioneering work done by Mr Don Dunstan, the former Premier of South Australia, and his Labor Government in South Australia. That work has been much maligned and much misrepresented. Hopefully, at least one Minister in this Government is slowly pushing his colleagues into recognising the value of the work started by the South Australian State Government. The South Australian Premier, Mr Des Corcoran, has now gone on record as endorsing what his predecessor said by offering his co-operation to the Federal Government. He recognises that it is far more appropriate for the Federal Government to take a lead in this area of industrial democracy.

As the Minister knows, we are not pioneering as far as the rest of the world is concerned. We are well behind other countries in the development of employee participation. I draw attention to a speech made by my colleague the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young).

Mr Young:

– It was a very good speech too.

Mr HURFORD:

-It was an excellent speech. I had the pleasure of reading it in full today. It was made last week in Perth to a national congress of the Australian Society of Accountants. The honourable member for Port Adelaide pointed out that it is not just the Yugoslav concept of selfmanagement that we have in mind when we say we are behind other countries in this field. We only have to look to such countries as the Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and Austria, to mention but a few, to recognise that much work has taken place already in developing employee participation. It is interesting to note that most, if not all, of those countries have had social democratic governments which have spurred on this valuable work.

The Labor Party is firmly committed to industrial democracy. We do not just emphasise the productivity gains to be achieved; we believe that it is morally correct to be committed to democracy everywhere. Just because a man or a woman walks through the gate of his or her work place, it does not mean that democracy should stop. This particularly applies because of our increasingly educated work force. If we are to have satisfaction at the place of work, we have to have democracy at the place of work. I repeat that we cannot allow democracy to be surrendered at the gates or doors of our factories and work places. We must see that democracy applies there as well. In a gentle way I rebuke the Government for suggesting that all of this subject has to be seen in the context of productivity. I recognise, however, that the Minister said that the Government sees employee participation as an essential tool for productivity improvement as well as improving the quality of work life. I would rather that he put the emphasis the other way round. We recognise that an improvement of productivity is needed if we are to have an increasing standard of living. I mention in that context that we on this side of the House would be happy about that additional productivity only if the benefits of it were well spread, not only to those in jobs but also to those outside the work place at the present time, some of those half a million people who are unemployed.

We cannot have a proper spread of the benefits of productivity if we continue to have a government which knocks the public sector, which suggests that it is not right and proper for the public sector- the government sector- to create jobs. There has to be a spread of benefits in this way. Of course some firms in our community do not need stimulus from government to ensure that there is proper employee participation. I take this opportunity of paying tribute to Simpson Pope Ltd in my own State which has improved the work place for its employees. This has had marvellous results. I wish I had more time to give other examples. Awareness of government and stimulus from government will help in many other places where employee participation does not exist. I hope that the Minister will give consideration to bringing out the booklet in a more popular form. It is heavy reading and I believe that the message should be more widely spread. If the language were in a more popular form it would help that to happen.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Debate (on motion by Mr Hodges) adjourned.

page 1918

COUNCIL OF THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Motion (by Mr Sinclair)- by leave- agreed to.

That in accordance with the provisions of section 1 1 of the Australian National University Act 1 946 this House elects Mr P. M. Ruddock and Dr R. E. Klugman to be members of the Council of the Australian National University for a period of three years from 18 August 1979.

page 1918

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen)- by leaveagreed to:

That leave of absence for one month be given for the honourable member for Lalor on the ground of parliamentary business overseas.

page 1918

GOVERNMENT OVERSEAS BORROWINGS

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

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

The Fraser Government’s overseas borrowings of more than $4 billion.

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 WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-Recently the Fraser Government’s overseas borrowings passed the $4 billion mark. That is startling news not only to most members of this Parliament but also to the electorate at large. Almost everyone in this country realises how a policy for that amount of borrowing contrasts with the attitudes adopted by the Government parties in the past when they were in Opposition, and earlier when they were in government. All Australians recall the actions of the Government parties when in Opposition and their criticism of the Labor Government’s proposal to raise $4 billion from overseas. The now Prime Minister (Mr Malcom Fraser) was trenchantly critical of such a proposal. I quote from the Age dated 2 1 July 1 975 in which he wrote:

The impact of $4,000m on the Australian economy was ignored. The increased burden of overseas indebtedness for every Australian was brushed aside. The proposed loan would have increased the debt for every Australian family by $1,000. lt would have increased the overseas debt of Australia by four times, from a little over $ 1,000m Australian to over $4.000 m Australian.

It would have left our sons and daughters with a massive repayment of over $ 18,000m in 20 years. Quite apart from the burden, that must be about the greatest overseas currency gamble in history.

Since July 1 975 he has had a change of mind and has borrowed $4 billion. He presumably has different thoughts about the relative sense involved in borrowing such amounts. In the first year in which he was in government he still thought that such overseas borrowings were bad. In November 1976 when the Government devalued the Australian dollar by 7Vi per cent the Prime Minister said- and so did the then Treasurer- that such a massive devaluation was necessary to avoid putting the country into hock for $ 1 ,000m. They could not possibly have a bar of putting the country into such debt. Consequently the dollar was devalued by 1 7.5 per cent. This figure was soon brought back to 12 per cent with successive devaluations before Christmas 1 976 but drifted to a much higher figure.

In September 1977 this Government changed its mind and instituted a substantial overseas borrowing program. In 1976 the Government borrowed $279m. In the financial year 1 976-77 it borrowed $459m; but in 1977-78 it borrowed $ 1,760m. In September 1977 the Government received loans from the United States and Germany involving amounts up to $5 18m. In 1978-79 this Government has borrowed $ 1,566m with almost monthly borrowings. In August it borrowed $192m from Switzerland and $ 120m from West Germany. In September it borrowed $127m from West Germany. In October it borrowed $187m from Japan and in November $183m from Japan. In December it borrowed $2 14m from Japan; in January, $155m from West Germany; in February, $261m from Switzerland; and in April, $127m from Switzerland. Almost every month the Government has borrowed substantial amounts from Switzerland, Germany and Japan. The total official overseas debt at 30 June 1 976 was $l,325m. This increased by 384 per cent to a total of $5,092m. The Government repaid $109m this financial year. The total debt of $5.1 billion represents a debt of $355 per person in Australia or $980 per taxpayer. These substantial amounts are owed by every Australian taxpayer to foreign financiers. Compare those amounts with amounts which applied while Labor was in office. In June 1973 the cost of overseas borrowings was $96 for each man, woman and child in the country. In June 1974, the amount was $77. In June 1975 it was $88 and today, as I said, it is $355 per head. There has been a dramatic increase in the burden of overseas borrowings on the Australian people.

At the same time we have had a substantial devaluation. Since November 1976 the currency has been devalued by 2 1 .6 per cent against the trade weighted index. So we have had a severe devaluation and the country has been put into hock, not only for the $ 1 ,000m which was supposed to be the alternative to devaluation but for over $4,000 billion. The implications of this overseas borrowing program are important for the consideration of this Parliament. The increasing debt repayment problem in the future is significant. Our debt obligations in future years will become a severe burden on the balance of payments if the borrowing program is continued. They already represent a substantial burden in the 1980s.

Last November the Treasurer was kind enough to reply to a question I put on notice in October seeking details of the liability we would have in future financial years as regards interest payments on foreign loans and repayment obligations in each of those years. Let me give the House an indication of some of the figures involved in future years. In the current year, 1978-79, we have to pay a total of $422rn for debt repayment and interest payments. The total next year will be $620m. The following year it will be $581 m and the year after that it will be $847m. It will remain high until 1987-88.

That was the position at the end of October of last year. Since that time there has’ been a substantial increase in our overseas borrowings. We have borrowed another $940m since that time. All the figures I have just given to the House will have to be substantially increased because we have incurred an increased liability to repay debts in the future and also to pay interest on our higher debt. We are building up a massive problem for the future; that is, the problem of having to face in the balance of payments situation the repayment of our overseas debt and also substantial interest payments in future years. I stress that all these amounts are at the current exchange rate. If we continue to devalue against the trade-weighted index of our trading partners, particularly against those very strong countries from which we have been borrowing funds, we will be directly increasing in proportion to that devaluation the burden of repaying that debt and those interest payments. So the repayments obligations which will build up in future years are of very significant proportions.

If the balance of payments situation does not improve the position will become quite horrendous. It could be argued that we will meet the debt repayment obligations that arise in future years by rolling over those debts; that is, we will renew the loans. But if we renew loans of that order and, in addition, we still have this massive balance of payments problem and have to seek further loans the situation quite clearly would become quite unbearable. In other words, I am saying that the borrowing program is something which just simply cannot be continued into the future at the kind of rate at which it has developed in the last two or three years. The program is reaching the stage where a very substantial difficulty is building up for us in future years in respect of the balance of payments situation. If the balance of payments situation is not corrected very quickly that problem could be immense in the 1 980s.

The relationship of the debt to the total amount of our overseas reserves is also extremely worrying. The gap between our overseas debt and our international reserves is rapidly expanding and that has great significance for our exchange rate and our ability to continue to borrow. The excess of our overseas official debt to our official reserves was of this order: In June of 1973 it was minus $3 billion- in other words, our official reserves exceeded our overseas official debt by $3 billion; in June 1974 our reserves exceeded our debt by $2.5 billion; and in June 1975 our reserves exceeded our debt by $2.3 billion. It gradually went down until by June 1978 our debt exceeded our reserves by $0.4 billion. Today our debt exceeds our reserves by $1.6 billion. In other words, the turnaround in the proportion of our debt to our official reserves has been so dramatic that now our official overseas debt obligations far exceed our total international reserves. Indeed, they are almost 50 per cent higher.

It is obvious that if borrowings had not been conducted our international reserves would have been completely wiped out. This situation certainly raises worries regarding our ability to continue to raise such borrowings. It could be that our triple A rating, which is important in terms of a country’s ability to raise funds on foreign markets, could even be lost. The National Times of 4 November of last year contained an article which quoted Mr James Wolfensohn, an Australian merchant banker who is now based in Wall Street, as saying that Australia’s triple A rating was in danger if Australia continued to borrow overseas so heavily and if the balance of payments situation remained as bad as it currently was. I will not quote that article. However, I think it is important to note that that was said by someone who is very intricately involved in international financing practices.

It is clear that the borrowing program on the current scale simply cannot be continued without creating tremendous problems in the future. Therefore, it is tremendously importantly to get the balance of payments situation right while that borrowing program is in progress. The balance of payments situation is in very bad shape at the present time; it has been for some time.

That is why we have had this very substantial borrowing program. Historically we have had a strong private capital inflow but that has not been present for several years. Admittedly the situation is improving to some extent at the present time and doubtless the Treasurer will want to say something about that. But it should be realised that the levels of private capital inflow that we are getting at present are low by our historical experience, despite the fact that the Government is trying desperately to encourage that private inflow to arrive. This historical reliance on strong capital inflow, although good for our balance of payments situation and our economic development, has also meant increasing overseas ownership of Australian industry. For instance the latest figures indicate that in 1976-77, 59 per cent of our mining industry was foreign controlled. In 1972-73, 35 per cent of our manufacturing industry was foreign controlled. In 1976, 34 per cent of the financial corporations in Australian were foreign controlled. Of course, this high level of foreign ownership is the inevitable concomitant of continuing a very strong level of private capital inflow from overseas and trying to balance the balance of payments situation through that means.

The Fraser Government has desperately sought to encourage private capital inflow by breaking down the foreign investment guidelines. I do not need to go into detail about that. Since establishing investment guidelines which seemed to be reasonable when it first came to office, the Government has step by step gone back on those guidelines in its desperation to encourage foreign capital to this country. That is not to say that bringing foreign capital here is not a good thing. But what this Government is doing is borrowing overseas vast amounts of money- billions of dollars- and at the same time refusing to invest one cent of these billions of dollars in Australian development projects. It is then breaking down our foreign investment guidelines to encourage private capital inflow into resource-type projects in Australia to build up our exports and to develop the country.

If we want to improve our balance of payments situation, to develop the Australian economy and to build up our export industries, which is what we should be doing, surely any foreign borrowing program should utilise those funds for the development of Australian export industries. But we have not put aside for such purposes in Australia one cent of the $4 billion that the Government has raised. Instead we have the absurdity of the Government’s refusing to do that and then breaking down the foreign investment guidelines to get in private capital to do what we could be doing to some extent with those very substantial funds which this Government has sought to borrow. The Crawford report has pointed to the importance of undertaking this possible means of developing our export oriented industries, yet the Government has refused to do so.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

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

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– I think this is about the third occasion in the last six months that the Opposition has raised a matter of public importance on the question of our overseas borrowing program and, for the third time, the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) has fallen into the rather simplistic error of contrasting the action of this Government of borrowing heavily overseas to supplement our international reserves with its criticism in opposition of the overseas borrowing antics of the Whitlam Government in 1975. What the honourable member for Gellibrand did not do was to acknowledge the very significant differences between what we have done during the past two years in borrowing overseas to supplement our international reserves and what was attempted to be done in 1 975. What he did not accept, and what I put to the House, is that the burden of our very legitimate criticism at that time was directed towards the methodology of the then Government in its overseas borrowing practices. One is reminded of the almost parting comments of a former Treasurer, the former member for Melbourne Ports, Mr Crean, when he said- and I do not think I do him an injustice with these words- that the Government of the day should continue to be a cautious borrower on official account. In using those words he criticised very trenchantly the use of dubious intermediaries and thereby the debauching of the international credibility of this country in borrowing overseas.

The honourable member for Gellibrand does not take into account the differences between the purposes of those purported borrowings and the purposes of these borrowings of which he has spoken. He does not acknowledge the secrecy and the deception alleged by some in what led up to those attempted borrowings. Of course, nor does he acknowledge that it was contemplated at one stage that $4,000 m would be borrowed in one hit, whereas the borrowing program in which this Government has engaged over the past three years to supplement our international reserves has been spread in fact over a significant period and has not been purportedly in one hit.

What he did not like to remind the House of is that at one stage a Minister in the former Government held Executive Council authority to borrow a total sum of $4,000m in one hit. I put it to the House at the beginning of my speech that it is absolute nonsense to suggest that one can draw an analogy between what occurred thenthe methodology, the secrecy, the bunching , effects and the purposes of the borrowings- and what has occurred since this Government began in 1976 and 1977 to borrow in very large measure to supplement our reserves. One cannot make an accurate comparison.

It is correct that we have borrowed about $4,000m during the period of which the honourable member for Gellibrand has spoken. The Government makes no secret of that fact. We borrow to supplement our international reserves. Whereas I thought the honourable member for Gellibrand had devoted most of his speech to a criticism of the use of overseas borrowings as a method of supplementing our reserves, when he came to the end of his speech I was utterly confused as to how he believed that we could help our balance of payments in this country short of a miraculous upsurge in our export industries over the next 12 months, because he criticised not only overseas borrowings to supplement our reserves, but also, by implication, attempts by the Government to encourage private capital inflow into this country. He tried to pull back a little from that towards the end of his speech when he realised what he had done because he criticised the level of foreign ownership- a good old faithful to be dragged out by the Opposition when we are having a debate about economics. He said- and I am sure that I quote him correctly- that the level of foreign ownership in so many of these industries is unsatisfactorily high. His words were that that is an inevitable concomitant of encouraging private capital inflow. He criticised us for encouraging overseas investment in this country. I see that he nods assent.

Mr Willis:

– You have encouraged it.

Mr HOWARD:

-Of course we have encouraged overseas investment in this country. We will go on encouraging overseas investment in this country, because overseas investment in Australia has made an enormous contribution to the development of this country in the past and will continue to make a contribution towards developing this country in the future. The fact is that traditionally Australia has financed its balance of payments through a supplementation of our trade account by private capital inflow, lt has been the hesitant character of that private capital inflow over the past few years- a hesitancy which is diminishing- that has made it necessary for us to borrow substantial amounts on official account to supplement our reserves. The honourable member for Gellibrand made the rather simplistic criticism that we ought to invest some of the proceeds of these overseas borrowings in our export industries.

Mr Willis:

-Why not?

Mr HOWARD:

-They are used to supplement our reserves. Surely as the Opposition spokesman on economic affairs the honourable member for Gellibrand would know the difference in the impact on our money supply between bringing those funds in for domestic purpose and using them to supplement our international reserves. To make such a statement is to misunderstand the fundamental reason for those borrowings. In his selective citation of figures the honourable member for Gellibrand started off by saying that in 1973 our overseas indebtedness was $96 a head. Of course it was $96 a head in 1 973 because at that time we were still experiencing the beneficial effects of the high private capital inflow into Australia that occurred during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Indeed, that was the pattern that was disturbed as the 1970s wore on. As private capital inflow dropped off, as people became more reluctant to invest in Australia as people were told by representatives of the then Australian Government that foreign investment was no longer wanted, is it any wonder that people became hesitant?

Is it any wonder that Australia’s balance of payments situation deteriorated as the 1970s wore on? Naturally one would find a healthy situation in June 1973. Over the past two years we have not acted out of character so far as overseas borrowings are concerned. We have been traditionally a net importer of capital. I am sure that the honourable member for Gellibrand would agree with that. It is a thoroughly orthodox, sound, predictable and appropriate economic practice for a government to borrow overseas at a time when private capital inflow is more hesitant than it has been in earlier years.

I think it is worthwhile spending a few moments analysing Australia’s balance of payments to recognise that there have been some improvements in the past few months. We face a situation where I and the Government believe that there will be a continuing strengthening over the remaining part of this financial year, particularly on the trade account. All honourable gentlemen will be aware of the remarkably plentiful wheat crop in the current year and the enormous contribution that that section of our rural industries will make again to Australian export earnings. I think we are all aware that the level of imports in relation to exports has begun to trail off over the past few months, due in large measure to having got out of the system the bunching effects of the phasing down of the investment allowance from 40 per cent to 20 per cent from the middle of last year. Both of these factors add up to a healthier situation for our balance of payments. Whereas in the months that immediately followed the Budget we were told by critics that our balance of payments was going to be very much worse than had been predicted by the Government at the time of the Budget, according to the latest information available to the Government from its official advisers the situation is that the balance of payments forecasts will be very much on track for the current financial year.

Thus far in 1978-79 we have borrowed $ 1,560m. We have borrowed it in a variety of currencies, which surely the honourable member for Gellibrand will accept as sound practice. It is obviously sensible not to borrow everything in yen, in American dollars, in Swiss francs or in deutschmarks, but to achieve a spread; and we have succeeded in achieving a spread. I think that we have a very proper spread amongst the various currencies of the world. Of course, there are exchange risks in borrowing and there are also interest rate differentials. To the extent that we borrow in a hard currency at a low interest rate we take an exchange risk; that is an inevitable fact of life. In our overseas borrowings we have attempted to achieve a diversification of interest rates, taking advantage of lower interest rates and also a spread of exchange risk.

I think it is also worth pointing out to the House that as a percentage of gross domestic product Australia’s overseas indebtedness to date now stands at about 6 per cent. True it is- and I will be fair to the honourable memberthat in 1973 it stood at 3;9 per cent. It is equally true that in 1965- one could hardly say that that was a bad year for the Australian economy- it stood at 8.7 per cent. In 1968 it stood at 6.5 per cent. In 1969 it stood at 6.3 per cent. One could hardly say that 1968 and 1969 were bad years for the Australian economy- that our triple A credit rating was at risk as alleged. They were very good years for the Australian economy. The fact of the matter is that at the present time, historically speaking, Australia’s international reserves, as a percentage of gross domestic product, are not high and they do not justify some of the alarmist language which the honourable member for Gellibrand has used during his remarks.

I say again to the House in response to the honourable member for Gellibrand that to compare the thoroughly responsible, orthodox and official borrowings which have been undertaken very prudently by the Government, under very favourable terms and in a fashion which has done credit to the international reputation of the Australian Government as a prime borrower over the past two years, with what was attempted during 1975 by the former Administration is to compare two entirely different situations- two entirely different propositions. What we have done over the past two years has been in response to a situation which we trust will not continue indefinitely; a situation which gradually is being rectified; a situation which, in the long run, can be rectified permanently only by achieving much lower rates of inflation and even greater levels of international confidence about the strength of the Australian economy.

What we have done during that time has been done in a responsible, entirely proper and entirely cautious manner to supplement Australia’s international reserves in a way which does not impose an undue burden on future generations of Australians in so far as the repayment of the debt is concerned. Any examination of the overseas debt in terms of percentage of gross domestic product would give the lie to any suggestion made in that direction. I put it to the House that there are no grounds for the alarmist talk and the criticism which has come from the honourable member for Gellibrand about an instrument of that section of this Government’s external policy which, I submit, has been conducted in an entirely proper, responsible and productive fashion.

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

-Today we are debating an extraordinarily serious matter, yet once again the Treasurer (Mr Howard) has made his glib apologies about the state of this country’s international standing. The point is- and the Opposition will make it continuallythat the pack of economic charlatans who occupy the Treasury bench has bankrupted this country. That is the real point at issue in this debate. For the first time in the history of this country, Australia ‘s overseas borrowings exceed our overseas reserves. Let us stop for a moment and examine exactly what that means. We have always had reserves overseas; we have always made borrowings overseas. But this is the first time that we have not had the money overseas in our reserves to cover the extent of the borrowing in which this Government has engaged.

As was pointed out by the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), the amount by which our borrowings exceed our reserves is over $1.5 billion. That means, in simple terms, that if the people from whom we borrowed this money were all of a sudden to foreclose on Australia we would not be able to find $1.5 billion to meet our debts. We can expect that at any moment a receiver will be appointed to wind up Australia. This is simply another indicationmore evidence- of the fact that the Government’s economic policy is crumbling before the Government’s eyes and before the eyes of the people of Australia.

The Government used to be very proud of talking about its four arms of economic policy. It used to talk about its fiscal arm, its wages arm, its monetary arm and its exchange rate arm. The idea of the Government running around with four arms has always intrigued me. But I have suddenly discovered what that really means. At the end of each arm is a hand and it is the hand at the end of the arm which has been so busy. It is the hand at the end of the arm which we have to examine. Let us look for a moment at the fiscal arm. At the end of the Government’s fiscal arm is a fiscal hand. That fiscal hand has been very active picking the pockets of wage and salary earners in this country and, at the same time, very deftly handing out largesse to the oil companies and to anyone who is prepared to invest in machinery to replace workers. That is the activity of the fiscal arm. We come then to the wages arm and to the wages hand at the end of that arm. That hand has been vigorously waving big sticks and pointing accusing fingers at workers, at the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and, occasionally, at employers. At the end of the monetary arm is the monetary hand. In recent times that hand has been extraordinarily busy jacking up interest rates. It is about to resort to turning the wheels of the printing presses in order to finance the Government’s exploding deficit.

The fourth arm, which we really are talking about in this debate, is the arm which deals with the exchange rate. We have found now that the hand at the end of that arm has been very quietly greasing the palms of overseas money lenders. That has been necessary in order for the Government to shore up the exchange rate of this country. We now see the spectacle of this fourarmed monster cartwheeling out of control. It is no wonder that when we look at this depressing spectacle, we see the increasing appearance of misery taking over the face of the Treasurer (Mr Howard). His task is made even more difficult by the idiotic pronouncements which the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is prone to make from time to time. Let us take, for instance, what the Prime Minister said in November 1976. The honourable member for Gellibrand referred to this earlier. The Prime Minister offered us then an alternative. He put to us the possibility of our having either to devalue or putting the country into hock. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister, we now find have achieved both. He offered us an alternative: To devalue or to go into hock. In fact, he gave us both. For that we are supposed to be, according to the Treasurer, eternally grateful.

In 1975 the Prime Minister made another prediction. He looked at the extent of the deficit which the Australian Labor Party Government had managed and said: ‘You cannot run a country with a deficit like that. Running the country is like running a household budget. If you continue to spend more than you earn you will have to eventually pay it back’. What are we faced with now? In this Government’s period of office the Prime Minister has chalked up an accumulated deficit of something like $9 billion. Presumably, in the mind of the Prime Minister we are faced with the daunting prospect of having to pay back $9 billion before the country will be solvent in domestic, economic terms. Presumably, we will have to pay back that $9 billion before we will be able even to begin to pay back the $5 billion which we now owe overseas. Such is the idiosy of this Government’s approach that the Opposition feels bound to refer to these matters time and time again.

At the same time, we are asked to make some positive suggestions about what ought to happen to the economy- what alternative propositions we might put to correct the appalling mess and to rescue Australia from the economic disaster in which this Government has placed the country. We have been diligent in that task. Time and time again, the honourable member for Gellibrand and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) have set out our alternative strategies for fixing up the economy. Time and time again, we have explained the new directions which we would chart for this country. But as great as that obligation is, it will not distract us from the equally important task of revealing the depth of the crisis which this country faces and the extent of the damage which this Government has done to this country. That is the task in which we are engaged today. We have to reveal to the people of Australia the damage which this Government is doing to this country. We have to reveal the extent to which this Government is mortgaging the future of this* country and of every worker and every workers child by virtue of those overseas loans.

As the honourable member for Gellibrand pointed out so succinctly, we are confronted with a situation in which, in the forthcoming years, we will have to make a massive repayment of our debts. The repayment will have two parts: Firstly, the loan itself and, secondly, the interest burden on that and other loans. If we look at what will happen in 1981, 1982 and 1983, we will find that we will have to pay back annually in excess of three quarters of a billion dollars. It is all very well for the Treasurer to sit in this chamber and smugly say that that presents no problem. One reason that it will not present a problem for him is that he will not be the Treasurer at the time that the repayments will have to be made. It will however be a problem for the honourable member for Gellibrand, and that is what I am concerned about. I am concerned that this Government should not create such irreparable damage that the task of the honourable member in the coming years is made even more difficult.

As well as the budgetary problems that it will create and the problems that it will create in terms of our foreign account, it will create a problem for the ordinary taxpayer who knows that, in the end, it is he who will be responsible for the debt which this Government has chalked up. Already each Australian taxpayer has hanging around his neck a burden amounting to about $1,000. If one went to the taxpayers now and asked whether they could each withstand an extra $1,000 in loan burden, what would their answer be? Of course, they would reject it as an idiotic proposition. Yet, without consulting them the Government has saddled them with this extra burden to cover up its mismanagement of the Australian economy.

What I have described does not, of course, take into account the fact that we have also six Premiers or so tramping around the world trying to extract loans on their own behalf. The excursions of those Premiers and their State Treasurers will only make the problem worse for Australia in the coming years. It does not matter who borrows the money-

Mr Howard:

– Have you told Neville Wran that?

Mr DAWKINS:

-It does not matter who it is, Wran or Bjelke-Petersen. It is the Federal Government which in the end will be held responsible for Australia’s credit rating and its ability to repay loans. The Government can send the Premiers off to borrow the money but this is where the buck stops in terms of repaying the money. It is the Australian taxpayer who will be responsible for repaying it. It is the standard of living of the Australian work force which is at stake in this regard. It does not matter who borrows the money; it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to ensure that Australia has the ability to repay. At the moment it is this Government which is the most enthusiastic about chalking up foreign loans. The people of Australia must understand what this Government is doing to them and the way in which it is imperilling their future.

It is of no use for the Treasurer to say in this chamber that the Government is doing only what Labor attempted to do; that the only objection that the then Opposition had was in relation to the way in which we intended to go about borrowing the money. I recall, and the Australian people will recall, that at the time the then Opposition mentioned only the extent of the loan. All that was in the air was the fact that a loan of $4 billion was being entertained by the then Government. That was the sole basis of the criticism that was then being offered.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Mr Giles) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. In passing, I remind the House that the proper term to use in referring to a Premier of a State is ‘the Premier’, for instance, of Queensland; or, at least, ‘Mr Wran’. Honourable members should not use bare surnames.

Mr SHORT:
Ballarat

-From the contribution that we have had from the Opposition today, it is quite clear that underlying this matter of public importance is, regrettably, the concept that somehow or other overseas investment in Australia, whether it be equity investment or debt investment is bad. The honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) talked about overseas investment in terms of the proportion of overseas ownership and control and the like without, as the Treasurer (Mr Howard) has pointed out, mentioning in any way at all the tremendous contribution to Australia’s development that both foreign equity and debt capital have made over the whole history of this nation, and particularly in the post war period.

I also regret that the contribution of the honourable member for Gellibrand- I will ignore the second contribution from the Opposition- indicated to me a rather alarming lack of basic economic knowledge on the part of the person who is the shadow Treasurer. As a fellow co-student in economics of the honourable member for Gellibrand several years ago, I can only regret that his economic expertise seems to have gone to seed in recent years.

Amongst other things, the honourable member’s contribution gave no recognition to the fact that capital does not come in specific little compartments. He talked about none of the overseas borrowings having been put directly into development projects. That, I suggest, is a complete misunderstanding of the way in which capital markets work and of the way in which capital is used to develop the resources, and potential resources, of a nation. I am sure that privately the honourable member for Gellibrand must agree with that suggestion.

Behind the bringing foward of this matter of public importance there seemed to be four implications. The first is that the Government’s borrowing of $4 billion is a sudden development. The second is that it seems to have been imposed on an unsuspecting public. The third is that the borrowings had somehow been bad for the nation. The fourth is, quite extraordinarily, that there is no difference between these borrowings and those which were contemplated by the Whitlam Government late in 1974- borrowing proposals which I am sure, as we all well know, did more than anything else to bring the Whitlam Government into disrepute, both nationally and internationally, and which were a key element leading to its eventual overwhelming defeat at the polls in December 1975.

Not one of the four implications behind the bringing forward of this matter of public importance has any foundation at all. I would like to examine each in turn. The first two implications- that the borrowing program was a sudden development and that it was imposed on an unsuspecting public- are simply not borne out by the facts. Between July 1976 and April 1979- a period of almost 3 years- the Government has borrowed, in gross terms, the equivalent of $3,782m, or $3.7 billion, in overseas currency. It is true that it was only in 1977-78 and 1978-79 that the borrowing program was stepped up, but the Government, long before it ever undertook the new borrowing program, gave clear and public notice that it intended to pursue this policy. It did that in August 1 977, when the then Treasurer said that the Government would resume long-term official borrowings overseas to reinforce the capital account.

On 25 August 1977, the then Treasurer announced the first of the loans in the new borrowing program. In his announcement he said, amongst other things, that the Government would not hesitate to make further use of Australia’s high international credit rating as a triple-A borrower if it considered it necessary to do so. In other words, the clearest possible indication was given of the Government’s policy intentions.

The third implication- that the borrowings have somehow been bad for the nation- really requires some examination. The borrowings have been made for two purposes: Firstly, to reinforce the capital account and, secondly, to help finance the Government’s Budget deficit. The borrowings have formed part of the Commonwealth’s total borrowing program; that is, a program of borrowings from both domestic and overseas sources to help finance the Government’s general works and services outlays. Is it bad to borrow in order to reinforce the capital account? It can be if the borrowing is done recklessly, without regard to our capacity to repay the debt, its effect on our international credit rating or our future balance of payments outlook. But on none of these criteria can the Government’s borrowing program be regarded as bad or imprudent. It has not been undertaken recklessly, it has been undertaken through the top banking and financial channels of the world, in conformity with the guidelines laid down by the Government on 17 December 1975, immediately upon its taking office.

The House will recall that those guidelines were established to prevent a recurrence of the borrowing mayhem that so marred the performance and the integrity of the previous Labor Government when it attempted to use tenth-rate, unknown financiers such as Mr Khemlani to organise mythical borrowings at extortionate commissions.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You have borrowed a lot more.

Mr SHORT:

-Yes, but we have done it through responsible and long-established channels.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You have kept it in your club.

Mr SHORT:

– I can assure the honourable member that they are not costing as much as they would have through Mr Khemlani. The borrowings are not outside our capacity to repay. As the Treasurer has stressed, outstanding borrowings, as a proportion of gross domestic product- that is the real test of capacity to repay- now stand at about 6 per cent. It is true that that figure is the highest that it has been during the 1970s, but it is still much lower than the percentage which applied in any year during the 1950s and 1960s. I repeat that it is not an imprudently high figure. The Opposition deserves no credit for engaging in the alarmist scare talk, which has been so evident in today’s debate and on recent occasions, about the effects of our overseas borrowing. The borrowing has certainly not damaged our international credit rating in any way. Australia is still a triple A borrower. It has the highest credit rating that can be given to any borrower. It is a rating which has been carefully built up by Liberal-National Country Party governments over very many years. The borrowings have not been undertaken without regard to our future balance of payments prospects. Indeed, to the contrary, our balance of payments prospects, as the Treasurer pointed out, are strengthening, due to a variety of factors. The Government cannot claim credit for all of those factors, such as the wonderful seasonal conditions prevailing at the moment, but it can claim credit for the most important of them- that is, the restoration of greater international competitiveness by Australia as a result of sound and responsible economic policy and economic management.

The other purpose of the overseas borrowings has been to help finance the Budget deficit. That is not bad or imprudent in itself. It does, of course, support the argument for a lower Budget deficit, the development of which most members on this side of the House would fully endorse, a development which, I mention in passing, seems to be anathema to the Opposition. But that is a different subject and I will not pursue it on this occasion. A given Budget deficit can be financed in either of two ways- by borrowing at home or by borrowing abroad. The Government has done both in a balanced and responsible manner, with an eye to the balance of payments position, the money supply and interest rates. The simple fact is that if the Government were to have borrowed less overseas and had sought to borrow more on the domestic market, it would have increased the money supply, fuelled inflation and raised interest rates. That may be the policy that the Opposition wishes to apply but it is not the policy of this Government.

The fourth implication, and the one emphasised most by the honourable member for Gellibrand, was that the present Government’s borrowing program is not different from that proposed by the former Labor Government. That, of course, is patently absurd. I have already referred to the difference in guidelines followed by this Government and the Whitlam Government. Under the Whitlam Government the Treasurer of the day had lost his traditional responsibility and authority for borrowing, and the $4,000m borrowing was left in the hands of the then Minister for Minerals and Energy. There was little or no control over the intermediaries negotiating, loans on the Government’s behalf, and there were no balance of payments reasons for the Whitlam Government to borrow. But, perhaps worst of all, the Whitlam Government tried deliberately to deceive the Australian people. It tried to borrow $4,000m on terms of up to 20 years and called this ‘borrowing for temporary purposes’. Does 20 years constitute a temporary borrowing? Very few people would say so. Mr Deputy Speaker, I noticed from your words at the beginning of this debate that the matter submitted for discussion by the honourable member for Gellibrand was the only one received by Mr Speaker today, so that meant he had to accept it. That surely is the only conceivable reason why such a fatuous and nonsensical matter is before the House today and taking up almost an hour of our valuable time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-The discussion is concluded.

page 1927

HIGH COURT JUSTICES (LONG LEAVE PAYMENTS) BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 April, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Housing and. Construction · Braddon · LP

– May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Judge’s (Long Leave Payments) Bill as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– As we are having a cognate debate on these Bills I say at the outset that the Opposition will be moving an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the High Court Justices (Long Leave Payments) Bill. The amendment has been circulated. It provides that: the Bill be withdrawn and re-drafted to provide for pro rata long leave entitlements to judges on the same basis as long service leave entitlements to Commonwealth employees under the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976.

I foreshadow that amendment at this stage and will indicate later the machinery we would have to adopt. There are two aspects of these Bills which should be of concern to honourable members. The first is that the benefit available to judges under this legislation will be four times the amount which is available to Commonwealth employees under the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act Under that legislation Commonwealth employees are entitled to long service leave at the rate of three-tenths of a month per year of service, which works out at nine d ays per year. Under the judges long service leave legislation judges are to be given 36 days a year long leave. It is interesting to note from the Hansard record of the hearings of Senate Estimates Committee F on 3 May 1977 that this extraordinary amount of leave originated from a convention of the judges. It is also interesting to note that the High Court judges voted to themselves benefits which were not granted to them by the Parliament. Whether they were acting with constitutional propriety is obviously open to serious question. If we look at the Hansard record of the Senate Estimates Committee hearings we see that in answers to questions it was said that it was a convention that had long existed in the High Court and that it was determined by the justices of the Court. If we look at the payments made we see that they were quite substantial. They ran into many thousands of dollars. Accordingly it is of concern that this matter has not been rectified before now. We make the point, as was made then by no less a person than former Senator Sir Reginald Wright, a man who was noted during his parliamentary career for worrying greatly about the salaries and benefits of others whilst he had an income from other sources -

Mr Hodgman:

– That is a bit rough.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It is not altogether rough. The distinguished former senator would not mind us saying that he went on record as stating that everybody entering the parliament should make a personal sacrifice, particularly in respect of remuneration. We are happy with that; we just note that he did not follow that policy himself.

Mr Hodgman:

– I think that is a bit hard.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– It is not a bit hard. The distinguished gentleman who is interjecting is a personal friend of the worthy senator and would know that he continued his practice in the courts of law in Tasmania, very vigorously and ably, while he was a senator. I think he was paid in both areas. To return to the matter before us, the former senator, Sir Reginald Wright, made the point that judges should not receive a penny less or a penny more than the actual sum that the Parliament votes to them. It is therefore necessary that legislation such as this be enacted. However, at a time when public servants and others are being asked to exercise restraint, it seems outrageous that benefits should be given to judges and no one else.

Secondly, and very importantly, the Bill can be criticised as discriminating adversely against judges who are forced to retire within 10 years of their appointment. There are certainly two judges in that category. That is a very significant point. I will name one judge, Mr Justice McGregor, who is not going to get any benefit under this Bill because of that provision. One would hope that it would not be because of any adverse decision that might have affected any member of the Government. In the family law area, where there is a provision that judges will retire at the age of 65, there is a least one judge who will not be able to qualify because of the 10-year provision. He raised this matter at the time of his appointment and he was assured that there would be no problem from the point of view of what we call pro rata entitlement. That is the other point. In other areas, in the States, particularly New South Wales, there is pro rata entitlement, as there is for Commonwealth employees. For example, judges in New South Wales are entitled to leave after some five years, not 10 years, and they accrue a certain period of leave a year after that. So we can say that there is discrimination here. The two grounds on which a judge might be forced to retire are ill-health or age, and that is as a result of the 1977 referendum.

Judges appointed to the High Court of Australia cannot become entitled to payments under this Act if they are appointed after the age of 60. In the case of the Family Court, judges cannot become entitled to payments if they are appointed after the age of 55. However, under the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976, payments can be made when the period of service is less than 10 years. The legislation can have a quite absurd effect; that is, it can make it preferable for a judge dying of a terminal illness to die in office rather than retire, so that his widow can claim the benefits of his unclaimed leave entitlements. If he retired he would have no entitlement. That is ridiculous.

The point I am making here is that the payments can be made to the widow, but can never be made to the judge.

The final point that should be made is in relation to taxation and the need forjudges to take their leave. There could be considerable difficulty about High Court judges taking leave. The High Court is comprised of a majority bench of seven, and for one judge to take leave at any time would create a deal of confusion and difficulty, particularly in cases where it is necessary for a Full Bench to sit. For the same reason, appointments to the High Court to fill a vacancy should not take an unduly long time. Judges should be encouraged to take leave as it accrues. This Bill provides only for long service leave payments, not an actual entitlement to leave. We believe that judges should be given an actual entitlement to leave, not simply payments in lieu. Senate Estimates committee transcripts show that His Honour Sir Edward McTiernan, because of his long and distinguished service on the bench, was able to take two periods of leave of six months as well as to receive a sum of money in lieu. Not everybody can do that.

Long leave provision for Commonwealth judges at present, and for years, has been termed administrative arrangements’. That is not satisfactory. In respect of the High Court the matter was dealt under a convention which the distinguished judges established. That is far from satisfactory. The payments which had to be made involved sums of money which had significant connotations for tax and other matters. What we are saying is that we want to see the situation put on a proper basis. The Government proposes to observe the convention, which seems not to be in accordance with the precedents of entitlements for others. I note that in some States entitlements are different. Surely there can be no argument that judges appointed, particularly by this Government, should not be entitled to some pro rata consideration for the service they render. I mentioned His Honour Mr Justice McGregor. I have not discussed this matter with him, but I understand he would have an entitlement of some nine years. I know of a Family Court judge who would have almost the same entitlement. Under this legislation, both judges will be denied any payment.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– If they get sick or have to retire they get paid?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-No, they do not. The amount is payable only to the widow. That is the problem we are concerned about. The entitlements should be provided on a uniform basis. Certainly Commonwealth legislation provides for a pro rata entitlement, and I assume that Queensland legislation provides a similar entitlement. Without delaying the House any further, I move:

This is a cognate debate dealing with two Bills. I cannot move the amendment in respect to both Bills at the one time, but I indicate that the amendment I have moved is intended to apply to both Bills.

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

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Holding:

– I second the amendment.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-Mr Deputy Speaker, after listening to the contribution of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen), whom I have been privileged to follow in a number of similar debates, I can only say that he ought to have been an undertaker and not a politician. How he could keep a straight face while saying some of the outrageous things he has said in the last eight minutes is absolutely beyond me. It must win a prize for the greatest tongue in cheek speech in the Parliament this year. On the one hand, he took the opportunity to have a sly dig at the judiciary, and on the other hand he sought to butter up the Public Service. His speech was like the parson’s egg. In the first part of his speech, he was complaining that judges were getting too much, and in the second part he was saying that they were not getting enough. It was a case in which he was not only a man for all seasons, but also a man who was seeking to please all with his remarks. I take a strong view on these Bills. They legitimise a practice which has been carried on in this country for the last 25 years, and which was carried on during the years of the Whitlam Government. I make that point, and I hope that many people hear it. This practice was carried on during the years of the Whitlam Government. The Labor Government had the opportunity to bring in a Bill. It had the opportunity to put it on the statute books. It did not do so.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– We were too busy fighting elections.

Mr HODGMAN:

-The Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke, tongue in cheek. He was poker faced. He really ought to have been an undertaker. He would have been a beauty. He would have done very well indeed. At least the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the sense of humour and the grace to acknowledge that there is some validity in what I am saying. I think both sides of the House would agree that it is far better that payments of entitlements to the judiciary be put on a legislative basis and not be left to Executive discretion as was mentioned in the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) who represents the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) in this place. The point that I make is that what is provided in the legislation has been the practice in this country for a quarter of a century. Indeed, this legislation comes before this Parliament as the result of undertakings which were given by the Attorney-General, and indeed his predecessors, to Senate Estimates committees, that legislation would be introduced to authorise those payments.

I do not make it a practice to praise Prime Ministers, Ministers, or even judges. But I believe that some of the remarks made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may well be interpreted as indicating that judges are getting somewhat of a better deal. The amendment proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition compares the position of a judge, on the one hand, with a public servant on the other. As a former Commonwealth public servant I should like to make some comments about that comparison. With the utmost respect, I do not think it is valid. I suggest that there would be very few Commonwealth public servants who had gone into the Public Service at a loss of salary. Yet overwhelmingly that is the situation with respect to judicial appointments. I think in fairness to judges in the High Court, the State courts and the Federal courts, there would be very few, if any, who could not have earned substantially more if they had remained at the Bar.

I have reason to believe that my colleague, the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron) may speak along these lines in his address. In other words, judges have made a substantial financial sacrifice to serve this country in the judiciary. Also, the public servant, as a rule, is not subject to the same constraints in relation to taking his long service leave as judges are. Very few, Commonwealth or State public servants would have been told that they could not take their long service leave for five years. Yet there is one judge well known to all honourable members who has not been able to take any leave for five years.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Not even holiday leave?

Mr HODGMAN:

-Not any leave at all. That situation is known to both sides of the House. The situation in relation to the High Court of Australia, as I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be pleased to confirm, is that there have been times when, because of the illness of a judge or for some other pressing reason, it has not been possible for the Chief Justice of the High Court to release judges to take their long service leave. Those are facts that the public ought to know. I am not here to speak in a judges’ benefit debate. I am simply pointing out that it is not, in my respectful submission, a fair analogy to compare judges’ provisions with long service leave provisions applying to Commonwealth public servants. It is significant that I have not heard that point of view put by Commonwealth public servants in relation to this legislation. If they were offended by it, if they thought it was unjust, I have no doubt that the capable officers representing the public servants of Australia would have risen in rage and said that they were not getting a fair go. But they have not made those representations. That does not debar the Deputy Leader of the Opposition from drawing a comparison and putting his case. I am simply saying that I am not aware of it.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– It gives pro rata entitlements. That is the point.

Mr HODGMAN:

– Indeed, and I am going to come to that. I am not aware of any representations from any public service white collar body in respect of this legislation. In relation to the pro rata situation, I simply say that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is probably correct when he says that certain undertakings may well have been given. I am not in a position to dispute what he says and he is usually accurate when he makes statements as important as that. But I think there is a second argument that has to be considered, that is the precedent that would have been established by the pro rata provisions if they had been different to what they are and the effect of the flow-on into the private sector. It may well be, if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s argument is correct, that it would be taken up as a precedent.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– It is in the Commonwealth Employees Bill now.

Mr HODGMAN:

– I am making the point about any additional benefit to a judge for service of say, less than seven years, which might be considered where an appointment has been made late in life and he cannot reach the period for which these entitlements accrue, that at a time when there is a feeling that there should be restraint in the community and at a time when this Parliament has approved annual indexation of pensions as opposed to six-monthly indexation of pensions- my position on that is well known and clearly understood because I voted against it, as I believed I was obliged to vote- it might well be argued that the provision of additional benefits for the judiciary is inappropriate. I say with as much force as I can muster that to suggest in any way, shape or form that the Government’s approach to this legislation has been affected by anything Mr Justice McGregor has or has not done in recent times is a proposition which I would reject categorically.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not go on to say, as one might have thought that he would, that Mr Justice McGregor will not get these benefits because of things he put in the report of his royal commission, the people he criticised or the actions that followed the release of that report. I am pleased to see the Deputy Leader of the Opposition making it clear by shaking his head that he is making no such suggestion. I do not know personally Mr Justice McGregor or the Family Law Court judge affected but I do not know that whatever is decided today about this Bill will not necessarily be the final word. One might appreciate that it could be argued, and no doubt would be argued in other jurisdictions, that a precedent was being set; that the Government, instead of doing as the Labor Government did, as the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) was wont to say, and making the public servants the pacesetters and then later calling them the fat cats, was setting a precedent in regard to the judiciary. In all the circumstances, I do not believe that that would be a proper comment to make.

The fact of the matter is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in a very whimsical way, has tried to do two things, as I said at the commencement of my remarks. He has tried to have a sly dig at the judiciary- heaven knows why- and he has endeavoured to butter up the Public Service. To that extent I have to say in mildness that the amendment proposed is a classic example not of chicanery but of cant and hypocrisy. It is an amendment with no substance whatsoever. On this occasion I think I would not even have to consult with the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) or any other member of the Government to have the authority to say that the Opposition’s amendment should be exposed as a rather humorous but quite insubstantial device with no merit, and one which will be resoundingly defeated in this

House when the matter goes to a vote at the conclusion of the debate.

I cannot resume my seat when I have the opportunity to speak for a few moments on the privileges and rights of justices of the High Court of Australia without again reminding this House that in 79 years there has never been a Tasmanian, a South Australian or a Western Australian appointed to the High Court of Australia. It is the highest court of the land; it belongs to the people of Australia. I urge as strongly as I can that the Attorney-General (Senator Durack), in considering those worthy to sit upon the High Court of Australia, gives the utmost consideration to appointing a judge from one of the three less populous but highly talented States.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Order! I do not think that this matter is within the province of these two Bills.

Mr HODGMAN:

– I accept your ruling in good part. It would only relate to the entitlements of the new High Court judge when he is appointed. I hope he is a Tasmanian a South Australian or a Western Australian. I support the Bill.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

-I have no doubt that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) is right when he says that the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) will be defeated, Honourable members know it will be defeated not because of a lack of intrinsic merit in the argument but because, at the appropriate time, the bells will ring and members of the Government will troop into this House and put up their hands. It is a matter of some regret that the substance of the argument which was put forward on behalf of the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) was not joined by the honourable member for Denison.

For the last 18 months the Government has been harping to the people of Australia about the need for economic sacrifice, despite considerable divisions within its own ranks because as part of its view of economic sacrifice it refused to index pensions. Time and again the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has indicated that the Government will take a very stern attitude to what it regards as sweetheart industrial agreements reached between employers on the one hand and unions on the other. This Government says that under no circumstances will it approve sweetheart agreements and that it will take any action it can within the framework of the Constitution to deal with any employer or union that comes to sweetheart arrangements. It says that it does not want to be a pacesetter but it adopts a standard whereby judges of the High Court of Australia and the Federal courts will receive not long service leave but payments in lieu of long service leave calculated on the basis of 5.2 weeks for each year of service. This is at a time when those in the Public Service, which sets a reasonable standard- it is not an inappropriate standard- receive payment on the basis of nine days a year. One is entitled to ask what were the criteria upon which this Government, which is pledged to the concept of economic sacrifice, decided that there was something so intrinsically meritorious in the position of judges of the Federal Court that they were entitled to receive payment in lieu of long service leave based upon a calculation of 5.2 weeks a year when no other level of the Public Service and no other industry in Australia is prepared to make a payment on that basis.

What would the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) or the Prime Minister do if, tomorrow, the builders labourers, who happen to be a favourite target of this Government, were to reach an agreement with the building industry under which all builders labourers were entitled to a payment of 5.2 weeks a year in lieu of long service leave? The Prime Minister would walk in here, adjourn whatever debate was in progress and predict all sorts of dire consequences. I am not saying, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not saying, that judges of our courts are not entitled and should not be considered to be entitled to leave entitlements and long service leave. The whole social concept of long service leave was that it was precisely that- it was a period away from work which was based upon the length of service that was given. Indeed, many sections of the trade union movement argued strongly for many years that the ingredient of leave was far more important than the ingredient of payment. We have now come to the stage where this Government has made a sacrifice by saying: ‘We are not going to argue seriously about the question of leave. We are just going to make an additional payment ‘.

It is perfectly true that a far more acceptable principle is that whatever our judges are paid ought to be governed by statute. It is certainly preferable as a matter of principle that whatever entitlements they receive are based on statutes and not based on any exercise of discretion by the Executive. The basis of the amendment of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is the fact that when one looks at the question of long service leave, when it concerns judges, no matter how eminent they are or how high a position they occupy, one is not entitled to say: ‘We will cast aside the normal principles upon which any government ought responsibly to look at the question of long service leave’. I suppose that by tradition all lawyers have a high regard for convention, but in recent times some very eminent lawyers holding very exalted positions were prepared to throw conventions out the window. These same gentlemen and others now tell us that on the basis that the present formula is appropriate all the Governments needs to do is to put the formula into legislation and everybody will be happy. The Opposition is not happy. It is not prepared to accept this formula as a proper standard to apply to the judiciary, particularly at a time when every other section of the community is being called upon to make economic sacrifices.

My heart bled during the statements of the honourable member for Denison, when he spoke of people going on to the Bench of the High Court of Australia receiving a reduction in salary and I suppose it is perfectly true that prominent constitutional silks earning up to $100,000 or $150,000 a year receive a drop in salary on their elevation, but they know that when they take the job. There are those who would argue that in the first place, the income these prominent people receive is far too high, having regard to their real role in and the contribution they make to the community. To say that there has been a reduction in salary, that we as a parliament should close our eyes to the principle upon which long service leave entitlements ought to be paid in this community and to the principle of long service leave as a concept, because we are dealing with these exalted gentleman who sit on the Bench, I do not believe is a standard that is appropriate to this Parliament.

I believe that there could be a lot more argument about the desirability of our judges in the High Court and federal courts taking their long service leave. It has not been unknown that members of the High Court and other members of the judiciary, are from time to time invited to visit, open and participate in law conventions. It is not unknown that many law schools throughout the world would be only too happy to have a judge of any of our federal courts as a visiting fellow. Given the movement that is taking place and the social pressures that are being generated within our community I would have thought that there were compelling reasons for all judges to be given long service leave after an appropriate period of service, but given that leave so that they can free themselves from the pressures of sitting in a court on a day-to-day basis. They could sit back, pause, reflect and think about the changes in society, as there are pressures imposed on those who have the heavy responsibility for interpreting our laws and trying to make the laws work in a way that is appropriate to meet the needs of our community.

I would have thought that there were compelling arguments indeed for saying that some of our judges ought to be encouraged to take long service leave, and to use that leave to take the opportunity of broadening their special, political and economic horizons. I do not believe that it is a desirable principle for this Parliament to say simply that because the judges have been put in a system which works to their benefit, a system which on any view of it, is out of proportion to what occurs in every other economic sector of society, that because it is dealing with judges, no matter how eminent, it is all right for them, but it is not all right for the plumber, the fitter and turner, the public servant or other members of our society. That is the basis of the Opposition’s objection to this piece of legislation. I believe it is a principled objection. I believe that it is an objection which, if looked at and the merits of our argument closely examined, will ultimately prove to the benefit of the judiciary.

There is a feeling about this legislation that a system is being created whereby any of those who hold this exalted position can grab the money and run if they wish. That is not good enough in this society. It is certainly not good enough for those who have the very heavy and onerous task of interpreting our laws. Again I would like to remind this House that the pensioners in this community have been told that because of problems in the economy and the economic sacrifice that we all must make, they are not entitled to have their pensions indexed. It is not good enough for those many thousands of Australian citizens who are living below the poverty line and who are to be kept below the poverty line because this is a government which believes in economic sacrifice. It is not good enough for this nation, which almost on a weekly basis moves into yet another area of industrial confrontation, as unionists will not readily accept that their living standards ought to be lowered because this Government has a view of economic sacrifice.

This legislation should have given an opportunity to this Parliament and this Government to establish a very important principle on long service leave. It would have been a superb opportunity for this Parliament to say quite clearly to the rest of the community that when we are talking about economic sacrifice in this community that sacrifice ought to start at the top; the more exalted the position, the higher the level of salary, if we are serious about economic sacrifice, that is where sacrifice ought to start. I believe that this legislation will not rebound to the credit of the Government. It will not rebound to the credit of this Parliament and, unfortunately, it will not rebound to the credit of our judiciary. I think the Government had an opportunity but it has taken the easy way out. It has taken the way out which will not not have much appeal to those citizens in Australian society who believe that there has to be a measure of social justice in our community, that economic sacrifice ought to begin at the highest levels of our community, and not at the bottom. For that reason this legislation, which will be passed because at the appropriate time the bells will ring, will do nothing to convince the average citizen in Australia that there is within the framework of this Government one rule for the rich and those that have and another rule for the poor, who are not only poor but will continue to be poor as long as this Government has its way.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– This evening this Parliament is virtually sanctioning a practice which has been established for a number of years. In my view, because it has been a practice for many years, that does not make it correct. Previous speakers have highlighted the fact that in no other section of the community would 5.2 weeks long service leave be granted for every year served. In simple mathematics it boils down to the fact that at the end of every ten years service on the bench a judge will be entitled to a full year’s long service leave. I was surprised that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) confirmed that judges do not have holidays. My interjection was: ‘Do you mean that they do not have any leave at all throughout a year?’. He confirmed that. If that were the case perhaps my views on this subject might be a little different.

Being the only non-lawyer speaking in this debate I concede has some slight dangers. I cannot accept completely that judges do not have holidays each year and that they need this provision as an extra. If this were so, all the more reason why they should take their long service leave. Even our Prime Minister has introduced a requirement that instead of working year in and year out all Ministers of the Crown must have at least one fortnight’s holiday a year in which to prepare them for the continuation of their work. That is commonsense because without leave people become very dulled and their capacity to work greatly decreases. Sometimes when I watch the efforts of some Ministers I think that the holiday period should be extended to perhaps three or even four weeks but that is another subject. For the purpose of reflection on this debate I wish to incorporate in Hansard a table which I have prepared. It shows, since Federation, the date of birth of all our judges, the date of appointment, the age on appointment, the age of cessation and, at the other sad end, their age at death. The table covers the High Court of Australia, the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration or the Australian Industrial Court, the Federal Court of Bankruptcy, which still exists in a much diminished way, the Australian Family Court and the new court which has arrived on our scene, the Federal Court of Australia. I have sought the agreement of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) to incorporate this document in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Thank you. When one considers this Bill, the salary range and other entitlements of the judiciary, I think it is proper for one to go to the root cause. In many cases the judiciary has been cared for generously because governments have had so much difficulty in getting people to accept an appointment to the bench. This afternoon previous speakers have alluded to the fact that to go to the bench means a drop in income. I suppose that a number of reasons exist why people may not be too keen to accept appointments. Many barristers for a host of personal reasons would not want the undoubted heavy responsibilities that go with a judgeship. Some would regard the money as not good enough. Others would not be favoured politically. There is no escaping the fact that an appointment to the bench is more dependent upon a political smile than perhaps any other job in the community. There would be the equals such as the ambassadors and the high commissioners who come from Parliament. Generally speaking if someone is not in favour with a particular Government, whether it be State or Federal, there is little likelihood of his being appointed to the bench. Perhaps on that aspect alone honourable members can wipe out half the available people who could be appointed.

Some people may argue that just because a man is a barrister he is not necessarily equipped to take an appointment on the bench. That argument would be valid. Today I have done some work in relation to the availability of people for appointment to the bench. I have only taken New South Wales and I have used the New South Wales Government produced 1979 almanac which contains a list of all barristers in Sydney, Wollongong and Newcastle. After a totalling of the names on the various pagesthere are no numbers- I find that there are 7 1 3 practising barristers and 338 non-practising barristers in New South Wales.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The lawyers have kept you out of jail for a while.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-My learned friend the honourable member for Hindmarsh has interjected.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Order! The honourable member for Hindmarsh is highly respected but he is not entitled to the title ‘learned’.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Perhaps the Deputy Speaker is saying that the honourable member for Hindmarsh pontificates. The point I was making is that even among the 338 nonpractising New South Wales barristers there are people who are associated with the Commonwealth Crown Solicitors Office and the Office of the Clerk of the Peace in Darlinghurst. Even the previous Commissioner of Taxation, Sir Edward Cain, is a barrister. It does not mean that because they are non-practising they are suitable for appointment. So the nub is that in New South Wales alone there would be well over 700 or 800 people who might be considered for appointment to the bench. If we multiply that figure by the number of barristers who would be available throughout Australia- one could safely multiply it by 3 to 4- this would give an appreciation of the number who could be available.

I recognise that there would be a number of reasons why a lot of these people would be unavailable for appointment. But the aforementioned gives an indication of the number of people who are barristers. Quite a large number of New South Wales barristers have taken silk. Surely if they have been appointed to such a high position they must have a great deal of talent. Maybe the root cause is that so much money is able to be earnt by barristers. So much has to be offered to a barrister to encourage him to become a judge. When we are talking about the salaries of barristers I want to ponder another question and that is whether we have gone haywire in the provision of legal assistance.

Recent cases, which have also involved politicians, including a former Prime Minister, cause me to question the rules, or non-rules, applicable to legal assistance and to make suggestions as to what I believe the vast majority of Australian taxpayers would regard as fair and reasonable. In making these comments my boot is directed at the ball and not at any man. It is a question of fair limits being set by government. This speech is made in what I believe to be a climate of general acceptance by the community that legal expenses can be so devastating for the individual that in some instances governments must play a role in absorbing some or all of the impact to ensure justice is within reach. At this very moment controversy exists over the costs of Messrs Whitlam, Cairns, Murphy and Mr Sankey. But, of course, that case is sub judice and hence I will make only passing reference to it.

There is no Medibank available when it comes to insuring against the unexpected in legal costs, and few medical operations would cost the equivalent of a full day in a court. Some people now refer to an individual’s total costs of, say, $50,000, $60,000 and even $70,000 with hardly a blink. I cannot dismiss the subject that lightly. I do not wish to appear to be persecuting the Whitlams, the Cairns and others, because I am not. But I ask: What is a fair burden for the taxpayer to bear? If a man has acquired position and standing in our community, does it mean that Treasury is his oyster upon the legality of some action of his being challenged and the matter moving to a court situation? Guidelines and limits should be set for the amount that government will pay. I definitely do not advocate placing restrictions upon the individual in choosing the person to represent him or her. I advocate the placing of restrictions only on the extent to which government can commit itself to costs. If for instance, a Minister of the Crown-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Order! I think the remarks of the honourable member for Fadden are a bit wide of the Bill at the present time. I think he should confine them to the guidelines laid down by the Bill.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I am trying to get to the very root cause of such generous provisions as, say, 5.2 weeks a year long service leave entitlement in the case of a judge. Sir, I am trying to show- I think you are indicating some understanding- that if barristers are able to earn huge incomes because governments do not set upper limits on the fees they pay, generous provisions have to be made to compensate members of the judiciary. That is the point I am making.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I would not object, if the honourable member kept his arguments within that realm. But I think he was floating out into different realms.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I take your point, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I can give an example of the point I am trying to make. If a Minister of the Crown is caught speeding while driving himself to attend to government business it should not mean that he is automatically entitled to have represent him a Queen’s counsel or a high fee barrister who may charge $1,000 or more a day to defend him, with a government picking up the costs. We should remember that a Queen’s Counsel generally is accompanied by another barrister who receives a fee roughly twothirds that of the Queen’s Counsel. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that your son is a barrister and that you would have great interest in this subject. Then there are the costs of the instructing solicitors. It is a fact that, generally speaking, a Queen’s Counsel is a most competent and able man in his field. Indeed, many of the judges who will be affected by this Bill will have come from that exalted rank. However, strict guidelines should exist if and when a person engages at the taxpayers’ expense a Queen’s Counsel, a high fee charging barrister or non-schedule charging solicitors. The Government should say that the people will not foot the bill for a man who in one day earns an amount similar to that which an age pensioner is given in six or more months. It must impose a limit on the amount of money the people will pay.

I recall an article which appeared in a magazine some 12 to IS months ago which stated that the income of a well known Queen’s Counsel was estimated by his closest associates to be between $300,000 and $350,000 a year. Of course, it does not follow that the income of a Queen’s Counsel is necessarily in that range or anywhere near it. Indeed, that estimate may be even inadvertent exaggeration. The salary and allowances paid to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to run his electorate and our country amount to approximately $80,000 per annum. The salary and allowances of Chief Justice amount to some $63,717 per annum. The average man’s mind boggles at these figures alone. However, $300,000 plus is beyond comprehension. I realise that the man in private practice can have his earning capacity eliminated overnight by a loss of health and his capacity to command high fees can diminish by virtue of partial or total eclipse of his popularity. Nevertheless, his risks are not unlike the risks run in politics. In 1979, is one man worth $1,000 or more of the public purse a day when so many other competent lawyers, including Queen’s Counsel, would do the job equally well for much less remuneration?

A set fee should be established and it should be made known that charges above that fee will, except perhaps in most exceptional circumstances, be the responsibility of the client. In a royal commission situation- Mr Deputy Speaker, this point is relevant because Mr Justice McGregor is one judge who has been mentioned in this debate- or in the case of a government inquiry where legal representation is allowed, to pay more than would normally be allowed by the Supreme Court of a State or the High Court, on a party and party basis, is an unforgivable waste of the taxpayers’ money. Some segments of the community will regard some payments as only a raid on the privy purse to plunder and loot public moneys. I have no intention of entering into discussion on that subject, except to point out that people should not conclude that a client is a party to such an act; he or she is presently illequipped to bring about a situation of restraint.

Finally, if a person engages a $1,000 a stitch surgeon, the government health care program pays according to a schedule of fees, and it is the patient’s responsibility to find those expenses incurred above the schedule fee. In other words, there are cost restrictions upon even the desperately ill, and it is high time government examined limits in relation to legal expenses. If a corporation wants to pay a lawyer $1,500 a day, that is its business. I am talking of the taxpayers’ business. I strongly suspect that some lawyers are little different by nature from some people in our community who adopt the attitude that when the government pays, whacko, the sky is the limit. It can be argued also that when government agrees to pay outrageous fees without question it is becoming a pace setter in relation to legal fees and hence it is placing justice even further beyond the reach of Mr and Mrs Average.

I have purposely avoided using words such as scandalous’, ‘shocking’ and ‘shameful’ in the latter part of this speech because I do not seek headlines. I just seek serious reflection about a matter of real principle, namely, luxury litigation at public expense. It would be unjust of me not to acknowledge the presence in our community of many lawyers who often charge fees below their entitlement and who frequently feel a sense of embarrassment when fee demands become public knowledge. There are always occasions when one would dearly like to be his brother’ keeper.

I conclude by returning to the point with which I commenced. So often it is hard to get people to accept appointments to the Bench because as barristers and Queen’s Counsel they command fees which are really beyond the comprehension of the ordinary man. Therefore, one is calling on a person to take a substantial drop in income by asking him to accept an appointment to the Bench. Perhaps attention should be directed at what is a fair thing in relation to fees, particularly when the ordinary person has to pay them.

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

– in reply- In my reply to honourable members who have spoken in this debate might I remind them very briefly of what these Bills are all about. They are to honour an undertaking given to the Senate by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) and certain of his predecessors, including those in previous governments- I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) to bear that in mind- that payment to judges in lieu of long leave not taken would be put on a statutory basis. The reason for this is that there has been an absence of any such statutory basis and payment has been totally dependent upon Executive discretion. The Bills authorise payment in lieu of long leave not taken either on the retirement of a judge who has completed at least ten years’ service or on the death of a judge, whether or not he has completed ten years’ service, of an amount calculated in accordance with sub-clause 4 (2) in each Bill.

I remind the House that the basic entitlement of a judge to which these Bills apply- that a judge must serve ten years to be entitled to one year’s leave- has been in operation since 1967. These Bills are to cover the situation where judges have not taken that leave because of their service to the state through the Commonwealth. In those circumstances this Government and previous governments have thought it fair that those judges be entitled to the leave which they have not taken or, in the case of death, that a widow should be entitled on a pro rata basis to payment for leave to which her late husband would have been entitled if he had served ten years or if he had died within a ten-year period. I would think that any fair-minded person, knowing what these Bills are doing and why they are doing it and knowing that the basic long leave entitlement of 12 months for ten years’ service has been in existence for 12 years, would approve of what the Government is doing. Obviously the 5.2 weeks is the pro rata entitlement on the basis of that 12 months’ leave for ten years’ service to which I have referred. Therefore, the Government cannot accept the amendment which has been moved by the Opposition.

Amendment negatived.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Could it be noted that the Opposition objects to this Bill and to the Judges (Long Leave Payments) Bill but does not wish to proceed to a division at this stage because it would inconvenience the Government’s business?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)That will be noted in Hansard.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1939

JUDGES (LONG LEAVE PAYMENTS) BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 April, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– Could it be noted that the Opposition foreshadowed an amendment in similar terms to the amendment moved in respect of the previous Bill, but does not wish to proceed to a division because of the inconvenience to the Government’s business?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-That will be recorded in Hansard.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

Sitting suspended from 6.1 to 8 p.m.

page 1939

BOUNTY (ROTARY CULTIVATORS) BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 April, on motion by Mr Fife:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– Increasingly the Parliament is being sidestepped or kept in the dark concerning variations in the level of assistance given to industry. One of the Bills which illustrates this is the Bounty (Rotary Cultivators) Bill 1979 which we are debating. The uncertainty and the inconsistency surrounding this Bill, which I will outline in a moment, make it just another victim of the inadequate procedures adopted by the Government in announcing and explaining decisions made on advice from the Industries Assistance Commission and the Temporary Assistance Authority. Tariff changes, whilst the subject of advice from the IAC or the TAA are brought before this House by means of an antiquated procedure which effectively prevents debate on individual issues. As a result, lengthy research is required just to discover how the Government has evaluated the independent advice which it has received from the IAC and the TAA. Even then, there is no guarantee that any acceptable rationale will be found for the action which the Government has taken.

Bounties are debated in this House because they are a direct form of Government expenditure. They come before the House as the subject of numerous bounty Bills. At the moment we have five such Bills on the Notice Paper, of which this is only one. But this has not prevented the Government from concealing the true nature of and the reasoning behind the Government’s decisions on independent advice from either the IAC or the TAA. As a result, this House is treated with contempt when it comes to variations in the level of government assistance to Australian industry. This Bill before the House is a typical example of that.

The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) in his second reading speech, which he made when he introduced this Bounty (Rotary Cultivators) Bill 1979, did not give answers to four questions which are absolutely essential to an understanding of the Bill. The first question is: What was the recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission relating to this Bill? The second question one asks, on learning that the Government did not accept the recommendation of the IAC- that could be learnt not from the second reading speech, but by referring to the IAC report- is: Why did the Government not accept all the Commission’s recommendations? The third essential question, having established that some of the recommendations were not accepted, is: Why were those recommendations not accepted? An independent advisory body, at great expense to the taxpayers of this nation, studied an industry- in this case, the industry which manufactures rotary cultivators- and came up with recommendations which the Government did not accept. Why did the Government not accept those recommendations?

The fourth pertinent question, not answered in any way in the Minister’s second reading speech, is: Why did the Government make the decisions it made; in other words, what is the rationale underlying the level of assistance actually decided upon by the Government and set forth in the second reading speech? This House of the Parliament, in the second reading speech, was presented with a flimsy, inadequate outline of what is contained in the Bill. The second reading speech contains what I allege to be misleading words. The Minister stated:

Following advice and recommendation from the Industries Assistance Commission in its . . . report . . it has been decided to . . .

That just is not so. The decisions arrived at by the Government did not follow the advice of the IAC. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, have had to sit through a number of debates on this subject. They do not deal with the most riveting of the subjects to which the House has to address its attention, but these subjects are vitally important when it comes to employing people and ensuring that industry in this country is healthy. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, very rarely have I had to disagree with decisions taken by the Government because, to a great extent, it has followed IAC recommendations. But recently there have been a number of cases in which this has not happened. I will cite a few of those cases later. I want to make it clear that my main complaint is that this House is given insufficient reasons for the IAC’s advice not being followed. The words which I quoted are now appearing in second reading speeches, irrespective of the nature of the Government’s decision on IAC or the TAA recommmendations. Those words have become so usual that they are meaningless and misleading. They have the effect of lulling the listener or the reader into the sometimes false belief that the Government has accepted the independent advice of the IAC or the TAA. That is not always so.

The Government’s failure to identify and to explain its decisions on independent advicewhether on tariff, bounty or quota changesgenerally has two effects. Most obviously, it denies easy access to information on whether the Government has accepted the advice of the IAC or the TAA and why it has made that decision. It makes a sham of the independent advisory process. It would be more honest and less hypocritical- if I may use that strong term- if the independent advisory processes were dropped completely. It would be better if the Government, instead of treating the House in a cavalier manner, just said: ‘This is the decision we have come to. It is not built on any independent advice. Sure, we have had to go through the motions of putting the matter to the IAC, but we think the IAC report is worthless. Therefore, we have come to this conclusion.’ This could be for all sorts of reasons, maybe something to do with funds going to political parties. I am not happy that that is the way in which such decisions have been arrived at. Less obviously, what has happened enables inconsistencies and pork barrelling to creep into the process. That is evidenced by the double standards often apparent in the approach adopted towards protection.

I ask the House to compare the Government’s recent decisions concerning assistance provided to producers of tyres, on the one hand, and to the citrus industry on the other hand. The Government accepted heavy cuts in tariffs on tyres, as recommended by the IAC. However, for reasons which were never explained to this House, let alone debated in the House, the Government rejected the advice of the Industries Assistance Commission concerning assistance to the producers of orange juice. Instead, the Government decided to provide a high level of assistance to the latter, yet penalised the former. The suspicion of pork barrelling, which inevitably follows this sort of decision, is the direct result of the procedures adopted by the Governmentprocedures, I assert, which avoid explanation and which avoid debate. Maybe there are good reasons for this sort of decision being made. If I were told the reasons and enabled to make a judgment on them, I would be able to accept those reasons. But we have not been given those reasons in the second reading speech. They are not properly explained to us and, therefore, to the people.

Those procedures, which I have stated I believe are misleading, are contrary to the intentions of Sir John Crawford when in 1973 he recommended the establishment of an independent advisory body to make recommendations on assistance to industry. Certainly, they are contrary to the intentions of the Whitlam Labor Government when it established the IAC and the TAA. This Government is abusing the system which was laid down in those years. The time has come for the Government to approach the whole matter with more honesty and with greater candour than it has approached it hitherto in a number of these types of cases. I am not asserting that there were many. I have given a couple of examples and I am particularly annoyed about this one.

The Bill illustrates clearly the need for a change in the procedures by which decisions about varying levels of assistance are announced, explained and debated. We do not deny that it is the prerogative of the Government to make the final decision. However, we do expect full and candid disclosure by the Government of its decisions on the independent advice that it receives, as well as some explanation of those decisions. The explanation as to why these decisions have been arrived at may be simple but, I repeat, we have just not been given it.

Alternatively, the Minister could say to the House- I would accept it readily- that the Department or someone on his staff had slipped up; that that was the reason why the full facts had not been given on this occasion. I would accept that, too. The Minister has a busy portfolio. But I would want to know more. I had the choice of spending even more time than I had been able hitherto to find out some of the answers, but it just seemed to me to add insult to injury to have to pursue it privately. It is better that it should be brought out into the open here; that I should express my disappointment in the hope that procedures will be improved in future.

I would like to give some of the background to this Bill and the work that I have done in coming to my conclusion, so that the House will be aware of why I am annoyed. That involves chronicling the events which indicate so clearly the inadequacies and deficiencies of procedures which can result in a Bill such as this coming before the House without adequate explanation. On 6 October 1978 the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs asked the Industries Assistance Commission to inquire into and advise upon whether assistance should be accorded to the production in Australia of rotary cultivators having a power of less than 15 kilowatts. The Minister asked for a report within 60 days as to the necessity for short term- that is, urgentassistance. Also, the Commission was given 12 months in which to consider the nature of long term assistance required in the production in this country of rotary cultivators. Only Howard Rotavator Pty Ltd of Northmead in New South Wales- I will refer to it hereafter as Howardgave evidence at the public hearings into the question of short term assistance. Howard is the sole producer of pedestrian-operated rotary cultivators and one of the only two producers of tractor-operated rotary cultivators. The company requested short term assistance by means of a bounty equivalent to 20 per cent of the materials input cost for each model of the goods under reference. It asked that such assistance cover both pedestrian-operated and tractor-operated rotary cultivators for both domestic use and export.

Howard requested this urgent assistance to compensate for the tax effect of tariffs incorporated in materials input; in other words, in order to make one of these rotary cultivators, it had to use imports which were subject to tariffs, and wanted compensation therefor. Company representatives said that the extra costs it incurred because of the tariff on the imports made their product uncompetitive against similar imported products. Howard asked for $45 per unit for pedestrian-operated rotary cultivators, and for an average of $150 for tractor-operated rotary cultivators.

Following consideration of the request and the evidence the IAC, on 6 December 1978, issued its report. The Commission recommended assistance only for pedestrian-operated rotary cultivators, produced for home consumption. That is, it recommended against the provision of short term assistance both in respect of tractoroperated rotary cultivators and pedestrianoperated rotary cultivators which were exported. In particular, the Commission recommended, first, that a bounty at the rate of $20 per kilowatt of engine power of the prime mover, be paid on the production and sale in Australia of pedestrian-operated rotary cultivators. This represents a bounty of about $45 for the type of pedestrian-operated rotary cultivator manufactured by Howard. Secondly, it recommended that the bounty be paid on machines with a local content of not less than 60 per cent of the total factory costs. Thirdly, it recommended that the total bounty payments in any one year be limited to $60,000.

In a joint Press release of 7 February of this year, the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) and the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs announced that the Government considered that the level of assistance that had been recommended by the Commission might not be adequate’. They gave no explanation as to why they believed this to be so. They merely made the bald assertion that the assistance might not be adequate. Additionally, the Government announced that it would pay a bounty on the production and sale in Australia of pedestrian-operated rotary cultivators at the rate of $40 per kilowatt of engine power, and not $20 per kilowatt as recommended by the IAC. However, again no reasons were given for the doubling of the bounty rate. The Government also announced, inexplicably, that it intended to set a limit of $60,000 to the bounty payable in any year. That had been the level recommended by the Commission. Again, no explanation was offered as to why the Government, having doubled the rate of bounty, had not also doubled the limit. Honourable members will recall that the IAC had recommended a payment of $20 per kilowatt, with a limit of $60,000. The Ministers stated that the payment was to be double that sum, but nevertheless the limit was to remain at $60,000. Even more incredibly, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, in his second reading speech on the Bill, failed to make any reference to the fact that the Government had rejected some of the advice of the IAC. As a result, he also offered no explanation as to why he or the Government had rejected that advice and had opted to double the bounty rate.

Therefore, we have a situation in which the Government has overturned a recommendation made to it by the IAC but has given this House absolutely no indication of that fact or of its reasons for so doing. I repeat, the Opposition does not deny to the Government the right to reject the advice of the IAC. Nor does it take issue on the ground of the moneys involved. The amount, $60,000, is some would say a mere bagatelle. It is the principle that is involved that is important. The decision made may have been the correct one. But justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done.

We take issue with the fact that no mention of the Government’s rejection of the advice of the IAC was made in the second reading speech of the Minister, nor was any explanation given. It has been left to us in opposition, and everyone else for that matter, including the IAC to ascertain. I do not know who else would be applying their minds to this subject. It happens to be one of the duller duties of the Opposition to involve itself in such detail. We do not have a whole department behind us, as do Government members. It has been left to us in opposition to realise the nature of the Government’s decision, to try to understand it, to carry out our own investigations to try to guess what is in the mind of the Government.

The Government should not leave these matters completely to our inquiries, even if those inquiries were to be successful and we were to understand what was the position. It adds insult to injury when our inquiries prove, as they have done, inconclusive and puzzling. One source told us that Howard had asked for bounty protection not only for rotary cultivators produced for home consumption but also for those produced for export. The source implied that the doubling of the bounty rate was intended to provide assistance for production for both domestic and export sales. In other words, double up on the domestic sales and that will help to offset what was required on the export sales. If that was the intention, which frankly I doubt, it does not explain why the Government did not double the limit to the bounty payment from $60,000 to $120,000. Further, if it had been brought out in the open that that was the purpose of the additional amount, such action would have been in contravention of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which prohibits subsidies on exports.

Another source put forward yet another explanation. That source argued that Howard had indicated that a bounty of $ 1 50 per unit was required to make local production more competitive with imports. He reasoned that a bounty rate of $90 per unit would be more appropriate than the $45 per unit recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission. However, this explanation conflicts with evidence presented to the IAC inquiry. Remembering that this recommendation came from the Temporary Assistance Authority and is of a temporary nature only, an Industries Assistance Commission inquiry is going on at the same time to determine what the long term nature of assistance should be. When I refer to evidence to the IAC helping me to try to understand what is at the bottom of these decisions I am referring to evidence in relation to that IAC inquiry from which we have not yet had a result. In fact, if we take that evidence from the IAC inquiry, Howard requested urgent assistance to compensate the company for the tax effect of tariff on imported components which company representatives estimated to be about $45 per unit for pedestrian operated rotary cultivators. The IAC recommended the granting of Howard’s request in full. Did the Government become confused with Howard ‘s request for an average bounty of $150 per unit for tractoroperated rotary cultivators? The Minister rejected that request explicitly in his Press release in February.

Perhaps the Government felt that the annual production estimate implicit in the IAC’s recommendation, namely, 1,250 units, was too optimistic and that a figure of 625 units was more realistic. The figure of 625 was certainly the average figure for the 1976-77 and 1977-78 production, but frankly the seven years before that period saw production vary between 1 ,020 units and 1,454 units. If the Government felt that a level of production around 625 units was more realistic, at least in the short term, why did it not explain this? Why did all these conflicting views emanate from my sources and why indeed does the Government still not reconcile the request from the one and only company, as far as I know, which is receiving a bounty under this Bill?

Given the vacuum, instead of a satisfactory rationale for the Government’s decision, we in opposition can be excused for seeking other less charitable explanations. For example, publicity just prior to the release of the IAC’s report in December last year criticised the Government’s record in assisting this industry. These Press reports highlighted the drastically different treatment meted out to Howard, the beneficiary of this bounty, on the one hand, and to Norton Villiers Australia Pty Ltd, which is the manufacturer of engines used in machinery including rotary cultivators and which is rumoured to be owned by members of the Liberal Party in Ballarat, on the other hand. Norton Villiers has apparently been the subject of five inquiries since 1962, while Howard has struggled to get this one inquiry. This is despite the large contribution which Howard makes to employment in the area in which it operates. Perhaps the Government thought that by acting in a generous fashion towards Howard on this one occasion, the adverse implications of the publicity which it received earlier could be ignored and left behind. A final irony in all of this is that Howard has rejected the bounty assistance and has described it as being insufficient. The company did not criticise the bounty rates, however, but the limit placed on the bounty payments. In his evidence to the continuing inquiry into long term assistance in March this year, the managing director of Howard expressed dissatisfaction with the Government’s decision. I quote his words: the bounty or subsidy of $40 per kilowatt (i.e. $90 per unit) on pedestrian tillers on the face of it appears generous, but the limitation of $60,000 per annum does nothing to help me effectively compete in the market place.

Not only has the Government refrained from telling the Parliament why it has decided to be more generous, but it has also failed to please the company to which the generosity was aimed. The wash-up of all of this is that the Opposition cannot support this Bill under these circumstances. On behalf of the Opposition I therefore move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: the House declines to give the Bill a second reading until the Government gives the House a satisfactory explanation, inter alia, as to-

why the Government considered that the level of short-term assistance on the production and sale in Australia of pedestrian operated rotary cultivators which was recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission might not be adequate;

why the House was not informed that the Government had rejected the recommendations of the Commission relating to this matter; and

why the Minister in his second reading speech did not explain the reasons for deciding on a bounty which is double the rate recommended by the Commission’.

Further, the Opposition urges the Government to reconsider the whole manner in which decisions about assistance variations are announced, explained and debated in this Parliament.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Kerin:

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

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

– I listened with a great deal of interest to the previous speaker. Whilst one appreciates the great depth of research that he has undertaken into this matter, which by overall standards might be of rather minute proportions but which to the people engaged in the industry is of great significance, I cannot but take a few minutes of the time allocated to me to comment on some of the views that he has expressed. At the outset, I express my concern at the fact that a member of the Australian Labor Party would see fit to criticise an initiative of the Government which has as its prime aim and objective the ensuring of more jobs for Australian people. I thought it was rather difficult to understand that, coming from a party which traditionally has associated itself with providing employment for Australian workers, he may have advanced a point of view which failed to appreciate the thrust of the Government’s activity; that is, to ensure that the jobs of Australian workers in this particular area are safeguarded for an extended period of time. I make the point also that surely it is good government when the government of a particular country is not recreant to the trust that has been placed in it but reserves for itself the right to make decisions.

For too long, criticism has been levelled at governments, both Federal and State, that they are accepting without comment, without criticism, the advice of bureaucrats. In this particular legislation we have an example of a government being a real government. It is true that the Industries Assistance Commission carried out an in depth analysis of the problems that confront rotary cultivators and the associated problem of small engines not exceeding 7.46 kilowatts. But I fail to appreciate the criticism of the Opposition. A government is castigated because it has reserved unto itself the right to make decisions about the allocation of finance. The responsibilities of the Industries Assistance Commission are to inquire and to report. It is not for the Commission to adjudicate. That is the responsibility of government. I would have thought that, on balance, the Opposition would have accepted the thrust of the Government’s action which is simply this: Pending the results of the final report due, it is expected, in October this year, the Government believes that it is appropriate to offer assistance as detailed in this Bill. That the amount of assistance is twice that recommended by the IAC seems to me to indicate that the Government has looked at the totality of the operation, and has been concerned that an otherwise viable Australian enterprise could cease its operations prior to the receiving of the final report. I can well understand the concern of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) and the concern of the Government.

A few short years ago we had two Australian enterprises engaged in the production of this type of rotary cultivator. Unfortunately, at the end of 1 977, one of the manufacturers, the Rover company, ceased operations. It is with the background of that knowledge that the Australian Government was aware of the threatened disaster in the industry. We were aware that the share of the market by Howard Rotavator Pty Ltd, commented on by the previous speaker, had declined from 20 per cent of the total market in 1975 to 5 per cent in 1976 and 1977. It seems to me, therefore, to be an eminently feasible proposition for the Government, aware that one manufacturer had ceased operations at the end of 1977, that the remaining manufacturer’s share of the market had declined from 20 per cent to 5 per cent, and that the IAC was bringing in a full report towards the end of this year, to act in a responsible manner to ensure that the remaining Australian manufacturer stayed viable and continued in operation.

It is interesting to note that the number of employees in the Howard company in June 1976 was 239. On 6 October 1978, the date of the IAC inquiry, that figure had fallen to 149, a decline of jobs for 90 Australian workers. It is interesting to note the background of the reasons and the propositions on which the Government based its decision. I find it therefore somewhat distressing that the Opposition, rather than supporting this Bill which is a short term measure as the Minister aptly spelt out in his second reading speech, is opposing it, for no better reason that I can gather after listening intently to the previous speaker, than that it merely wants to oppose it.

These particular rotary cultivators are not used in general agriculture. They are used more or less in what we might term the market garden and the home gardener context. We pay tribute to the market gardeners- people with the high labour content- people who are very hard workers and who not only have to spend long hours in planting and attending to their various crops, but also in developing markets. I know that in some of the areas of Queensland, particularly in the areas represented by the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Jull), many of the growers of flowers have spent a considerable amount of time, money and energy in developing markets in such countries as New Zealand. It is good to see that these people do not wait for government activity, but that they are prepared to develop their own markets.

These rotary cultivators are used also in home gardens. In Australia it is most gratifying to note that more people are showing an interest in cultivating native plants and flowers. There is a tendency to have bigger allotments. Not all people desire to play sport. Some people like to spend their leisure time in the quiet and homeliness of their gardens. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that only two weeks ago Mr Stan Peck, a well-known journalist from the Sydney Morning Herald, visited that delightful place called Toowoomba.

Mr Corbett:

-Where is that?

Mr McVEIGH:

– It is very close to the electorate of Maranoa. Mr Peck opened what we believe to be the first Green Week in the world, certainly the first Green Week in Australia. It is a week dedicated to the pursuit of the home garden. In reply to the official welcome which was extended as a matter of courtesy to an eminent journalist and a world renowned gardener, Mr Peck made the remark that not too many people liked the hard work of gardening, that is the digging and the heavy work. These rotary cultivators are used by the home gardeners. Mr Peck made the point that, by virtue of the fact that these rotary cultivators were of a very high standard and were readily available, more people were spending their leisure time in the pursuit of gardening techniques.

One problem that the local manufacturer faces is that he has to stand up to competition from overseas markets. We find that traditionally Howards have exported more rotary cultivators than they have sold locally on what I might call the home market. Unfortunately, in recent years this trend has been reversed. We find that in 1972-73 Howards produced 1,454 rotary cultivators thus showing a trend of exporting more than they sold on the home market- 554 domestic, 900 exported. In 1977-78 this situation had made a remarkable turnaround. Production and sales for the domestic market were 308, and only 14 were exported. So there was a total production in 1972-73 of 1,454 and in 1977-78 of 322. We find that the total number sold has increased quite remarkably to 3,054 in 1975-76 and 1 1,204 in 1977-78, with the greater amount of these imports coming from New Zealand and the United States of America. Imported rotary cultivators and rotary hoes attract a duty of 22’A per cent. But the significant thing is that if they are imported from New Zealand under the trade arrangements which Australia has with that country, they are imported duty free.

Let us now look at the situation of the local manufacturer. He is faced with the proposition of a high cost structure in Australia and with the need, in most instances, to import the engine which he fits to the mobile rotary cultivator. Of course, we are talking about pedestrian rotary cultivators which are self-propelled but which are guided by someone walking behind. If the motor used is imported from overseas, the manufacturer has to pay a tariff of 45 per cent. However, the interesting point is that the imported motor which has imposed on it the duty of 45 per cent is priced at approximately the same level as the locally produced motor. So, he is at a disadvantage in that he has to meet the competition from the overseas exporter and the importer in our country, who have a duty imposed of only 22 Vi per cent. But, because of the costs of either the locally produced engine or the imported engine which has placed on it a 45 per cent tariff, he finds great difficulty in competing on an equitable basis. With the introduction of the bounty provided for in this Bill he will be better positioned to meet the tough competition in the market place.

The Minister has ensured that there will be tough safeguards to be met. The manufacturer will have to reach 60 per cent Australian content to attract and maintain the bounty. This will be worked out on a formula suitably supervised by the various requirements of the different sections of the Act. It will be based on a formula whereby the Australian factory cost of the prime mover plus the Australian factory cost of the rotary attachment is at least 60 per cent of the factory cost of the prime mover plus the factory cost of the rotary attachment. In the formula presented by the Minister there is still adequate scope for manufactures in Australian industry in the small engine field to compete with the imported engine. In most instances it will be necessary for the local manufacturer of the rotary cultivator and the prime mover to ensure that he uses all the raw materials available and such components as gears. The local manufacturer of small engines should be able to offer to such firms as Howards a proposition whereby the engines that it produces, together with gears, are at an economic advantage to the imported engines. I hope that the local engine manufacturers will take up this challenge.

We on this side of the House are attracted to the proposition that there should be bounties rather than increase tariffs. Let us spare a moment to isolate what would have happened had tariffs been increased in this legislation the House is debating. Increased tariffs would have subjected the Howard company to fierce competition from New Zealand. I would not advance the proposition that American companies would have set up auxiliary or associated companies in New Zealand to defeat the purposes of the legislation. I know they would not do that. If we had increased tariffs we would have increased the price of the imported United States product but we would not have increased the price of the New Zealand import, which is equally as tough a competitor as the US product. So it seems to me that, rather than being castigated, the Government should be congratulated for its realistic approach to the preservation of an Australian industry and, just as importantly, for preservation and maintenance of jobs for Australian workers.

The bounty helps local producers; it is to their advantage. Above all, in justice, it is positive proof of the proposition that, if we are serious about the employment of Australian workers, it does not behove the purchaser of a particular utensil or piece of machinery to keep those workers in their jobs. Surely the resposibility belongs to all Australians, irrespective of where they are, to ensure that their fellow worker has a meaningful job, rather than that job being preserved by the propping up of artifically high tariff burdens. Therefore, I compliment the Minister for his just approach and his enlightened approach to the very difficult task of ensuring jobs for Australian workers who, in many instances, have to face up to unfair competition from subsidised products from other countries.

I hope that Australian manufacturers in other fields will endeavour to accept the spirit and enthusiams of the Australian Government for maintaining jobs for Australian workers. I know that most of these pieces of machinery usually have what we term spark ignition motors. It is unusual to have a diesel or a compression motor. I would like the Minister to comment on whether the imposition of the bounty on a prime mover extends to diesel motors. In the electorate of Darling Downs there is the Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd, which is a specialist producer of small diesel motors. It is known the world over. It is a family enterprise which gives employment to well over 1 ,500 Australians. I know that its product is not used in this area but I hope that the Minister will clarify that the bounty extends to diesel motors as well as to petrol motors. The Minister has been most careful in ensuring that there are adequate safeguards. The bounty pertains only to a prime mover and the attached piece of machinery.

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

Mr Fife:

– I seek the indulgence of the Chair to make a short statement without closing the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-As there seems to be no objection, the indulgence of the Chair is granted.

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

– I was very concerned at certain of the comments made by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) who is leading for the Opposition in this debate, particularly when he implied that the Government was acting irresponsibly in doubling the bounty recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission. In fact, he implied that there might be something improper in relation to the decision. He then went on to say that the irony of the matter was that the company rejected the bounty rates as being insufficient. As an Opposition speaker will be rising in his place next to speak in the debate, I invite the Opposition to move the adjournment of the debate so that I will be afforded an opportunity to discuss the matter with the company. The Government has no desire to rush legislation through this Parliament to provide a bounty for an industry that does not want the level of bounty recommended in this legislation.

The investigations carried out by the honourable member for Adelaide raise a doubt in my mind as to whether the bounty is appropriate. I think that the Parliament would wish me to make proper inquiries before the legislation proceeds. In the circumstances, the Government wishes this debate to be adjourned. In that event we will arrange for it to proceed tomorrow in the light of the decisions that flow from the information supplied by the industry.

Mr Hurford:

– I also ask for the indulgence of the Chair.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I grant the honourable member for Adelaide the indulgence so long as he is as brief.

Mr HURFORD (Adelaide)-I will be brief and to the point. I want to make it clear that the statement I made was that Howard Rotavator Pty Ltd rejected the bounty assistance as being insufficient. I believe there can be no misrepresentation of my use of the words. I went on to explain to the House that the Managing Director of the Howard company is on public record as expressing, at a meeting of the Industries Assistance Commission, dissatisfaction with the Government’s decision. He said:

  1. . the bounty or subsidy of $40 per kilowatt (i.e. $90 per unit) on pedestrian tillers on the face of it appears generous, but the limitation of $60,000 per annum does nothing to help me effectively compete in the market place.

I do not want this interpreted as my saying that the Howard company was not happy to receive this money. That is not so. What I am saying is that the company did not believe that there ought to be a limit of $60,000. If that is the understanding of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife), I quite understand that he would want to consider what I have had to say tonight. At the same time, I do not want the Minister to take away a wrong interpretation of the gist of the total contribution from me. The decision may well be right, but sufficient explanation has not been made to this House. The Opposition is happy for the Minister to consider the situation. We would prefer, of course, that this matter come before us again on Thursday. Our proceedings will be broadcast on Thursday and those taking an interest in this matter can tune in and see that justice is not only done, but is seen to be done.

Debate (on motion by Mr Kerin) adjourned.

page 1947

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SELECT COMMITTEE ON TOURISM

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 5 April, on the following paper presented by Mr Lynch:

Tourism-Select Committee- Report-Government response-Ministerial Statement, S April.

Recommendations of Committee and responses- and on motion by Mr Groom:

That the House take note of the papers. (Quorum formed)

Mr JULL:
Bowman

– Tourism is now the world’s second biggest industry. The only industry that is bigger is oil. By 1985 tourism will be the world’s biggest industry. This year it is estimated that tourism world-wide will be worth $370 billion. Australia’s share of that international tourist trade is 0.07 per cent. Two and a half years ago the Government recognised the contribution that could be made by tourism to the Australian economy. It then set about forming the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism. Over a two-year period that Committee received something like 207 submissions, spent many hundreds of hours on public hearings and spent many hundreds of hours in deliberation on what would be best for the Australian tourist industry. In October last year the final report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism was presented to this Parliament. The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) responded to that report a few weeks ago.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! I remind honourable members that they should not pass between the person addressing the Chair and the Chair and that they should take their seats and not stand in the aisles. It is unfair to their colleague who is speaking.

Mr JULL:

– The Minister for Industry and Commerce, whose portfolio covers the area of tourism, made his final report to the House of Representatives on 5 April this year. All in all, of some 45 recommendations and conclusions that were reached by the Committee a number of them have already been introduced. I believe that the tourist industry is now in one of the most delicate positions that it has been in in its short history in Australia. Decisions to be made by the Government in coming months will be crucial in determining whether Australia will take its part in the world ‘s tourist plan. I believe it is essential that Australia does play that part.

Tourism has an awful lot to offer our economy. We can go back over debates in this House in recent years and see where the balance of payments was something like three to one againstthree outflowing dollars to one inflowing dollar- in the tourist industry. Something like one million Australians are going overseas this year, compared with a total of in the vicinity of 400,000 tourists who are coming in. I believe that we have a very real need to try to balance that tourist imbalance, to increase the number of people coming into this country and spending their tourist dollars for the benefit of the Australian industry.

I believe that it was most heartening to see the comments that the Minister for Industry and Commerce made in his statement to this House just a matter of a few weeks ago regarding the Select Committee report. One would hope that the other comments, recommendations and conclusion that were contained in the report would be taken on board, not only by the Minister but also by members of the Tourist Minister’s Council, which meets in June, and, indeed, by the Government in the formulation of the Budget, which is due to be delivered in this House in August. As I say, I believe that the tourist industry is at the moment in the balance in Australia.

Tourism can offer an awful lot to this country. We found in our report and, indeed, in the economic study that has been made by the Bureau of Industry Economics that there are some very great benefits to flow on to Australia from the tourist industry. For example, for every 25,000 international tourists who come into this country, 1 ,400 jobs are created; and that figure, in itself, is quite incredible. For every $10,000 spent in the domestic tourist industry 1.2 jobs are created. The flow of the tourist dollars throughout the length of the community is considerable indeed. The economic specialists can tell us that the tourist dollar bounces about three times once it is spent. Others can tell us that it can go through to a bounce factor of something like nine times. That has tremendous implications for the nature of the economy in Australia. Tourism has been recognised as a great means of decentralisation, which is important in some of our far flung areas as well.

The fact that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has specifically recognised the tourist industry is most important because never before has tourism really been recognised in Australia as an industry. It has been described as something akin to froth and bubble. People have never done any sort of study of what tourism can mean to the country. Of all the recommendations brought forward by the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism, the fact that an economic study of the significance of tourism was made is probably the most important point. Already, with the advent of cheaper international air fares, we have seen more and more utilisation of the tourist plant. As one who has been highly critical of some areas of the Government’s international aviation policy, it is good to know that already at least there has been an increase in the number of international tourists coming to this country. As more and more air agreements are reached, it will be interesting to see what number of overseas tourists are willing to come here and spend those tourist dollars.

The initial report by the Australian Tourist Commission indicates that we have an increased interest, for example, from Germany. We should welcome German tourists with open arms because in addition to amounts for their air fares and accommodation they spend something like $136 a day when touring overseas. With just 1 ,000 German tourists passing through Australia each week one can imagine the contribution that they could make to the economy. I hope that more and more recognition will be given to the need for cheaper international air fares, whether by means of scheduled charter operators, scheduled carriers or tour packages. These operators should be welcomed to Australia and everything should be done to help them in their endeavours to bring more people here.

International aviation policy is a vital factor, as is domestic aviation policy. It is good to see that this has been recognised by the Government with the introduction of cheaper domestic air fares and promotional fares that will be sold outside Australia to help international tourists see more of this country. However, there seems to be an attitude prevalent in the industry that perhaps all is not well in international aviation policy. One hopes that with more study and negotiation by the Department of Transport and the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) in particular, more air routes will be opened up in the near future. I stress one area that I think the Government should be looking at. I refer to the north of the United States of America in particular and the inclusive charter operators. There are a number of leisure clubs in that country that can provide international tourists for Australia. I refer to organisations such as the Adventurers Club which is based in Chicago. In Chicago and surrounding districts there are approximately 140,000 members belonging to this club. It owns two Boeing 707 aircraft which fly around the world at all hours of the day and night delivering members to holiday destinations. A number of these organisations exist in north America. There is a ready potential for a market such as this.

Group affinity tours is another area that must be examined more closely. In particular I refer to marlin fishing in my own State. Already there has been a great deal of interest in north Queensland as a holiday destination for people in North America who wish to get together to charter a 707 jet to fly to an airport such as Townsville to take in a couple of weeks of marlin fishing on the Great Barrier Reef. These are areas that have not been looked at yet by the tourist industry but they can provide great wealth for the local industry. Another criticism coming from the industry at the moment is that it cannot physically handle the number of tourists coming to Australia. To a degree that is true. At the moment there is a desperate shortage of accommodation in some of our capital cities, particularly Sydney.

At the moment it is almost impossible to get a first class hotel room. One of the recommendations of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism was the introduction of a depreciation allowance for tourist buildings and plant. The Minister, in his statement, said that this is under consideration for the next Budget. I believe that it is essential that the Government look at this area in order to get hotel structures built in this country because if the infrastructure of the tourist industry cannot handle the tourists when they get here we will be in real trouble. This is the situation in a number of capital cities at the moment. I stress that this is one area which I believe the Government must look at very closely.

Another area is that of international promotion. Although Australia has declared itself virtually a tourist destination by virtue of cheaper international air fares, one must ask what we are doing to promote this country overseas as an international tourist destination. Although there was a 37 per cent increase in the budget of the Australian Tourist Commission last year, it is hardly enough to make Australia known worldwide as a tourist destination. The spending of about $4,500,000 does not seep through to some of the potential markets especially in Europe, North America and Japan. I suppose that there is room for some criticism of the State tourist organisations in this respect. Frankly, it amazes me that the New South Wales Government and the Tasmanian Government are setting up overseas tourist promotion offices with the idea of promoting those States as tourist destinations. With all due respect to the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) who I understand will follow me in this debate, very few people from the West Coast of the United States would know where Tasmania is if asked, or for that matter where New South Wales is. Yet the State governments are setting up individual tourist offices overseas.

One of the recommendations that we made in our report was that the Australian Tourist Commission must be responsible for overseas promotion. The State governments should take notice of some of the recommendations inasmuch as they should be responsible for promotion within their States. Perhaps they could make a contribution of additional funds for the establishment of more Australian Tourist Commission offices overseas in order to promote Australia as a whole rather than fragment the industry. One of the big problems of the tourist industry in Australia has always been that it has been fragmented. I hope that within the regional organisation and across State boundaries we will see a consolidation of the industry so that there can be a supreme effort to promote Australia rather than to promote vested self-interests which in many cases could result in an absolute waste of money.

The situation regarding domestic tourism is interesting as well because the Australian tourist industry to a great degree will still rely on domestic tourism as its main income earner. Although there has been a great deal of publicity regarding the benefits of international tourism it should be remembered that so much of the tourist dollar comes from home. There is a need for States to co-ordinate their efforts with the Australian Tourist Commission in promoting travel within this country. The attractions that exist in Australia are tremendous arid in many cases rival anything else in the world. I hope that there can be an effort between the States, and indeed, regions, to make sure that people have the facilities to travel within their own country and to see exactly what we have to offer. Then perhaps they could go overseas and promote Australia as a most desirable destination. I do not think that there is any doubt that the facilities and attractions that we have in Australia can compete favourably with many other attractions scattered around the world.

I congratulate the Australian Tourist Commission for its ‘Make Friends for Australia ‘ campaign which it is conducting at the moment. It is quite a cheap campaign in terms of cost of tourist promotion. I believe that it is most effective and could have a great result by increasing the numbers of tourists for this country. If we are to break into the international tourist market in a big way we must be prepared to spend money on that promotion. The New Zealand Government is spending twice as much on overseas promotion as Australia. I have mentioned before that this year Denmark is spending approximately $A34m on promotion, which is more than ten times the amount that is being spent by Australia. Honourable members can see that at this stage we are still dealing in very small stakes yet.

The Minister, in his reply to the House of Representatives Select Committee reports gave recognition that there is a tourist industry in Australia which is worth promoting and that the entrepreneurs of the Australian tourist industry, provided they get together, have something to offer. That the Government is now recognising that industry is most important. I believe that it is the job of every member of this House to get behind the Government to make sure that Australia plays its part in the international tourist scene. A large amount of money can be made for many people and for this country through international tourism.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– We are discussing a progress report by the

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) dealing with the final report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism. As I have said before, that Committee was fortunate in having two good chairmen, the former honourable member for Herbert, Mr Bonnet, and the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Jull), who just resumed his seat. Both members- as did the Deputy Chairman, the late honourable member for Grayndler, and formerly Lang, Frank Stewart- have a genuine interest in tourism. The Committee was fortunate that it had decent leadership. As a result, its report was a good one. The honourable member for Bowman and the late Frank Stewart were responsible for putting together the report. I was a member of the Committee. The Committee was fortunate in that the late Frank Stewart, who was the Minister for Tourism and Recreation in the Labor Government, lent to it his know-how and knowledge. The report before the Parliament is a good one.

The tourist industry is a very substantial industry. The tourist attraction in some little corner of an honourable member’s electorate is not the sole part of the Australian tourist industry. We have to look at the industry as a whole. The industry represents 2.7 per cent of the gross domestic product; it employs 2.5 per cent of total Australian work force; and 2.9 per cent of total Australian capital is invested in it. The industry also earns some $325m annually in foreign exchange, which indicates that it is a quite substantial export industry, to look at it in another way. One can look at it on the basis of the revenue that the tourists bring to Australia. One can also look at it on the basis of its being an export industry. Both have a very substantial effect on the balance of payments situation in Australia.

I congratulate the Government for requiring ministerial statements to be made on select committee reports. It is a worthwhile innovation. In the past reports have been thrown in a heap and no one has ever known what has happened to them. I give credit where credit is due. The Government’s economic policy is a tragedy but its record in this area is good. The reports of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety, of which I am also a member, have been treated in the same way. But I am disappointed that so little has been done as far as this report is concerned. So much could be done for a minor outlay. The Government suddenly found $10m-odd to buy two Boeing 707 aircraft for the VIP fleet but-and I am not trying to bring politics into this area to any great extent- it could not find the same amount of money to implement immediately the recommendations put forward by the Committee, which would be of great value to the industry. I am particularly disappointed in this respect.

There has been a lot of talk about what should be done to assist the tourist industry. As this Parliament’s representative, together with the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Edwards), at meetings of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I have had the opportunity to travel overseas on three occasions in the last 18 months. I took advantage of that opportunity to look at the tourist industry overseas. I am disappointed that this Government and certain people in the Australian tourist industry want to play politics with award rates of pay and conditions. The General Manager of the largest hotel chain in Australia has said quite frankly and publicly: ‘Get rid of penalty rates and it will reduce hotel accommodation by about 50c a night’. I did not say that. It was said by the General Manager of Travelodge Australia Ltd. He is on record as saying that. The honourable member for Bowman, the Chairman of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism, nods his head in agreement with what I am saying. The General Manager quoted that figure. I am only repeating what he said. I think the best thing to do is to forget about the penalty rates issue. The Government and certain people in the Australian tourist industry should stop trying to stir up trouble in the trade unions which represent workers in that industry and should get on with the job of selling the industry.

As I have said, I have had the opportunity to travel overseas recently. For those who may be interested a most interesting table appeared in the Australian Financial Review on 5 May which confirms the things that I want to put to the House now.

Mr Cohen:

– I have incorporated it.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Thank you very much. I stayed in a hotel in Paris for $50 a day. I believe that I was touched. I was touched and so was everyone else who had to pay that sort of price for the accommodation on offer. As a delegate to the Bonn conference, I paid $73 a day for accommodation. As a delegate to the Prague conference a couple of weeks ago, I paid $70 a day. If I had stayed in a similar hotel in Australia I would not have paid any more than about $20 a day. I had to pay $50 a day, or 250 francs a day, for accommodation in Paris for which I would not have paid more than $18 a day in this country.

The tourist industry in this country is not selling Australia overseas as far as accommodation is concerned. The tourist industry in Australia is squealing all the time about the cost of air fares in Australia. However, the cost of air fares in Australia is about half the cost of air fares in Europe. The figures, which are on record, show quite clearly just what is the position. Let us look at the cost of rail travel. Many people have asked me whether I purchased a Eurorail ticket while I was away. I did not purchase such a ticket. Fourteen days of travel on Australian railways can be purchased for $150. This is cheaper than the price of a Eurorail ticket for a similar period. In addition, 21 days of travel on Australian railways can be purchased for $200 and 28 days of travel can be purchased for $250.

Recently the honourable member for Berowra and I travelled from Frankfurt to Strasbourg on a T.E.E. train at a cost of $25 plus $1.50 for the reservation. The respective cost in German currency is 50 marks and 3 marks. The cost of travelling by the same type of train from Sydney to Newcastle is $5.25. The cost of a meal for two people on the train from Venice to Vienna was $19. That is what the travellers in Europe would pay. But the same meal on an Australian train, such as the Southern Aurora, the Indian Pacific or the inter-capital city runs from Sydney to Melbourne or Sydney to Brisbane would cost no more than $4 at the most.

We have something to sell in this country in terms of accommodation and domestic travel. The hoteliers put all the blame on the aviation industry. They talk about open skies and letting anyone flood into Australia. As far as I am concerned, Qantas Airways Ltd is a first-class international airline. I am always happy and contented when I am travelling with Qantas. I do not say the same about the other airlines. I do not agree with the decision taken by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) to give member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations part of our trade. They have no rights to our trade between Europe, Italy and Greece. All of this trade should be the sole preserve of the international carriers under the bilateral agreements.

It was not until the Labor Government took office in 1972 that we were able to get the domestic airlines to introduce some form of off-peak travel within Australia. As the Minister for Transport, I had hell ‘s own trouble with Ansett. I finally got to the stage of saying to Sir Frederick Scherger, the then Chairman of Trans-Australia Airlines: ‘Do you want it or don’t you? If you want off-peak fares they will start on a certain date. You can tell the other fellow that that is the date they start. You can be in it or out of it. The decision is yours. ‘ At a later stage we brought in the 30 per cent ‘See Australia ‘ concession fare for international travellers. I am pleased to say that since then additional package deals have been put together in the interests of tourism. All those concessions have reduced Australian fares to a level which is well below European fares and well and truly comparable with American fares. We have cheap accommodation and cheap transport and train travel in Australia is at least half the price that Europeans have to pay on their much lauded T-trains. We have to get up and do the job. It is up to the industry to do this sort of thing and it is up to the Government to give the industry every assistance.

The revenue from the $10 airport departure tax will provide to the Australian Tourist Commission a lousy amount- that is the only way to describe it- to sell Australia. Like the honourable member for Bowman I am not 100 per cent on side with the State governments that are trying to sell their States overseas. The thing is to get people here. The honourable member for Berowra and I were talking recently to the various groups of the Parliament of Europe and they talked about Australia as if it were on another planet. We were talking about it as if we were going to travel interstate. We said to them: What are you talking about? After a 24-hour plane journey you are in Australia’. People on the other side of the world just do not realise this fact. This all comes back to my point that there is not sufficient promotion of Australia overseas. The revenue from the $ 10 airport departure tax should be devoted completely to the promotion of Australia overseas so that people will know at least what is out here and what they can do about getting here.

We could talk about better roads, for which the Committee’s report says there is a need. When we were in Government we made provision in our roads legislation for the Minister for Tourism and Recreation to have a say on how much money was to be allocated for roads. When I was the Minister for Transport 1 was cooked by the then shadow Minister, the present Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon), because I did not have the total say about where roads were to go. We wanted to give each Minister who had a responsibility that involved roads the right to say where money was going to be spent. If he had projects which he wanted to get underway, he made a recommendation and decision in consultation with the Minister for Transport rather than the Minister for Transport having the sole and final say, which is the situation which exists at present. I come back to the point that I am sorry that the Minister has not been in a position to say that the Government is going to do a number of things that could be done for an expenditure of about $5m which would be of great value and assistance to the industry.

One of our recommendations was that an interdepartmental committee be set up to inquire into the industry. That is under way. A working paper has been prepared. That is good; it did not cost the Government anything. I congratulate the Minister for getting on with the recommendation concerning the Export Market Development Grants scheme. As far as I know the Commonwealth Development Bank has not yet got into a position where it can advance cheap money to people who want to carry out these developments. This comes back to one point: The Government has got to give the guidelines. I am sorry to say that the Minister responsible for tourism is not giving sufficient guidelines to this important industry which can bring about very substantial development in non-capital areas and which can provide a lot of employment for people in areas that have not got any major industries. This requires a Government led by a Minister of the calibre of Frank Stewart who had the initiative and the drive to get on with the task of providing the necessary impetus and encouragement.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

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

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

-Most of what the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) has said is, of course, very sensible and has the backing of most honourable members on this side of the House. The only part where unfortunately he does not have the backing of this side of the House is the part where, despite his admonition to himself that he was not going to bring politics into this matter, he in fact brought politics into it. It was disappointing that he spoilt a very good speech with some rather silly and unnecessarily snide remarks which frankly do not fit in with his character or the contributions he makes and has made in the past, both in this House and outside it, to the tourist industry. I instance in particular the remarks he made about the two former Qantas Airways Ltd Boeing 707s that the Government has purchased.

I think it would be useful if the honourable member for Newcastle were honest enough to admit that before they were bought the major single user, in charter terms, of those 707s was the Australian defence forces, when they were used in flights to Butterworth, that the major single user after their purchase will remain the Australian defence forces and that in terms of passenger miles each year that will clearly be the major use of those two aircraft. It is disgraceful and dishonest of any honourable member opposite, particularly the honourable member for Newcastle who has such a depth of knowledge on this matter, to try to distort the realities of those two 707s. I am disappointed.

Mr Jull:

– What did we pay Qantas for charter aircraft last year?

Mr BAUME:

-Exactly; that is the interesting point. One would think that a former Minister for Transport would know what was paid each year to Qantas for charters; and I understand that the figure was something like $2m a year. I think it is worthwhile recognising when the honourable member for Newcastle makes a sound speech that the sound points he makes are recognised on this side of the House and that his contribution is welcome. But I regret that he strayed from the path of rectitide into those unfortunate and, I believe, vicious political points which frankly do not rest solidly and soundly on his benign shoulders.

Having dealt with the unfortunate part of his speech, I proceed now to the realities of the fact that it is under this Government that cheaper airfares have been introduced. It is all very well for any honourable member opposite to talk about the endeavours he made. The facts are that there are cheaper domestic off peak air fares because of this Government’s activities. There are cheaper international air fares because of this Government’s activities. Cheaper air fares are available not only to Britain but also from the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations as a result of this Government’s activities. There is continual sniding and whinging from honourable members opposite about the fact that we have achieved what they failed to achieve. The fact that we have achieved this immense concession for the public of Australia who wish to travel overseas obviously has infuriated members of the Opposition so much that they are continuing a sniping campaign which frankly does them no credit. I must say that I am glad to see that in most of these areas the former Minister for Transport is too sensible to participate in this nonsense. Knowing the facts, I congratulate him for his general restraint in this area.

I proceed now to congratulate the members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Tourism who tabled this excellent report. I congratulate, first, the former honourable member for Herbert and then the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Jull), who succeeded him as Chairman. There are some problems, of course, as a result of the Select Committee’s report. These relate clearly to some of the recommendations involving proposals to change the tax law. To my mind the major problem we have in the tourist industry these days is not how to cope with the big influx of tourists. It is basically how to make certain that the many small operators in country areas can continue to be viable. They are providing a major and basic service to not only the travelling public in Australia but also, I hope, to decentralisation in many country towns. They provide employment and economic stimulus and it would be most unfortunate if any government involved in this area were to become obsessed about the big ticket item of heavy volumes of foreign tourists coming to see these zappy and highly-promoted areas such as Ayers Rock without recognising that the tourist operators in such places as Bowral, Mittagong, Nowra and Shoalhaven Heads are the heart and soul of the tourist industry in Australia.

Mr Martyr:

– Are they in your electorate?

Mr BAUME:

– Yes, they are in my electorate and they contain very high quality motels. The honourable member is more than welcome to come and visit my electorate and stay in those motels.

Mr Birney:

– What about Bondi?

Mr BAUME:

– No. Anyone with taste would go to Shoalhaven Heads instead of Bondi. I assure honourable members that it is vital that this industry is kept foremost in the minds of all honourable members when they are discussing the tourist problem. I am very concerned indeed that too much concentration has been placed on the central areas. I am concerned that for the time being low air fares might have a very serious and detrimental impact on the motel industry in remote areas throughout Australia- in areas where the motel is probably the largest single industry in a small town. I hope that great efforts will be made in promoting tourism overseas to ensure that visits to the rural sectors of Australia are high on the list of recommendations.

I hope also that the Government will look very closely at the recommendations of this Committee, for example, recommendation No. 18, which concerns a depreciation allowance for income-producing buildings, along with an investment allowance. There is no doubt that many motel operators face financial difficulties. The problem basically is simple: The motel operators are not allowed to depreciate the value of their buildings. Yet their buildings are their tools of trade. Their buildings in fact do wear out. I regret to say that I have been in many motels in which the buildings have given every indication of being well on the way to wearing out. The problem is that in every other industry the tools of trade- the plant and machinery- are depreciable. But the tools of trade in the tourist industry are not depreciable. I believe that that is a most unfortunate situation.

This is the situation despite the fact that the accountancy profession has required, for example, every public company which submits its reports to State governments, to depreciate buildings in their accounts, even though the Commissioner of Taxation does not agree and even though the Government has not seen fit yet to make that an allowable deduction for tax purposes. Around the world it is evident that buildings depreciate, particularly in the tourist industry. It is evident that they have to be refurbished. But I regret to say that this Government and previous governments, which evidenced in word but not in deed immense support for the tourist industry, have done nothing about this matter. Frankly, it strikes me as absurd that we should hear such comments from honourable members opposite who, let us face it, for three years, had an opportunity to introduce that sort of measure which would have benefited the small operator, the little businessman- if honourable members like, the petty capitalist- in the country towns of Australia, but they did nothing to introduce such a vital law.

I strongly hope that this Government, having now received the informed report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism, which strongly recommends that such changes should be made to the Income Tax Assessment Act, will now act upon that report. Let us face it, honourable members opposite, when in government, did not even get around to seeking a report on this matter. At least this Government has a report which contains the recommendations to which I have referred. I hope that this Government will now act on the recommendations and do something to fix up the clearly anomalous situation which exists in the tourist industry.

The industry faces a serious problem concerning the investment allowance too. I must admit that I am stressing the case of country motel operators because I believe that they are the ones who face the most serious problem. At the moment country motel operators are not entitled to receive an investment allowance on the bulk of the items which they put into their motels. That is because there is a minimum cut off level, below which the investment allowance does not apply. For example, if a country motel operator buys a colour television set to put into one of the motel rooms, that television set does not attract the benefit of the investment allowance which is available to every other industry which buys items of equipment. A 25-room motel would have to buy 25 colour television sets, which would cost a very substantial sum of money. Yet, because of various objections raised, I understand, by the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of the Treasury, that concession is not extended to motel operators. I can understand why. No doubt, with relatively small items such as that there could be fiddling. Items could be bought, used for a short time, sold at a profit because the investment allowance reduced the initial cost to the operator, and replaced with another item. No doubt there is scope for tax evasion in such a situation.

I believe that what the Government should do is to find some way of overcoming this evident problem. I recognise the problem. I understand the Government’s difficulty. But I would like to see a different approach adopted towards the motel industry. Perhaps we could have an accelerated depreciation approach for room furniture. Perhaps we could have a situation in which a whole room is furnished and an investment allowance is applied. But I am certain that there must be some way and some way must be found of remedying the unfair situation in which the tourist industry finds itself when compared with all other industries. I welcome the recommendation by the Committee, even though I believe that it will be very difficult to apply.

The Committee made 45 recommendations. No doubt at present the Government is examining most of them. Some already have been introduced. For example, a recommendation on which the Government has acted and for which it has received no credit from the Opposition, as usual, is the recommendation that there should be competition between rent-a-car operators at airports. I am waiting for the Opposition to congratulate the Government on that move. But all we hear from the Opposition is continual carping- political criticisms -

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The monopoly which was created with Avis Rent-a-Car System Pty Ltd was as a result of actions taken by the LiberalCountry Party Government of 10 years ago. It was a 10-year contract which could not be broken.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson) - Order! The honourable member for Newcastle has not raised a point of order.

Mr BAUME:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome that nonsensical and totally out of order interruption by the honourable member for Newcastle. For three years he did absolutely nothing to end that monopoly. He complains here that it was introduced by a Liberal-Country Party government. What has happened it that, under the present Government, we now have competition at airports. That is undeniable. It is nonsensical for the honourable member for Newcastle in particular to object, as he was the indolent Minister for Transport at the time of the Australian Labor Party Government. I suggest that a Labor colleague of his ought to be indicted on the matter of tourism, namely, the Premier of New South Wales. I went to a tourism conference which he held. I congratulated him on his initiative in holding that conference. But what emerged from that conference were the most fascinating facts. For example, one of the most potentially exciting tourist areas of New South Wales is the Blue Mountains. They are not even in my electorate, but I am promoting them. The Blue Mountains area, which already is a significant tourist attraction, has many motels. The State Government has zoned the area in such a way that the motels cannot expand. They cannot cope because of absurd State laws. Tourism will expand as a result of the huge influx of tourists from overseas which we will have. The Blue Mountains is one of the major tourist areas in that State which we should promote. Yet the State Government, through the Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board, controls and restricts the entry of people into the magnificent areas in my electorate, for example, to the old town at Yerranderie in the Burragorang Valley. The Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board maintains these places as closed areas, in which the only people who can go in and enjoy themselves appear to be State members of parliament and Ministers who live at cut rates in the chalets provided by the Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board. There are many areas in which State governments are not doing the right thing.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr CHARLES JONES (Newcastle)-Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Yes. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) misrepresented me when he said that in the three years in which I was Minister for Transport I did nothing to break the monopoly which Avis RentaCar System Pty Ltd enjoyed at Australian airports. That contract was entered into by the former Minister for Civil Aviation of a LiberalCountry Party government. It was a water-tight contract which could not be broken. The honourable member for Macarthur knows that. It only shows him to be the humbug that he is for him to claim that the contract could have been broken. It was a legally-binding contract which the present Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) tolerated for the past three and a bit years for the simple reason that he had to tolerate it because he could not do a damned thing about it, just as I could not.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

-One becomes used to the speeches of the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) in this House. At first his remarks contain quite an element of common sense but then, for some reason, he goes off. I do not know whether that happens when the moon reaches a certain phase, but he certainly suffers from retrograde amnesia. In relation to the years 1949 to 1972- a time of buoyant world-wide economic growth and progress, which was reflected in Australia- he completely forgets the omissions that were then made by his brothers under the skin in politics.

I welcome the opportunity to enter the debate on the Government’s response to the report of the Select Committee on Tourism. One would be less than generous if one did not congratulate the Committee, which met during the terms of two parliaments and which produced that report. The report has proved to be a sound basis for discussion. One must also be generous in congratulating the Government upon accepting the principle of reporting to parliament what happens to Committee reports.

The Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System had cause to comment on the frustration felt by committee members from both sides of the chamber in trying to discover what had happened to reports. I must concur in the statement made by the Minister for Industry and

Commerce (Mr Lynch), when presenting the report. He said:

Until recently the concept of travel or tourism as representing an integrated and recognisable industry- an industry in the traditional Australian sense- has not been accepted by the Australian people.

I might add that it was not accepted by Australian governments either. It seems to me that initiatives that were taken during 1972 and 1975 particularly by the late Frank Stewart, when he was Minister for Tourism and Recreation- he was a member of the Select Committee in the Thirtieth Parliament- are really bearing fruit. Prior thereto the national basis of the industry had been ignored and promotion had been left to the States and to commercial organisations. It seems that the Government finally has seen the light now that we lag mere decades behind what has happened in comparable countries.

I recall in the early 1960s visiting New Zealand as a member of the Statute Law Revision Committee of the Victorian Parliament. That Committee, amongst other things, looked into the attitude of the New Zealand Government and the mechanisms that existed at that time in the tourist industry. New Zealand certainly appreciated the fact that tourism was extremely significant as far as its balance of payments was concerned- and one knows that New Zealand has problems in that area. It was certainly earning significant amounts of foreign exchange and it was worth while promoting.

The statement of the Minister refers to the compelling need to provide new hotels of international standard in the capital cities of several States. I guess New Zealand has not quite the problems of distance that we have in Australia. However, in the early 1 960s it recognised, as part of a deliberate program, that the development of high-class accommodation was important. The industry was encouraged to do this in several ways- as a governmental project, on a consortium basis with private industry, or by supplying substantial long term loans to private entrepreneurs at favourable rates of interest. This raised substantially the standard and number of such facilities available in New Zealand.

The aim was not simply to obtain first-class luxury accommodation. A much greater flexibility is to be found in the units provided. For example, the unit available for families at many of these places of accommodation centres supplied, say, a couple of bedrooms, a sitting room with a convertible bed settee, a reasonably equipped kitchen and a bathroom. This accommodation was moderate in standard but comfortable. It formed part of the ordinary motel complex and opportunity was given the family either to care for itself or to be given service. Frankly, I see none of this type of incentive being given at either Federal or State level in Australia.

The Minister spoke of State responsibility in regard to tourism. The first investigation that was made by the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation was into the Uluru or Ayers Rock National Park. Its report was presented in 1973. There is no doubt that the rock and the adjoining Olgas are a major attraction to overseas tourists. Most of the people who inquire about Australia, as well as potential tourists to Australia, ask about the rock. However, there is also no doubt that visits by increasing numbers of tourists have gravely threatened such scenic features and their surroundings. In 1976 the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation reported on the progress that had been made in relation to the recommendations made by the earlier committee. Some progress had been made. However, the principal need for the protection of the environment in that area is the relocation of the air strip and the village.

It is urgent, yet little has happened except for the presentation of plan after plan, and recommendation after recommendation. It seems to be beyond the wit of the Federal Government and of the Northern Territory Administration to reach agreement, to provide finance and to get on with the job of protecting this vital scenic and historic area which provides- I accentuate this- so much of the financial structure of that part of the Northern Territory. Unless action is taken quickly, effectively and decisively, the financial advantage of this ideal tourist attraction will be only transitory and not the persistent and continuing source of finance that it ought to be in the Centre.

Essential to Australia’s tourism industry is the question to which most honourable members have referred, namely, that of air fares. However, most honourable members overlook one fact concerning air fares. I know that my colleague the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) believes strongly that the group which made lower air fares possible and which can claim credit for them is that which introduced the Boeing-747 and DC- 10- the wide-bodied aircraft which permit the mass transportation of people. Once these aircraft, with their great advantages and large numbers of seats, became available for international travel and tourist purposes some thought had to be given to how one was to get backsides on seats.

In other countries the introduction of these aircraft forced fares down at a very early stage. To that extent, Australia has lagged behind. Certainly, because of the great distances involved in travelling to Australia, and within it, we have an apparently high fare structure. Although I accept what my respected colleague from Newcastle has said about cheapness of fares based on cost per mile, the problem of great distances remains. A flight from Melbourne to Ayers Rock, or from Melbourne to the Great Barrier Reef, involves travelling vast distances. To reach our main scenic attractions we have to travel great distances compared with those travelled by Europeans and Americans to reach the scenic centres in Europe and North America. The attempt to lower air fare structures may have another advantage. Perhaps it will cut out the clandestine kickbacks that were so rife in the airline industry and which appeared, to me and to many others, to disadvantage our national flag carrier, Qantas Airways Ltd, which certainly has never been accused of indulging in such procedures. Most of the feedback on the lower international fares seems to be to persons leaving Australia. For example, an item on page 2 of today’s Melbourne Herald states:

Queues at airline offices in Melbourne have become so long because of the incredible increase in passengers travelling on cheap fares that one man had to wait a week before he could pay for his ticket.

He went to Qantas offices three times before he was able to wait long enough to pay.

He said there was a wait of at least half-an-hour as passengers sat in the offices eating their lunches.

It ‘s like a disaster zone in here, ‘ said one of the ticket staff.

That indicates the increased demand in Australia. If the demand is so great and the shortage so acute, surely further urgent consideration is required as to how we are going to handle this situation. I am not inclined to the argument for a completely open ended arrangement for air travel, as our national carrier and our airline and aeroplane maintenance industry needs some protection for employment reasons. The opposing argument of increased employment opportunity in the tourist industry is not sufficient. How do these lower fares work overseas? Are our overseas travellers suffering the same frustrations in obtaining passage at the reduced fares? Whilst the reduced fares may have been successful in rilling the empty seats, is this the limit of the increase that is going to be allowed?

About eight weeks ago I received a letter from friends on the east coast of the United States who stated that they had noted the changed fare structure of flights to Australia and hoped to visit us in August. A request had been made to their travel agent but since then there has been complete silence. Does this mean that people overseas who are seeking reduced fares are faced with the delays and frustrations that we are facing here? Is the increase in tourist trade to be strictly limited? The Minister spoke about the request to the domestic airlines to introduce a more innovative fare structure. He cited advance purchase excursion fares and a 30 per cent discount for passengers travelling on standby. Neither of these schemes is beneficial to the international tourist; they are beneficial only to the domestic tourist. They are beneficial to those who have mobility- largely the young- to travel within Australia. They really are not an attractive proposition for overseas tourists. The advance purchase scheme places a rigidity on travel for international tourists and the standby situation is scarcely suitable for them.

There is much more that I would like to say about tourism. I think that one of the problems at which we should be looking in relation to the fare structure, both domestic and international, is that it does not satisfy the requirements of tourists for the complete year. It is a sporadic, seasonal thing. We are not applying it so that we will get the maximum number of tourists and the maximum advantages, in foreign exchange payments and so on, that a real tourist industry must give to Australia. I think we have to review this position. We have to think of the wide-bodied jets. We have to ask ourselves: If we are to fill those empty surplus seats, how do we reasonably do it without damaging the excellent operations of our flag carrier and our domestic airlines?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP

-The debate on the report of the Select Committee on Tourism and the Government’s ministerial statement is a most important one not only for the tourist industry but also for all sections of the Australian community. It is important because there is nothing that involves people to a greater extent than tourism. This involvement has engendered, and will continue to engender, a great deal of community participation, interest and debate on the various issues that were raised in the report, were referred to in the statement and which have been highlighted in the debate in this House. There is no doubt that the Select

Committee served a very useful purpose. As a member of that Committee I wish to congratulate the original chairman, the former honourable member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett), the Chairman who brought down the report, the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Jull), and other members of the Committee from both sides of the House. They worked assiduously to try to produce an objective and useful document for the benefit of tourism in Australia.

It was obvious that there would have to be a very extensive catalogue of the recommendations. These recommendations, which are appended to the material which has come before the House- the report and other documents- are now well understood by most sections of the tourist industry. More recently, some disappointment has been expressed because there was not an immediate implementation of all of the recommendations. I wish to remind some members of the Opposition who have spoken in the debate that there is no panacea for this or other matters. A progressive approach is required and one would expect a positive response from the Government. This is reflected very clearly in the ministerial statement. The very basis of the Government’s response was summed up in the words of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) when he said:

Tourism is a very significant Australian industry. It is already of considerable economic and social consequence. Even more important, however, are its prospects for growth.

This industry has the potential to bring major benefits in improving the balance of payments, generating employment opportunities in both country and city areas, and improving cultural contact between Australian and overseas societies.

That, broadly, is the Government’s policy. From this, of course, flows various ambits of administration which touch upon the proper and orderly approach to further steps to build up tourism in Australia, to encourage the things outlined in the statement to which I have referred, and to recognise the care that has to be taken in following various matters through to an effective conclusion. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has a particular role, as has the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) and the Treasurer ( Mr Howard). Each of these Ministers has already acknowledged clearly, and has begun to take steps which support, the contention of the Select Committee on Tourism and its recommendations.

I wish to refer firstly to the enormous task undertaken by the Minister for Transport in tackling what was one of the toughest problems confronting tourism, that of the nature of air fares and the relationships between this country and, I think, 39 or 40 other countries as well as the problem of the internal transport situation. In a very short space of time we have seen a revolution in this field. There has been some criticism. I was astonished to hear the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) making what could be described only as surprising criticism because, as a former Minister and a member of this House with vast experience, he knows better than anyone the complexities involved in this matter. I believe that the Minister for Transport, acting on behalf of the Government, in the last six months has taken steps unprecedented in the previous approach to tourism in Australia.

We heard criticism from the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) that one cannot now get out of the country. There was a complaint that a single inquiry in North America had not immediately resulted in a seat being offered to the person making the inquiry. Surely that indicates that things are on the move. If there is a demand of the sort described, is that not a forward step? The whole premise upon which this new era of air fares is based is the encouragement of greater movement into and naturally it must follow, out of Australia. It would be very nice if it could be one way, if everyone could come in to our benefit. But in order to build up tourism for the benefit of this nation we must participate in a two-way process. I believe that the tough negotiations which have been undertaken have displayed clearly, not only to the Australian community, but also to so many countries around the world which have a stake in tourism, that we mean business. I believe this is one of the most successful actions thus far taken in the field of tourism by any government.

It would be very interesting to have given in this House tonight the statistics on movements which have resulted so far from the new air fare structure that has been and is still being implemented. Of course there will be teething problems. There will be some discomfort in one area or another. That is unavoidable. But one must recognise very clearly that the achievements on the scoreboard are tremendous. This development has opened the way for Australia to participate in international tourism in a way that only a year or two ago people would have believed impossible. There will follow, no doubtwith the use of more sophisticated equipment in the form of wide-bodied aircraft and such things, and with due consideration of all the commercial requirements- an effective, progressive growth of tourism.

The role of the States in tourism was mentioned. I think the honourable member for

Macarthur (Mr Baume) raised the matter of an enormously publicised conference called by the Premier of New South Wales at which he announced that there would have to be immediate action to make available new international hotel accommodation, a step up in all sorts of directions, and that his Government would take the initiative in this matter. The astounding thing is that from that day onwards we have not heard a single word about it. He criticised the Federal Government for its failure to do enough about tourism, as he put it. It is interesting that with this big increase in the flow of tourists into this country accommodation of a high standard is available. It is being taxed to the limit no doubt. To suggest that this Government’s administration did not realise what could be done with existing facilities, and to deny that there was under-utilisation, is to show very clearly the inept approach to tourism on the part of one State.

I cannot speak of the position in other States. I have not had the opportunity to gain first-hand knowledge, but I do know that in my own State of New South Wales, in my own electorate, where there is an enormous tourist industry with great potential, there is still scope for many beds to be used. There is a lot of space in existing accommodation which gradually is being utilised. But more can be done if further action is taken by the State authorities to capitalise on what has been done as a result of the new air fares provided as a consequence of international negotiations on the part of this Government.

I do not want to dwell solely on this matter. The development in the whole ambit of tourism is a consequence of an enormous revolution. It can be described only as that. The House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism engendered throughout Australia a new approach. Many hours were spent hearing witnesses from various tourist authorities at State level, many departments which had a stake in tourism. I must say that month by month, over a long period during the hearings of the Committee one could not help but notice that the old approach, the somewhat rundown and worn out attitude: That we could not do anything about this and that it would be too difficult to do something about that gave way to a realisation that it was necessary to establish facts, figures and a plan. Many State authorities were forced into some real action in regard to tourism.

It was not just a matter of crying for more funds from some source or another; it was a matter of applying some planning of approach to this matter. When one analyses the report of the Select Committee, and takes the recommendations one by one, one sees embodied in it a very comprehensive account, a very positive proposition. Without doubt it contains answers to many of the questions that remained unanswered for so many years before this Government took the steps to implement the inquiry into the tourist industry. Of course, those who are disappointed that something is not done in one particular area or another will immediately say that the Government conducted the inquiry but it has not taken action. 1 think it must be recognised that the tourist industry is one of the significant private enterprise industries of this nation. It is not a matter of what governments should do. Governments can assist and provide all sorts of encouragement and incentives. But it stops at that. It is for the entrepreneurs, the people in the business of tourism, to push it and to push it hard. They now have that opportunity, and this Government has done a great deal to make that possible.

In the matter of finance, I mentioned that the Treasurer has a key role to play. I have no doubt that as our economy improves so will prospects improve for the infusion of more capital and the provision of more assistance and incentives of the sort which have been proposed which would further advance tourism. Limited and all as they are at this stage, they give a great basis for a viable, effective and useful tourist industry in this country. I am sure that the House, by a vast majority, recognises what has been done and applauds the work of the Committee and the stance taken by the Government in this important matter.

Mr HUMPHREYS:
Griffith

– It would have occurred to only a few people watching the John Crook morning show on TVQ Channel 0 in Brisbane five years ago that the announcer who gave such enthusiastic reports about the delights of the Hawaiian beaches and the splendours of the New Zealand mountains would one day be delivering to this Parliament such a solemn report on the state of tourism in this country. The honourable member for Bowman (Mr Jull) has come a long way since his days as the spokesman on travel of a morning television chat show. Honourable members on both sides of this House believe that under a different leader he will go even further. I am sure also that the honourable member for Bowman appreciates the assistance given to him in formulating the report by my late colleague and friend, the Hon. Frank Stewart.

As the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism has indicated throughout this report, Australia abounds in natural scenic resources which, if properly developed, maintained and promoted, would make it a five-star class tourist area. As a feature in today’s CourierMail indicated, we could surely join tourism’s big league. Nevertheless, in the travel explosion that has rocked the world following the introduction of cheap air fares to just about anywhere, Australia seems to be going with a whimper rather than a bang. Like King Canute, the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) tried to resist a flood- in this case the flood of cheap air fares that has struck the world. When he finally accepted the inevitable and capitulated by introducing his new regime on air fares we saw what a clever magician he is. Anyone who has even casually assessed his or her chance of taking an overseas trip using the new cheap air fares has come to the conclusion that the whole exercise is a sham, a fraud and a deceit. The airlines should be careful that they do not overstep the mark in promoting their fares because they could come dangerously close to being involved in misleading advertising.

The Committee has rightly referred to the need to co-ordinate tourism and transport policy-making. Even if the Minister for Transport had introduced legitimate low air fares, Australia would have been woefully illprepared to cope with the consequences. If the great hordes of foreign tourists who were predicted before the introduction of low air fares had eventuated, our tourist facilities would have been swamped. If, on the other hand, as others have forecast, lower fares made foreign fields look a lot greener to Australian tourists, their introduction would have led to a great exodus of tourists, taking with them the tourist dollar. The tourist crunch is coming just as surely as the Australian electorate will demand, legitimately, lower internal and international air fares. Before the crunch comes we have time to equip ourselves and the tourism industry so that, firstly, if we are swamped we will be able to cope and, secondly, we can offer Australian tourists an attractive domestic alternative to a jaunt to Bangkok, Fiji or even London.

It is not unrealistic to talk about competing with such countries and cities. With each State ‘s unique attractions to offer, I do not feel that I am portraying undue prejudices in saying that Queensland alone can surely put Australia on the tourist map. Of Queensland ‘s many and varied attractions, the Great Barrier Reef stands out as a potential mecca for international tourists.

Already it is a favourite spot for the many Australians who can afford it. Queensland’s individuality has already marked it to the extent that to many southerners Queensland needs only its own currency to confirm it as a foreign destination. Whilst I deplore the style of leadership, or dictatorship, that has earned Queensland its title of ‘the deep north’, I believe that from a tourist point of view we should foster the notion in the south of Australia that Queensland is different because, as far as tourism is concerned, it is a salable commodity.

Hopefully the Australian Tourist Commission will appreciate this view and will adopt the approach of promoting Australia as having two distinct types of holidays to offer- the southern Australian holiday and the northern Australian holiday. What the south has to offer I shall leave to the southerners. The northern holiday could concentrate on Australia’s two greatest natural wonders. I do not mean the Premier of Queensland or his deputy, Mr Camm. I refer to Ayers Rock and the Great Barrier Reef. I feel compelled to raise the matter of the future of the reef in the context of this debate. The Premier of Queensland lacks the ability to appreciate the need to preserve an asset like the Belle Vue Hotel. It seems that he is also unaware of the unique value of the Great Barrier Reef.

The Great Barrier Reef has faced serious threats and menaces over the years. However, the greatest threat comes not from the elements or organisms of nature but from man- and, in particular, from one man, the Premier of Queensland. That man’s potential for ruining the reef makes the havoc wrought on the reef by the Crown of Thorns starfish look like a blessing. All the unmistakable signs are there. Queenslanders know of the long-standing conviction of the Premier and his sometimes faithful deputy, the Minister for Mines, that drilling on land, at sea, or anywhere else is always justified. Those convictions were expressed yet again at Chistmas when the Minister for Mines called for a renewal of oil exploration on the reef. The feelers went out once again to probe public opinion. I wish to quote from a letter dated 22 February 1979 to the Australian Conservation Foundation by well-known author and television commentator, Mr Gerald Durrell, who is associated with many wildlife preservation trusts round the world. In this letter Mr Durrell refers to his ‘favourite comic character’, the Queensland Minister for Mines. He states:

For futility, stupidity and dangerousness, I have always considered him -

The Mines Minister- to be Australia ‘s answer to Idi Amin.

Mr Durrell went on to say that in lectures he gives all over the world he uses a quotation from the Minister as an example of how, to quote Mr Durrell, ‘we are governed all over the world by illiterates’. The quote he uses in his lectures is:

As every school boy knows, oil floats on the surface of water and coral lives underneath, therefore an oil spill could not damage it.

He went on to say:

Please, I beg of you, should he -

The Minister for Mines- come up with any more ecology-defying statements, do let me know. If 1 ever get back to Australia I think it would be terribly amusing to organise a television show with Mr Camm so that the public could get some idea of his deep biological knowledge and his grasp of the whole ecological problem of the Barrier Reef.

As for the Federal Government, my colleague the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) recalled that there had been repeated expressions of opposition to mining from the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and his Cabinet, yet they always seemed to be contradicted or clouded over by other assertions that are misleading, evasive or equivocal. Let us face it, when it comes to this Government’s stand on mining the reef, it has more twists than Chubby Checker. We have had a number of what might be called lawyers’ statements’ from the Government. When I read them, I watch carefully for the loopholes.The latest came from the Prime Minister in a ‘complete and unequivocal’ guarantee that the Government would not allow any drilling or mining on the Reef. We all know, particularly the pensioners of Australia, just how worthless the Prime Minister’s guarantees are. The loophole in the Prime Minister’s Great Barrier Reef assurance is the designation of where the reef begins and ends. The Prime Minister asked:

Are we talking about one or two kilometres, 20 or 50 kilometres?

I infer from that that if the Prime Minister stopped at 50 kilometres he must think that 50 kilometres is the maximum limit of the reef environment. If he does, he is way off beam. The Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) has been a little less artless than the Prime Minister or his deputy. He has indicated that, from his reading of the 1970 royal commission into production and drilling on the reef, drilling could be allowed in certain areas without any particular prospect of damage. In fact, the inquiry concluded that massive spills may be damaging to the reef beyond the limits of little detriment, which simply means that we should fear and expect the worst if there is a major spill. As honourable members should know, the chairman of that inquiry, Sir Gordon Wallace, firmly opposed drilling.

Queenslanders, and the rest of Australia, are waiting for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, created over three years ago, to designate the marine park area. A recommendation of the report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism regarding the Great Barrier Reef states:

The staff ceiling of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority be lifted to a level where zoning procedures for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park can be completed within 25 years.

It is a significant step in the right direction. Whether, like other commendable suggestions from the Committee, it will be buried in a bureaucratic heap remains to be seen. Honourable members have had reports of the Prime Minister’s interference in the designation of these boundaries. This Government should come clean and explain the excessive delay and discount, if it dares, my suspicions about its connivance in this affair. I draw the Minister’s attention to my question on notice about this matter. I hope for a quick response, although I know he would be breaking the habit of a lifetime if he acted quickly. While we wait for the declaration, the push to explore for oil is gaining momentum. The pressure to mine the limestone is increasing. The exploitation by Taiwanese fishing vessels will continue unabated and the credibility of this Government will continue to recede.

Of the 240 reported sightings of Taiwanese fishing vessels, only 50 of these boats have been detained. The fines are insignificant to act as a deterrent to the captains of these vessels and the Taiwanese fishing companies they represent. What other country in the world would allow one of its greatest tourist attractions to be pirated, polluted and plundered in this way? The cost of the Federal Government- more correctly, the Australian people- to clean up oil spills that occasionally occur from the scuttling of fishing boats and the flying of Taiwanese crew members down to Brisbane and then to Taiwan will be untold thousands of dollars. After the way some Asian countries treat Australians on criminal charges, we should certainly consider lengthy gaol sentences for Taiwanese caught poaching.

If an appeal to consider the reef’s natural beauty and assets falls on deaf ears, then I should reassert that the Great Barrier Reef is Australia’s greatest tourist attraction. I implore the Government to rescind its offer at last year’s Premiers Conference to extend State control to three nautical miles from State shores. This decision can bring only grief to the reef. If and when the marine park is established it will end up looking like swiss cheese. The park will not come any closer than three miles to the mainland or to any island in the reef. The marine park map will be so riddled with holes that the Premier of Queensland should not experience any difficulty in finding an area to drill. The Marine Park Authority’s report of 1 976-77 said:

It is anticipated that ultimately the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park will include the entire reef and adjacent waters in one park extending from Lady Elliot Park (just north of Fraser Island ) to the tip of Cape York.

The people of Australia, indeed the world community, are watching our handling of the marine park. In developing our tourism policy we must tread carefully between the profit motive and the preservation and conservation of our national heritage. It is for that reason that I have devoted so much of my time tonight to the issue of the Great Barrier Reef. It is an indication of the Opposition ‘s appreciation of the problem of balancing the need for conservation and the desire to attract tourists that the Opposition has one shadow spokesmen for both the areas of environment and tourism. The Government for its part has lumped tourism in with business, and environment in with science. If ever there was an indication of the Government’s appreciation of the compromise needed in developing tourism and conserving the environment, this allocation of portfolios must be it.

We should not let the report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism die of apathy. In closing I would like to give tacit support to this report insofar as it goes in establishing the framework for a tourism policy. What is obviously needed, and this is borne out by the Chairman’s remarks in the report, is more research into the economic benefits of the tourist industry to Australia, particularly in terms of reducing unemployment and gauging the benefits of those important tourist dollars. The Government has failed to realise that tourism is the world’s fastest growing industry and is labour intensive.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1961

ADJOURNMENT

Trees in Canberra- Electoral: Political Broadcasts- New South Wales Election: Greek Community Vote- Royal Australian Air Force: Members Living out- Air Fares: Services to Tasmania- Telephone Services: Disconnections- Nursing Home Fees

Motion ( by Mr Fife) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-Tonight I want to protest briefly about the trees of Canberra. I think that most honourable members here have some feeling and sensitivity for the beauty of the landscape of Canberra, particularly at this time of the year for those trees that originated in the northern hemisphere. I feel that bureaucracy at its worst is occurring in this case in Canberra. At present approximately 160 trees are proposed to be removed to make way for a new road and increased parking space in the area bounded by Walpole Crescent, King George Terrace, the Administrative Offices, King Edward Terrace, Bowen Place and Kings Avenue. The cost of the proposed works will be about $1.8m at a time when the supply of money is extremely restricted. The main purpose of these road works is to ensure that the symmetry of the triangle when viewed from the new parliament house on Capital Hill will be preserved. Of course, the new parliament house will not be completed until sometime in 1988. Included in the road works and alterations are parking spaces much more extensive than the present ones. This is to cope with projected traffic increases following completion of the High Court and National Gallery. It seems that cars are more important than trees.

Today I made an inspection of the trees that were to be removed. I understand that the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory has in fact recommended that these trees be removed. All I can say to honourable members is that the Committee could not have sighted some of the trees or I am quite sure that it would not have agreed to their removal. One has to recognise that probably in the long term the job has to be done in certain cases, but I think there can be a great deal of modification. The matter that concerns me- after all, I was the Minister in charge of the National Capital Development Commission from 1972 to 1975- is that I would have expected the officers of the Commission from the Commissioner down to be far more sensitive in removing some of the trees. Some of the trees were going to be removed just for parking space, not to make room for the road.

I suggest that honourable members should go and have a look at these trees. They are magnificent Cedrus atlanticas that have been developing for something like 55 years. They are just on the left of King George Terrace, just before the trade group building; in other words, just before you cross over Kings Avenue. I now understand that the NCDC has agreed to keep these trees, but what I am concerned about in the first place is that had there not been a protest against their removal, the Commission’s lack of sensitivity would have meant that these beautiful trees would have been removed. There are other trees that the NCDC have not agreed to allow to remain, and they are the Sequoia sempervirens. The Sequoia, as honourable members know, is one of the oldest trees known to man and is also one of the tallest trees. In the first place, one could argue that Sequoias should not have been planted in Canberra, but they are there and some are about 50 feet in height. They are part of the historical development of Canberra. There is a group of them in King George Terrace near Walpole Crescent.

My last brief remark is that I believe that in Walpole Crescent there are what I think are Zelcovas, members of the elm family. They are beautiful trees which take a long time to develop. It seems to me that they as well should be preserved. First of all, I am making a criticism of the NCDC and its lack of sensitivity in destroying trees in some places. Works can be carried out, but if the Commission carried them out in a sensitive way, the beauty that has taken a long time to develop would not be destroyed, and it should not be destroyed.

Mr JULL:
Bowman

– It is not my intention to take up the time of the House for too long tonight, but the inevitable has happened. Prior to the Victorian election last week two members of the broadcasting industry defied the Broadcasting and Television Act and broadcast political material within the 48-hour blackout period prior to an election. One wonders why this has not happened before, with one of the most ridiculous orders on the statute books that the electronic media cannot make any political comment 48 hours prior to an election. Finally it has happened that two journalists from Melbourne radio station 3AW have defied the ban and are in fact taking the Government on in regard to the particular provision in the Act. As a former member of that profession I frankly think that they should be congratulated for their stand, because that provision is one of the anomalies of the Broadcasting and Television Act which has been on the statute books for many years and should have been removed some years ago. One can only hope that it will be taken off when the Act is reviewed towards the end of this year.

It seems strange to me that it has to be the electronic media that are singled out for this sort of discrimination. It can be described as nothing but discrimination. Any newspaper in Australia can print any story it likes prior to 48 hours of an election. But come midnight on Wednesday and radio and television must switch off in relation to political material. It is an established fact that most people nowdays get their news from the electronic media, that is, from radio and television. It is also an established fact that newspapers can be manipulated by political parties, if they so desire, to get their stories printed at the last moment prior to an election. It does not matter whether it is the Liberal Party or the Australian Labor Party in government, it is impossible to get that right of reply through a newspaper prior to an election. Yet we have this ridiculous law which stands on the statute books now and states that nobody on radio or television can make any political comment whatsoever in that last 48 hour period. My only hope is that when the complete review of the Broadcasting and Television Act is completed- I expect that to be around October- that that particular provision will be wiped. It is about time that this sort of archaic situation was eradicated from the books. Or is this a recognition by governments of all political persuasions of the power of the electronic media? It is not only in political terms.that this media has been discriminated against. We have seen it in the smoking ban introduced a couple of years ago. Why was it that radio and television were singled out to have smoking taken away from the advertising schedules? If we are so keen about stopping the amount of cigarette consumption in this country why do we not take the move and eliminate advertising from newspapers, magazines, sporting groups, theatres or billboards? No, once again it was the electronic media that was discriminated against. I hope that the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act will be reviewed very closely by the Government later this year and that this archaic legislation will be wiped from the statute books completely.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I agree with a lot of the submissions made by the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Jull). It was the objective of the Whitlam Government to have a totally independent newspaper, funded from Consolidated revenue, under a body like the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, which is an autonomous organisation.

Mr Baume:

- Pravda”!

Mr JAMES:

– No, not Pravda but an autonomous organisation. I cannot waste much more time. I have already paid the courtesy to the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) of sending him a message pointing out that I wanted to refer to him if time permitted in the adjournment debate. For some considerable time the honourable member for St George has displayed to this House that he is the leading political anarchist of the whole parliament. I refer to an article printed in Inside Canberra dated 20 October 1978 following the New South Wales State elections when the Neil vote considerably took in water. It began to leak. He discovered that in his electorate of St George there was a tremendous swing away from the Liberal Party, particularly in the State seat of Earlwood. When he discovered this he jumped on his white horse and rode flat out to the Lodge in Canberra to present a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). He pointed out to the Prime Minister that there had been a swing against the Liberal Party by the Greek community in the St George electorate. The article states:

The Federal Government is concerned at evidence of an erosion of support for the Liberal Party in the Greek community. Mr Maurice Neil, who holds the Federal seat of St George in Sydney for the Liberals, has written a detailed letter to the Prime Minister expressing concern about the loss of the Greek vote. He has undertaken a detailed analysis of the voting in the recent Earlwood State by-election in NSW, a seat contained within his Federal electorate. There is a large Greek community in the seat and in the by-election there was a heavy swing to Labor.

Hence the reason that he has been tabbed in his electorate, as I have said previously, as jockstrap Neil, the man that is sensitive to the slightest swing.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! I think that the expression used by the honourable member for Hunter can be described as unparliamentary. I ask him to withdraw.

Mr JAMES:

– I will withdraw it out of courtesy to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was an athletic term that I learned in my athletic days.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I would appreciate it if the honourable member sprang to a withdrawal.

Mr JAMES:

-I withdraw the remark. The article continues:

Mr Neil expressed concern that the Liberal Party- may have alienated itself from the Greek community because of the mass prosecutions of Greek migrants involved in allegations of social welfare fraud. As a result of Mr Neil ‘s concern the Prime Minister instructed the Minister for Immigration, Mr MacKellar, to investigate. Despite the constraints of staff ceilings and a tight Budget, the Immigration Department sent a number of officers to Sydney to confer with Greek leaders. Some Greeks thought it strange that immigration officers should be despatched on a mission which appeared to be on behalf of the Liberal party

How true. I congratulate the writer of this article. The Neil ship started to take in water; he started to resume his panic to hold the slender majority which he has in St George. He came here but he will not remain here. Again, on the Notice Paper a few days ago he has shown greater concern for another ethnic group. I refer to a question he asked on 2 May which appears on page 5 1 8 1 . He wants to know from the Minister for Immigration how many people of Chinese origin are in the electoral division of St George. Soon we will see him in the Parliamentary Dining Room swinging chopsticks. The Neil ship has taken in water and he is in dire panic. He is trying to ascertain how many Chinese votes he can get, now that the Greek community has been prosecuted for fraud. It is true that the Greeks have been sought out and viciously prosecuted by a man who, as we learned in the Parliament today, was given $60,000 as payment for legal fees in the prosecution of a former Prime Minister. That matter was bound to failure, even when it started. I refer to Mr Rofe, Queen’s Counsel.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable members time has expired.

Mr NEIL:
St George

– I do not know what the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) was complaining about. He was with me only about two months ago at the opening of a Chinese restaurant in the St George electorate and he was enjoying himself immensely. He told me how he had always tried to relate to the Chinese community in his own area and he was supporting me in the opening of the restaurant. He made a very fine speech and I made a little speech. It was a very pleasant gathering. He did not say: ‘You should not be here tonight Mr Neil with these good people enjoying this convivial gathering’. He did not say a word to me about why he was enjoying himself on the dance floor, introducing everybody and mixing with all the Chinese people. The simple fact is that this was a very pleasant and reasonable community occasion of a perfectly simple and ordinary nature, the like of which members of parliament go to regularly in the course of their duties.

If the honourable member would like to come with me at some time to the St George electorate and support me and find out some of the difficulties and problems of other ethnic groups, including the Greek people, and then come with me to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) to try to help obtain some of the grants we are hoping to get to assist the ethnic people in the St George and surrounding areas, then he is very welcome. If he would like to write to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Mackellar) and support the additional Galbally report grants which are to be given to the St George electorate, then he is very welcome to join in my representations. If he would like to come with me and with the honourable member for Barton (Mr Bradfield) to see the Minister or to write to put a case to see whether we can have an ethnic resource centre in Hurstville, he is very welcome. If he would like to come to the opening of the Rockdale Macedonian community child care centre, which is now being built with a federal government grant of $200,000 in Arncliffe, when the Minister for Social Security opens it in a few months time, and praise the Government, he is more than welcome to come along and be party to those proceedings.

If he wants to get up in this House and complain about a member of parliament doing his duty by his constituents then I think he is losing his touch. I always thought that the honourable member had some concern for his constituents in his electorate. I would have thought that he would have appreciated that all members of this House, on both sides, are duty bound to find out the difficulties and problems of persons in their electorates no matter where they come from or whether they are part of an ethnic group. I do not exercise bias for or against any constituent. Some Greek people in the St George electorate have expressed concern and worry about the arrests that took place in New South Wales some months ago.

Let me make it perfectly plain that the judicial process must take its own course. That has always been the view that I have taken and it has always been the view that the Government has taken. However, criticisms arose at the time in relation to the way in which certain police activities were carried out and the manner in which certain administrative matters were conducted. It was necessary to bring a degree of confidence back to the Greek community, particularly in view of the disgraceful headlines that they suffered from some of the more sensational Sydney Press. They were portrayed as being arrested as Greeks. There was not a fair representation of the matter. The newspapers were to blame for the serious shock and upset that many members of the Greek community in Sydney felt.

I point out that very few persons who live in the St George electorate were directly involved. Many of those arrested come from other electorates in Sydney. However, some were from my area. I am quite happy to say that, in order to find out what was happening in relation to some of these matters, I went to the social workers and solicitors who had knowledge of the problems that were being suffered by their clients. One of the things that they came up with was a claim that people had been photographed with the word ‘Greek’ held up in front of them. I am happy to say that this matter was investigated. I hope that type of thing will never happen again. Appropriate investigations were carried out in this case. I am happy to say that the social workers assisted and provided help. I hope that the types of mass arrests we saw will not take place in the future and that the police will act with more delicacy. However, the judicial system must take its appropriate course.

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

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

-Tonight I want to raise an issue of discrimination in the Royal Australian Air Force which is based solely on grounds of marital status. I believe that this discrimination reflects no credit on the Air Force. Also, from the point of recruiting, this action makes it look a rather old-fashioned kind of organisation. I want to contrast the situation of married living-out members of the Air Force with that of single living-out members. The regulations provide that when a single living-out member is required to serve at the base or in the air he is charged for the rations he consumes and for the quarters he uses in that period. But when a married living-out member is required to do exactly the same duty at the base or in the air he is not charged for the rations that he consumes, nor is he charged for the quarters he uses. In other words, although the people involved perform exactly the same duties, quite different attitudes are adopted. In one case financial demands are made- there is a financial discriminationand the only justification for this seems to be one based on grounds of marital status.

I wrote to the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) about this matter and I received a reply from him. I informed the Minister that I intended to raise this issue this evening. I think that an underling must have written his reply. It is certainly not in the mellifluous prose that one might expect from the Minister for Defence and I do not think it shows his usual logic. But the letter under his signature produces four reasons for this kind of behaviour. First of all, he says:

A single member who lives-out does so as a matter of personal choice, and only with the approval of his commanding officer.

I know that commanding officer approval is not required but I always thought that marriage was a matter of personal choice- that is, one makes a decision to get married and live out. A single man as a matter of personal choice may make a decision, for whatever reason, to live outside the base. In both cases a matter of personal choice seems to be involved. The Minister gave a second reason. He said:

He -

That is the single man-

  1. . makes his own arrangements for accommodation and meals in the full knowledge that he will be required to live-in on duty from time to time, and pay rations and quarters charges.

That provides no answer. We are still left with the point as to why the single man should have this kind of disincentive imposed on him by the Air Force if he, like a married man, decides to live away from the base. A financial disincentive is imposed simply on the grounds of his marital status. The third reason given by the Minister is as follows:

Although he does not pay rations and quarters charges whilst living-out, there is no reason why he should be exempted from contributing towards the costs of the rations he has consumed and the accommodation he has used while living-in.

The logical course to follow is to say exactly the same thing to the married man, namely, that when he is living in he consumes rations and he uses quarters. If this argument is applied to one case, why is it not applied to the other? The nub of the Minister’s answer, I suppose, comes in the fourth proposal. He said:

  1. . the married member has no choice as to whether he lives-in or lives-out, as he is obliged to maintain a home for his family. This being so, rations and quarters charges are waived when he is required to live-in for Service reasons; this is in recognition of the continuing obligation to meet the costs of maintaining a home for his dependants.

First of all, the single man may be maintaining a home for his dependants. One cannot make these kinds of crude rules. He may well be maintaining a home for his mother, a home for his sister or a home for someone else. We have no clear evidence that he does not have the same sorts of obligations as a married man. Secondly, in these days when a great number of married women work, the married man may be in a financial position better than that of a single man to maintain his home because his wife works. There is no guarantee at all that the costs of maintaining a home are less for a single man than they are for a married man. I do not believe that we can justify this type of discrimination. Of course we can use the law of the tax system to adjust these things. But we should not within the Air Force make these sharp distinctions and impose this kind of disincentive simply on the ground of marital status. Let our taxation laws and our other laws provide the balancing system; it should not be provided by a form of discrimination within the Air Force.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

– I desire to raise two matters tonight, one of which relates to air fares and the other of which relates to

Telecom Australia. It seems to me to be incredible that, in the period of one week during which there have been persistent reports of an application for an increase in domestic air fares within Australia by both Ansett Airways of Australia and Trans-Australia Airlines, there has not been a substantitive motion moved, a question asked or debate initiated in this Parliament on that matter. I want to speak, albeit parochially, in response to the request by the airlines for a 10 per cent increase in air fares and to indicate that such an increase would have a dire effect on Tasmania, of which 1 have the honour to be one of the representatives in this House. For those people who are concerned about Tasmania, the situation, quite frankly, is that over 90 per cent of people travelling to and from Tasmania do so by air. Any increase in air fares will have a most savage effect upon Tasmania’s developing tourist industry which is now worth over $50m per annum to our State. The fact of the matter is that as domestic air fares go up and as the cost of travelling to Tasmania increases, more and more Australians will turn to alternative places at which to spend their holidays. Regrettably many of them will travel outside this country for their holidays instead of seeing Australia first.

Only three months ago the Tasmanian members of this House held urgent discussions with the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) about a proposed air fare increase of 4 per cent. I believe that before any domestic air fares increase is granted which will affect Tasmania and the rest of Australia, first and foremost the Minister for Transport must ensure that no hardship will be caused and that no irreparable damage will be done to our developing tourist industry. Secondly, I believe that in the case of Tasmania the Minister would be entitled to call in the domestic airline operators and to put to them in the strongest terms the dire effect that increased air fares would have upon Tasmania’s trade, communication and tourism. Anything like a 10 per cent increase in air fares would be of such significance that Tasmania should be granted either a concession or some form of dispensation. After all, Tasmania is Australia’s only island state.

The other matter I wish to raise is one which I believe is of importance Australia-wide. I know that it may sound a small matter to some honourable members but I believe that it is a matter of injustice and one which should not be permitted to continue. I am firmly of the view that the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) should give a firm direction to Telecom that no more telephone disconnections be carried out on a Friday. The fact of the matter is that disconnections have been carried out on a Friday. Recently a widow in my electorate rang at 4 o’clock on a Friday afternoon to say that her telephone had just been disconnected. She was told that if the account were paid her telephone would be reconnected.

Mr Baillieu:

– How did she ring up?

Mr HODGMAN:

– She rang from a public telephone box, of course. The honourable member might not know about public telephone boxes. She was told that if she paid the account her telephone would be reconnected immediately. She paid her account and she was then told that the staff had knocked off and that there were no facilities for the reconnection of the phone over the weekend. I believe that the disconnection of telephones should be the last resort. Such action can cause incredible hardship, in this particular case to a widow with three small children. I believe that any government with any humanity in it should issue a direction that no disconnections shall be carried out on a Friday. On Monday, Tuesday Wednesday or Thursday perhaps, but at least the subscriber should be given the opportunity of paying the bill and getting the telephone reconnected. I believe that this is an important matter. I believe that honourable members on both sides of the House would support me. It is wrong to disconnect telephones on a Friday and I hope that this practice is stopped very quickly.

Mr HUMPHREYS:
Griffith

-In 1973 the Federal Labor Government undertook to control fees in nursing homes in each State and Territory. In 1973 the Government established that fees should be set at a level which requires that pensioners at no fewer than 70 per cent of homes pay no more than their pensions for board. That fee constitutes what is known as the basic fee. The Government establishes the amount it is willing to contribute to the nursing home fee. In Queensland at the moment that figure is $11.80 a day. The Government then adds the full single age pension, which is $7.25 a day, to arrive at the basic fee, which in Queensland presently is $19.05 daily.

At the end of 1977 the present Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) decided that this process would apply annually and that reviews and adjustments, therefore, would be undertaken only once every year. In two recent letters to the Minister for Health I have called and pleaded for a change to the fee fixing procedure and a minimum upwards adjustment to the Government’s contribution to the nursing home fee. If he does not respond positively and soon, I have no doubt that pensioners in nursing homes where fees have risen dramatically in the last two months will be forced to leave those homes. Since the Government’s review of fees in October last year the percentage of homes charging the basic feethat is, requiring pensioners to pay no more than their pension- has fallen from 70 per cent to an unofficial estimate of 40 per cent. I know the details of increases in only two or three nursing homes in Brisbane but I cannot supply details of the most severe increases. As an example of the rising fees I refer to the recent increase at Autumn Lodge at Greenslopes in Brisbane. That home’s fees increased by 13.4 per cent from 15 March this year. The daily rate went up by $2.40. That amount is borne entirely by the pensioner.

So far I have spoken only of figures. The percentages and the dollars mean little without reference to the people involved. These people are amongst society’s most vulnerable citizens. No honourable member of this House should need to be told of how vital a few pennies can be to a pensioner. I have had letters from friends and relatives of those in nursing homes informing me of the distressing news that their close friends or infirm relatives can no longer meet the cost of remaining in those nursing homes. Life savings are being savagely eroded. For those with little or no savings, or without financial support from friends or relatives to rely on, there is only one possible alternative- to get out and to leave the comfort and care of their nursing home. In the twilight of their lives they must now go in search of new lodgings. These days that is difficult even for young people. The dislocation, the disruption of routine, the heartache of leaving close friends and the cruel misery which has been inflicted on these people by increased fees are directly attributable to this Government.

The Minister is aware of the situation- he is aware that it is deteriorating rapidly- but he has yet to act. In 1977 he declared that adjustments to the Government’s contribution would be on an annual basis, meaning that whatever fee increases were effected during the intervening 12 months between one adjustment and the next had to be borne by the pensioner. That is precisely what is happening now. Well over onethird of Queensland ‘s nursing home residentsthat is, those in private enterprise homes- are now facing the daunting prospect of moving. The Government has the responsibility to approve or reject applications for increases in fees lodged by the managements of nursing homes. To my knowledge no increase in Queensland has been denied to a private enterprise nursing home. In fact some fee increases include loadings because of delays in processing or because of delayed flow-ons from various cost pressure sources. Rising nursing home rates have forced pensioners into a corner.

The simple fact is that only three months ago pensioners in private homes had to pay only their full single aged pension as fees. Today most pensioners have to find much more than their pension to meet escalating fees. Regular ad hoc adjustments are obviously the most sensible and sensitive approach to regulation of fees in nursing homes. For the sake of pensioners in my State and, I believe, in every other State which has not received an increase in the Commonwealth’s contributions to those fees I implore the Government to act with speed and compassion.

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

– I wish to join the protest that has already been made tonight from this side of the House about political censorship. That political censorship applies to the rules preventing comment on electoral matters by television and radio stations in the two days prior to an election while newspapers are allowed to proceed. As a former journalist, I find it offensive that this kind of paternalism should be forced upon the public and that there should be a discrimination of this kind between the various kinds of media. I can remember that just before an election in 1949 the late Jack Lang attacked very violently the integrity, surprisingly enough, of the late J. B. Chifley. There is no doubt that some people misbehave in that way. There is no doubt with the allegations that Mr Lang made against Mr Chifley were groundless. There is no doubt that this is a serious matter. It probably demonstrates more than anything else what happens when members of the Australian Labor Party fall out.

There can be serious and damaging allegations in the run-up period to an election. However, surely the whole function of the democratic process depends on giving people the opportunity to misbehave. We have to put up with the disadvantages if we want an effective system of government, and there is no doubt that one of the disadvantages is that people have the opportunity to misbehave in election campaigns. It will surprise many honourable members of this House to know that some people actually tell fibs in election campaigns. For example, the Opposition pretended that there was no tax benefit in the latest tax cuts. There is a continual history of people making untrue claims in run-up periods to elections. I hope that the sort of paternalism and the ‘we know better than you’ approach which governments in the past unfortunately have had to this problem will be changed and that in the future the electronic media will be allowed to comment and report on news as the printed media is allowed to do.

As the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Jull) said, it may well be that some people take the view that this should not happen because people are inclined to believe television but not to believe newspapers. I have worked on newspapers and I found that to be an offensive suggestion. I would not accept the view that one section of the media should be given this preference. I cannot see why any person who regards himself as a true democrat would prevent discussion of political issues in the period coming up to an election. I join the honourable member for Bowman in urging the Government to review this unfortunate situation which has existed for so long. At the same time I would encourage the media to recognise the immense responsibility that such an extension of time would impose upon it. There is no doubt that there could be some serious misbehaviour. I hope, if this time is extended, that the media will demonstrate to the people of Australia that it can behave in a sensible and responsible way. I think that it is totally improper for any government to exercise the sort of political censorship which prevents members of the media making proper comment and reporting properly on election news. Let us face it: Elections are the actual exercise of a democratic process and should not be interfered with by this kind of paternalism.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! It being 1 1 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2.15 p.m. tomorrow.

page 1968

NOTICE

The following notice was given:

Mr Sinclair to move:

That the legislation committee to consider the Customs Amendment Bill 1979 have power to meet during the sitting of the House on Wednesday, 9 May 1 979.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 1969

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Audit of ASIO Accounts (Question No. 1597)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 5 August 1978:

Is it still the practice for the Auditor-General to pass Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation accounts on documents certified by him; if so, what kind of audit does he carry out before signing that certificate.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
Prime Minister · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

Yes, see page 2SS1 of Senate Hansard of 8 December 1971, and page 949 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 2 1 March 1979.

Visitors’ Visas (Question No. 3195)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many tourists from Great Britain failed to leave Australia after the expiration of (a) their tourist visas and (b) their authorised period of temporary stay during (i) 1975, (ii) 1976, (iii) 1977 and (iv) 1978.
  2. ) How many Great Britain nationals were deported during each of the same years.
Mr MacKellar:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. 1 ) Statistics on last place of residence of overstayed visitors are not maintained. The table hereunder sets out as at 30 June 1 978 the numbers of persons claiming citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies who arrived in the periods shown and are still recorded as overstayed. The limitations related to these figures as explained in the reply of 16 November 1978 to Question No. 2285 still apply.
  1. Deportation statistics are disaggregated by citizenship but not by country of domicile. Persons listed as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who were deported from Australia 1 975- 1 978 are as follows:

Visitors’ Visas (Question No. 3196)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

  1. How many persons from (a) Italy, (b) Greece, (c) Malta, (d) Turkey, (e) Great Britain, (f) Ireland, (g) Cyprus, (h) the Philippines, (j) Malaysia, (k) Chile, (1) India, (m) Bangladesh, (n) Argentine, (o) Israel, (p) United States of America, (q) Holland and (r) Iceland were refused tourist visas for entry to Australia in 1 978.
  2. What percentage of the applications received for tourist visa entry from these countries were refused.
  3. What was the (a) number and (b) nationality of persons who failed to leave Australia after the expiration of (i) their tourist visas and (ii) their authorised period of temporary stay during 1978.
  4. In respect of the persons referred to in part (3) what percentage on a nationality basis (a) failed to leave Australia after the expiration of their authorised period of stay or ( b ) were deported.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The following table shows for the calendar year 1978, the numbers of persons included in visitor visas lodged at Australian Embassies, High Commissions and Consular Offices in each of the respective countries and the numbers of persons included in visitor visas which were refused.
  1. 3 ) The latest available information on overstayed visitors is for those recorded as overstayed as at 30 June 1 978. The following table gives details of visitor and other temporary entry arrivals in Australia during the first half of 1978 who were recorded as overstayed as at 30 June of that year. It should be noted that these figures are disaggregated on the basis of citizenship, not country of visa issue. The citizenship, numbers and percentages of persons overstayed are:

  1. (a) The percentages on a nationality basis, of the persons referred to in Part 3 are listed in the second and fourth columns of the above table.

    1. Deportation figures are maintained only in respect of all temporary entrants and not by individual categories. The statistics available and included in the following table show the number of overstayed temporary entrants, irrespective of their date of arrival, who were deported in 1978.

Industrial Disputes: Statistical Details (Question No. 3252)

Mr Yates:
HOLT, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 22 February 1979:

How many strikes were reported to his Department during 1977-78 and on how many occasions did the Conciliation and Arbitration Commissioner in the States call for a secret ballot as provided for in the Federal legislation.

Mr Street:
LP

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

There is no requirement for either employer or employee organisations to report strikes to my Department. The Department becomes aware of disputes as part of its normal functions but is not in a position to provide statistical details of the number of strikes during 1 977-78. Notifications of disputes to a Presidential Member of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or to the Industrial Registrar, under Section 25 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, concern only disputes arising in the Commonwealth industrial jurisdiction. Records of disputes arising in both State and Commonwealth jurisdictions are published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The figures for the period mentioned in the honourable member’s question can be found in the ABS publication ‘Industrial Disputes- Quarterly’, No. 6322.0, for the September 1977 quarter to the June 1978 quarter inclusive.

As to the matter concerning Orders for secret ballots, I am advised that one member of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission made such an Order in relation to a construction project in Victoria during 1 977.

Defence Forces: Training Courses Overseas (Question No. 3255)

Mr Les Johnston:
HOTHAM, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 February 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How many defence forces personnel have attended briefings or courses at the instigation of Australian foreign affairs and defence authorities or the authorities of recipient nations in (a) the United States of America, (b) the United Kingdom and (c) other countries for each year since I January 1970.
  2. ) What is the name and rank of each of the personnel.
  3. What were the courses attended and/or the purposes of the visits.
  4. What were the periods of stay out of Australia.
  5. ) What were the costs to the Australian Government.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The numbers of members of the defence forces who have attended scheduled training courses overseas are set out below:
  1. Detailed information of this nature is not readily available.

  2. In general terms the courses attended were:

    1. staff training for selected officers with particular emphasis on modern military resource and personnel management procedures;
    2. to study current military techniques, tactics and doctrines; and
    3. to maintain a degree of familiarisation with the modern military technologies being developed overseas.
  3. The periods of stay out of Australia ranged from I month to 38 months.
  4. Details of cost are not readily available. However, the cost of overseas training conducted in the United Kingdom and the United States of America for the years shown was as follows:

National Parks and Wildlife Conservation: International Agreements (Question No. 3330)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 1 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Which of the international agreements specified in the Schedule to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 have entered into force and when did they do so.
  2. In relation to which of the agreements have regulations been made and when were they made.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat came into force on 2 1 December 1975. The Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals came into force on 1 1 March 1978.

Australia became a party to the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage on 22 August 1 974 and the Convention came into force on 19 December 1975.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora came into force on 27 October 1976.

  1. Regulations pertaining to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora have been made under the Customs Act 1901. These Customs (Endangered Species) Regulations were promulgated on 30 September 1976 and came into operation 27 October 1976.

Removal Expenses: Sir John Kerr (Question No. 3342)

Mr James:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Between what places has the Government paid for the transportation of Sir John Kerr’s furniture and other effects.
  2. On what dates did the transportation take place in each case.
  3. 3 ) What was the cost of the transportation in each case.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (I), (2) and (3) A practice of many years ‘ standing is that the cost of removal of personal effects of (a) a GovernorGeneral on vacation of his office and (b) a Head of Mission on initial appointment and on termination of that appointment is accepted as an official charge. In accordance with this practice the removal expenses of Sir John Kerr to England following his vacation of the Office of Governor-General and from England to Paris and return in relation to his appointment to the post of Ambassador to UNESCO have been paid by the Government. The sum involved was $ 13,960.

Crude Oil Production (Question No. 3346)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 6 March 1979:

What was the production of (a) import parity and (b) non-import parity crude oil from Bass Strait oil-fields during the periods (i) 1 July to 15 August 1978, (ii) 16 August to 30 September 1978 and (iii) 1 October to 3 1 December 1978.

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

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

  1. (i) 770,141 kilolitres (4,844,030 barrels), (ii) 753,998 kilolitres (4,742,494 barrels), (iii) 1,489,633 kilolitres (9,369,494 barrels);
  2. (i) 2,170,294 kilolitres (13,650,715 barrels), (ii) 2,120,768 kilolitres (13,339,209 barrels), (iii) 4,270,002 kilolitres (26,857,458 barrels).

Wheat Storage Facilities (Question No. 3358)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 6 March 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Does the Wheat Board maintain that wheat can be kept at a satisfactory standard in on-farm storage for (a) 1 month, (b) 3 months, (c) 6 months or(d) 12 months.
  2. Which body is responsible for establishing storage standards, the Wheat Board or the state bulk handling authority.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

– The Australian Wheat Board has provided the following information in reply to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The normal logistics of movement from stripping of grain to delivery into the central system often necessitates some on-farm storage. This storage period may be greater in years of abnormally high production. If farm hygiene and wheat storage facilities are of a high standard, and suitable protectants are used, then wheat could be stored for 12 months. However, it is the Board ‘s experience that in general, farm storage and hygiene standards throughout the country are not of a sufficiently high standard to permit lengthy storage periods and under normal circumstances the Board would prefer that farmers did not store wheat destined for delivery for more than two to three months.
  2. Neither the Australian Wheat Board nor the State bulk handling authorities establish on-farm storage standards.

Wheat: Temporary Storage (Question No. 3359)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 6 March 1979:

  1. Did any discussions take place between the Wheat Board and the State bulk handling authorities on the provision of temporary storage prior to the commencement of the harvest.
  2. If so, (a) were any minimum standards or guidelines established for the construction of these temporary storages, (b) what were they and (c) have they been observed in each State.
  3. If not, is the Wheat Board still satisfied that none were necessary.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

– The Australian Wheat Board has provided the following information in reply to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The Board did discuss the provision of temporary storage with the bulk handling authorities in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, prior to the commencement of the harvest. Estimates were sought from each authority as to the provisions each was making for the prompt receival of the wheat harvest.

As at 1st November, 1978 the following situation pertained:

Queensland: The State Wheat Board had decided to implement delivery quotas on all growers. It had planned to construct temporary storages at nine sites.

New South Wales: The Grain Elevators Board had planned to construct temporary storages at fourteen sites.

Victoria: No emergency storage was planned. In addition the Board requested that each authority should attempt to lease as much private storage as possible in areas where each considered that its permanent or temporary storage would be insufficient. The authorities agreed to this request and leased a significant number of private storages.

  1. (a) The A.W.B. and the bulk handling authorities in conjunction with CSIRO have over a period of many years developed storage designs which are suitable for the temporary storage of wheat. The AWB and its insurers have approved storage types in which wheat is to be stored.

    1. Approved storages have been of a wide variety of forms. The older standard type was the ‘A’ framed bulkhead, with galvanised retaining walls and a self supporting metal roof. In recent years approval has also been given for the storage of wheat in structures of varying design based on the principle of earthen retaining walls and the use of plastic flooring and oversheeting. The CSIRO designed earthen bunker also includes a soil cover on top of the plastic membrane.
    2. In all States temporary storages have conformed to the design and construction criteria that have been mutually agreed upon by bulk handling authorities and the AWB.

In Victoria wheat was held in the open at a few sites for a brief period pending transfer to a more suitable form of temporary storage The AWB did confer with the Grain Elevators Board to ensure that as little wheat as possible was held in this fashion and that they were constructed to minimize weather damage.

  1. Although there has been some rain damage to wheat at a few sites in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria the quantity involved has been minimal (see answer to Question No. 3363) and the Board is generally satisfied that the bulk handling authorities have exercised reasonable care in safeguarding this year’s receivals, bearing in mind the pressures to which they were subjected in handling the huge crop.

Wheat: Temporary Storage (Question No. 3360)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 6 March 1 979:

  1. How much wheat has been accepted by the New South Wales bulk handling authority under the temporary storage incentive scheme of that State.
  2. What is the amount of the incentive, for what period of time, and what are the storage standards required by the Authority.
  3. Is he able to state whether this type of short-term onfarm storage is a preferred form of assistance by the State bulk handling authorities to the creation of a long-term (6-12 months) on-farm storage policy which would be a departure from previous grain storage policy in this country.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

– The Australian Wheat Board has provided the following information in reply to parts ( 1 ) and (2) of the honourable member’s question:

  1. 11,996 tonnes has been accepted by the New South Wales bulk handling authority under the temporary storage incentive scheme.
  2. Rebate for storage charge of $1.00 per tonne for the month of February and 20 cents per week for each week thereafter with a maximum rebate of $3.00 per tonne. The Grain Elevators Board intends to make the rebate directly to the growers concerned when the wheat has been received. The Grain Elevators Board requires a written statement from the grower that the wheat will be stored in good quality farm storage but there is no inspection of the storage facility.
  3. The temporary storage incentive scheme was introduced experimentally in New South Wales for the last harvest. I am unable to state whether the temporary storage scheme is preferred by bulk handling authorities to the creation of a long term on-farm storage policy. A study of the existing Australian wheat handling and storage system has been initiated by the Australian Agricultural Council to assess the adequacy of arrangements for the storage and handling of next season’s harvest. The report on the study will be considered by the Agricultural Council at its meeting in August 1979.

Wheat: Temporary Storage (Question No. 3361)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 6 March 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Was the CSIRO research work on temporary storage for wheat available to the Wheat Board and the State bulk handling authorities in time for the preparation of the necessary earthworks ahead of the 1 978 harvest.
  2. If so, would observance of this work have avoided the double handling and rain-caused quality deterioration resulting from the unsatisfactory temporary storages which were used in the harvest.
  3. Why was action taken after, rather than before, the harvest.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

– The Australian Wheat Board has provided the following information in reply to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The CSIRO has been conducting trials on underground storage and subsequently above ground earthen bunkers for several years. Information relating to the trials and the method of bunker construction was available to the Board and all bulk handling authorities prior to the 1978-79 harvest.
  2. 2 ) Double handling did not occur in any State except Victoria. In that State only 47,000 tonnes out of a total receival of approximately 3.4 million tonnes was double handled.
  3. Using all known production estimates it could not have been predicted before the harvest that there would have been a need to construct earthern bunkers to supplement existing storage to accommodate the harvest in Victoria. As the harvest progressed it became obvious that due to exceptional yields there was a need for extra storage in some areas. As soon as this became apparent the Grain Elevators Board commenced constructing bunker storages during the harvest period under the supervision of the CSIRO and the Australian Wheat Board.

International Wheat Agreement (Question No. 3362)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 6 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Will an International Wheat Agreement be concluded before the next Australian harvest.
  2. ) If so, will Australia be required as a pan of that Agreement to maintain a grain reserve.
  3. Who will be responsible for the construction and maintenance of any grain reserve storage, (a) the grower, (b) the Federal Government or (c) the State Government, and if it is a Government, will it be by loan or grant.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) It is unlikely that a new International Wheat Agreement will be concluded before the next Australian wheat harvest.
  2. The draft agreement which was under consideration at the recently adjourned UN Wheat Conference was based on a system of nationally held and internationally co-ordinated reserve stocks of wheat which would be accumulated and released in response to movements in a price indicator reflecting the current level of world wheat prices. Membership of the agreement would require Australia to maintain a grain reserve.
  3. It was not intended that any additional storage be constructed specifically to accommodate a grain reserve but that any reserve commitment be held within the existing central storage system.

Wheat Damaged by Rain (Question No. 3363)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 6 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) How much wheat stored in temporary storage in each of the States producing wheat has been rain affected since receipt.
  2. Will growers who delivered wheat of ASW quality or higher to these storages but whose wheat has now been rain affected, be paid the ASW price or a lower price.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

– The Australian Wheat Board has provided the following information in reply to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Only a very small percentage of wheat which was received into temporary storage was damaged by rain after its receipt. The quantities are as follows:

Queensland-50 tonnes

South Australia-Nil

New South Wales- 364 tonnes

Western Australia- 207 tonnes

Victoria- 582 tonnes.

In Victoria wheat was stored in open storages at seven sites. Three of these sites have been cleared of stocks and the clearance of another three is in progress. The cleared sites outturned as follows:

Barooga- Nil downgraded

Wamboota- 330 tonnes downgraded

Katunga- 252 tonnes downgraded.

It is difficult to estimate the tonnage which may be downgraded at the remaining four sites due to the manner of stack construction, and the fact that the movement programme is current.

As a general guide all of the above figures can only be approximate as the full extent of any damage can only be properly assessed when the temporary storages are finally outloaded.

  1. Growers will be paid according to the class of wheat which they delivered.

Temporary Entry to Australia by Overseas Students (Question No. 3386)

Dr Blewett:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 7 March 1979:

What are the criteria currently employed in assessing applicants under student entry to Australia.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

The criteria currently employed in determining applications for temporary entry to Australia by private overseas students may be summarised as follows:

Prospective students may be granted visas for temporary entry to undertake full-time post-secondary studies provided they are able to establish to the satisfaction of the relevant overseas post that: the proposed course of study or its equivalent is not available in their home country or country of residence; such study is of worthwhile content and duration leading to a qualification which would be recognised or be of value in relation to future employment opportunities in the home country or country of residence; they have the capacity (including a satisfactory knowledge of English) to undertake their proposed course of study; they gain enrolment in an Australian educational institution to undertake the approved course of study; they have a financial guarantor who will meet the costs of their fares to and from Australia, their fees and maintenance; they have a genuine intention to enter Australia on a temporary basis for study purposes only and will depart from Australia on the completion of their approved course of study or if they abandon studies; they have passports or travel authorities valid for reentry into their home country or country of residence; and they meet health and character requirements.

Entry for studies below post-secondary level is not normally permitted, but special approval may be given to undertake the last two years of the Australian secondary school course as a preliminary to an acceptable postsecondary course.

The assessment of applications by sponsored students to come to Australia falls within the responsibilities of my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Recreation Leave for General Manager of Australian Broadcasting Commission (Question No. 3417)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 March 1979:

What action has he taken to force the Australian Broadcasting Commission to require its General Manager to observe the rules set by the Public Service Board in relation to accumulated recreation leave.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

The General Manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission is appointed by, and holds office on such conditions as are determined by, the Australian Broadcasting Commission under sub-section 43 ( I ) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1 942.

The Commission is not required to consult with the Public Service Board nor are the conditions determined by the Commission for the General Manager subject to the approval of the Board.

The Government wishes, however, to see terms and conditions of employment, including leave arrangements, comparable to the maximum practical extent throughout the Commonwealth sector. I am asking the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to ensure that the Commission is aware of this view.

Importation of Aquarium Fish (Question No. 3429)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice on 20 March 1 979:

  1. 1 ) With respect to the resolutions of the 8th Meeting of the Australian Fisheries Council held at Canberra on 10 November 1 978, and presented to the House of Representatives on 22 February 919 (Hansard, page 257), is it fact that the Council recommended that Annex A, a List of Species and Genera of Aquarium Fishes Proposed for Continued Importation, be adopted.
  2. If so, does this list exclude, and, by implication, recommend for elimination the importation of goldfish or any livebearing fish within the genus poecillia, e.g., guppies, platties, sword tails and mollies.
  3. Do these fish constitute about 50 per cent of all imports.
  4. Is it a fact that aquarium fish hobbyists number about 1,500,000 persons with an estimated retail turnover of $200m in respect of the hobby.
  5. Is it also fact that the trade has not been consulted on the proposed exclusions from the approved list of imported fish.
  6. Has the Australian Federation of Aquarium Fish Importers and Traders a 108 page report currently before the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources which is inquiring into the adequacy of quarantine measures to protect pastoral industries from exotic diseases.
  7. Will the exclusion of imported stocks of goldfish, guppies, etc., lead to the establishment of exotic fish breeding in Australian waters with far greater risk to our freshwater environment.
  8. Has his attention been drawn to the sympathy expressed by Professor C. W. Emmons of the Department of Veterinary Physiology at the University of Sydney for the survival of the aquarium fish industry.
  9. Will he give an undertaking that the proposed exclusions will not be proclaimed until (a) the AFAFIT has been consulted, (b) the Senate Committee has reported and (c) the proposed changes have been considered by Parliament.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  2. I don’t know. The official figures on imports and exports published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics do not publish a breakdown of species of aquarium fish imported, only the total number of live fish imported and their total value.
  3. There are no official figures published on this matter.
  4. On 29 April, 1976 a meeting was held in Launceston between the Advisory Committee on Imports of Live Aquarium Fish and members of the aquarium fish industry. Both prior to and subsequent to that meeting numerous representations have been made to State and Commonwealth Ministers with responsibilities in this field and have been taken into account.
  5. I understand the Australian Federation of Aquarium Fish Importers and Traders, has placed a submission before the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources.
  6. The control of freshwater fisheries is a State responsibility.
  7. To the best of my knowledge my attention has not been drawn to the views of Professor C. W. Emmons. The most appropriate people to see this report would be the members of the Advisory Committee on Endangered Species and Export and Import of Live Fish.
  8. As I am not responsible for implementation of the recommendations I cannot give such an undertaking. Within the Commonwealth Government the responsibility for import and quarantine control rests with the Ministers for Business and Consumer Affairs and Health respectively. The Minister for Science and the Environment is responsible for advice on environmental policy aspects and for coordination of Government policy on the matter.

NUMAS Brochure (Question No. 3437)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 March, 1979:

  1. 1 ) When was information made available in brochure form in each of the countries where Australia has overseas posts for applicants under the new migrant selection system known as NUMAS?
  2. Were the brochures made available in the language of the country of origin of applicants?
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. and (2) English editions of the NUMAS leaflet were distributed on 31 January 1979 to Australian posts overseas in English speaking countries as well as to all other posts that had indicated they required supplies.

The text is being translated and printed in twenty-one other languages. Between 31 January 1979 and 21 March 1979, eleven of these foreign-language editions had been completed and distributed to posts in countries of the languages as well as to other posts which indicated a need for them.

Languages covered in the NUMAS printing program are:

English, Arabic, Chinese, Danish,Dutch,Finnish, *French,German, Greek,Italian, Japanese, Macedonian,Maltese, Norwegian, Polish,Portuguese, *Serbo-Croat (Cyrillic),Serbo-Croat (Latin),Slovenian, *Spanish,Swedish, Turkish.

Telephone Rental Concessions for Pensioners (Question No. 3452)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 21 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has Telecom undertaken a survey of pensioners in receipt of telephone rent rebates in the Geelong area.
  2. How many pensioners have received requests for information about the income of other persons living in their home who are not pensioners.
  3. Is the Government seeking to reduce the number of pensioners in receipt of phone rent rebate.
  4. Is this survey part of a general Government policy to reduce assistance to low income families and recipients of social security.
  5. 5 ) Who requested the survey of pensioners.
  6. When did a similar survey of pensioners’ eligibility occur.
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:

  1. 1 ) The Department of Social Security, in conjunction with the Australian Telecommunications Commission is reviewing the eligibility of fringe benefit pensioners who receive the Telephone Rental Concession. It is a national review and certain pensioners in the Geelong area have been included in the survey.
  2. Questionnaires were issued to approximately half a million pensioners throughout Australia.
  3. , (4) and (5) It is the responsibility of the Department of Social Security to ensure that benefits paid under the Social Services Act and concessions granted by the Commonwealth are received only by those persons who are legally entitled to receive them. Where any doubt arises concerning eligibility to such benefits or concessions, it is normal practice to review the situation. The last two annual reports of the Auditor-General have mentioned the need to improve the procedures designed to check eligibility for the Telephone Rental Concessions.
  4. A national review of the Telephone Rental Concession has not been previously conducted. However, normal practice requires that pensioners’ eligibility for the concession is checked when circumstances affecting eligibility for the concession alter.

Nuclear Power Stations (Question No.3475)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 21 March 1979:

Is he able to state how many nuclear power stations were (a) ordered, (b) cancelled and (c) deferred during 1978 in (i) Japan, (ii) the United States of America, (iii) the United Kingdom, (iv) France, (v) West Germany, (vi) Canada, (vii) Italy and (viii) OECD countries, and in each case what was the generating capacity.

Mr Newman:
LP

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

The following table provides the information requested:

Nuclear Power Stations (Question No. 3476)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 2 1 March 1979:

  1. ) Is he able to state how many nuclear power stations were (a) ordered, (b) cancelled and (c) deferred in third world countries during each year since1970 and in each case what was the generating capacity.
  2. Is he also able to state in each case what was the type of nuclear power station ordered and with which company was the order placed.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Details of the number and generating capacity of nuclear power stations (a) ordered, (b) cancelled and (c) deferred in third world countries during each year since 1 970 and the type and supplier of ordered power stations are given below:

Wheat: Temporary Storage Incentive Scheme (Question No. 3484)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 2 1 March 1979:

Did the New South Wales bulk handling authority as a condition of acceptance of wheat under the temporary storage incentive scheme introduced as an experiment for the last harvest, require (a) an inspection of the farm storage and (b) the wheat to be fumigated prior to receipt into that storage.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

– The Australian Wheat Board has provided the following information in reply to the honourable member’s question:

The New South Wales bulk handling authority did not inspect farm storage facilities nor did it require wheat to be fumigated prior to receipt into that storage. Farmers were advised that wheat must be insect free when eventually delivered to the Board. The Grain Elevators Board of New South Wales also required a written statement from the farmer that the wheat was being stored in good quality farm storage.

Age Pension: New Zealand (Question No. 3490)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 21 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister able to state whether New Zealand in 1977 reduced the qualifying age for the age pension from 65 to 60 years.
  2. Is the Minister also able to state what proportion of eligible persons have availed themselves of this provision and have withdrawn from the workforce.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Prior to 9 February, 1977, cash benefits were available to the aged in New Zealand in the form of either: age benefit- an income-tested, non-taxable cash payment to men and women aged 60 years of age and over (55 years for women in certain circumstances) subject to residence qualifications (generally ten years); or superannuation benefit- a cash payment made free of any income or assets test but subject to income tax, to men and women aged 65 years and over, subject to residence qualifications (generally twenty years).

The rates of benefit payable under the two schemes were generally indentical but certain provisions, such as for dependents, differed. Persons qualified by age and residence to receive either benefit could select the benefit which was most generous in their particular circumstances.

From 9 February, 1977, age and superannuation benefits were replaced by national superannuation, a taxable cash payment generally payable free of any income or assets test to men and women aged 60 years or more. A residence qualification ( usually ten years ) applies. (2)1 have no information that would enable me to answer this pan of the honourable member’s question. Certain data on numbers of recipients of superannuation and age benefits and national superannuation are available but these would not necessarily be good indicators of how the change to national superannuation has affected workforce participation by the aged. In particular, since national superannuation is non income-tested whereas the former age pension was, some people who have reached the age of 60 but are under 65 might now qualify for national superannuation while continuing in the workforce whereas the income test might previously have disqualified them for age benefit. The following statistics may, however, be of interest:

Mr Jack McCabe (Question No. 3492)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 March 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the case of Mr Jack McCabe who died in Concord Repatriation Hospital in May 1977 following routine tests ordered by his Department for a pension claim.
  2. Considering the seriousness of the case, can he state (a) why he did not consider an inquiry necessary and (b) why it has taken almost 2 years for an inquest to be ordered.
Mr Adermann:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.

  2. (a) The decision as to whether an inquest is to be held is not a matter for my Depanment but solely the concern of the State Minister for Justice who, after he has received representations by the claimant’s solicitors or other advice, has the power to make an application to the Supreme Court for an order that an inquest be held pursuant to section 37 of the Coroners Act (NSW) 1960 (as amended). On such application by the Minister for Justice, the Supreme Court may order that an inquest be held,

    1. The delay in this matter was not occasioned by the actions of my Depanment, whose responsibility terminates as soon as the matter is reported to the police and to the Coroner.

Banabans (Question No. 3502)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is he able to state whether there are any current proposals to (a) provide compensation for the Banaban people, arising from past occupation and economic exploitation of Ocean Island (Banaba) by foreign powers, or (b) assist repatriation to Ocean Island by Banabans currently living on

Rabi Island (Fiji) together with appropriate assistance to establish agriculture and industry.

  1. If not, will he take the matter up with the Governments of Great Britain, New Zealand and Japan.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. (a) The British Phosphate Commissioners (BPC) made an ex gratia offer to the Banaban people, without admission of liability, of approximately $A10m in May 1977 following the failure of the Banabans to obtain a court order asking that they should receive further back-payments of royalties on phosphate mined by the BPC. The offer has not yet been taken up by the Banabans and is the subject of current negotiations. The British Government has also made a substantial offer to the Banabans for establishment and development costs on Rabi Island in Fiji, where the majority of the Banabans live.

    1. Provision is made in the Kiribati (i.e. Gilbert Islands) Independence Bill, at present before the British Parliament, for the Banabans to retain their freedom of access to Ocean Island. There is, however, no provision for repatriation at official expense and I am unaware of any discussions on this possibility. I would note, nevertheless, that numbers of Banaban people have recently travelled to Ocean Island by private charter. Although it remains unclear how many are likely to make it their permanent residence, the BPC has offered the Banabans approximately $A1.25m for replanting costs on Ocean Island. This is an amount far in excess of what was awarded by the English High Court in judgment on a replanting claim.

  2. There have been adequate consultations between representatives of the three governments associated with the phosphate operations.

Aged Persons Homes (Question No. 3573)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 28 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) By how much has the (a) basic fee for aged persons homes and (b) Commonwealth’s contribution toward the basic fee for aged persons homes, risen in each State since the introduction of fee controls in 1 973.
  2. When was the last adjustment to the Commonwealth’s contribution to these fees in each State.
  3. For what percentage of aged persons homes’ beds did the basic fee apply in each State (a) at the date of the last adjustment of the Commonwealth’s contribution and (b) as at 23 March 1979.
  4. Is it a fact that in Queensland the percentage of beds at the basic rate has dropped from approximately 70 per cent at the time of the last adjustment to approximately 35 per cent by mid-March 1979.
  5. Is he able to state the reason for the increase in the number of aged persons homes raising their fees above the basic fee.
  6. Does his Department approve all applications from aged persons homes for fee increases; if not, what are the grounds for rejection.
  7. Are there growing numbers of pensioners who entered aged persons homes paying only the basic rate ( meaning no more than their pensions) and who are now paying in excess of the pension.
  8. Will he introduce an immediate upwards adjustment of the Commonwealth contribution to the basic fee; if not, why not.
  9. Will he conduct reviews and adjustments of the Commonwealth contribution to the basic fee on a quarterly, or at least biannual, basis to ensure that inflation in aged persons homes fees does not compel pensioners at these homes to seek alternative accommodation and care.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) The standard fee in respect of approved nursing homes (referred to by the honourable member as the basic fee), which comprises the ordinary care benefit and the minimum statutory patient contribution, has risen in each State since the introduction of fee control in 1 973 by:
  1. The Commonwealth’s contribution towards the standard fee in each State (i.e. the increase in the basic benefit) has increased since 1973 by:
  1. The Government introduced higher benefit levels in all States in October 1977 and undertook to review these benefits annually. The policy of the Government is that, as a result of these annual reviews, benefits are set at a level which, with the minimum statutory patient contribution, fully covers the fees being charged 70 per cent of patients in non-Government nursing homes approved under the National Health Act. As a result of the annual review in 1978, benefit increases were only necessary in Victoria ($5.25 a week) and South Australia ($10.50 a week) as in the other States the existing levels of benefit, plus the patient contribution, were achieving the desired coverage under the 70 per cent formula. The appropriate benefit increases in Victoria and South Australia became effective from 9 November 1978.
  2. (a) At the last adjustment to benefit levels on 9 November 1978, the percentage of beds covered by the standard fee was:
  1. A survey of nursing home fees as at 1 April 1979 has been conducted and showed the following percentage of beds covered by the standard fee in each State.
  1. The percentage of beds in Queensland covered by the statutory minimum patient contribution and benefits at 1

April 1 979 was 33 per cent compared with 75 per cent at the last adjustment to benefit levels.

  1. Since 9 November 1978, nursing homes in all States have been eligible for an increase in fees based on the December 1978 National Wage decision. In addition, most private nursing homes have had an increase in fees in respect of projected increases in costs other than salaries and wages for 1978-79.
  2. Under the provisions of the National Health Act proprietors of private nursing homes (Government nursing homes and nursing homes approved under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act are excluded) are required to make application to my Department for increases in fees. In examining such applications my Department, in accordance with section 40aa(7) of the Act, has regard to costs necessarily incurred in providing nursing home care in the nursing home. An application may be approved in full or in part or rejected. Reasons for rejection include applications involving expenditure of a capital nature, adjustments for profit, insufficient evidence in support of an application, etc. Proprietors have the right of appeal to the Minister for Health if they are dissatisfied with a decision of the Department relating to approved fees.
  3. Statistical information is not available. However, it would be expected that, because of the increases in nursing home fees since the last review of benefits in November 1978, some pensioners would now be contributing more towards their care than they were at that time.
  4. and (9) I am not in a position to give the honourable member any assurances as to an early adjustment to benefit levels. The Government will be reviewing the benefit levels in all States later this year in keeping with its undertaking given in 1977 to review nursing home benefits annually in line with the seventy per cent formula.

Social Security Pensions and Benefits (Question No. 3607)

Mr Lusher:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the number of recipients of social security benefits and the amount of those benefits paid by the Department of Social Security where the application for benefit followed, or was consequent upon, the dissolution of marriage.
  2. If no records are available, is the Minister able to indicate whether, in the Department’s experience, a large, small or intermediate number of applications for benefit or pension are made by a partner to a marriage following on, or consequent upon, the dissolution of the marriage.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The details requested are not available for all social security pensions and benefits. However, the number of divorcees in receipt of Class A or Class B widows pension at the end of December 1 978 was 36,458.

Expenditure on widow pensioners by category of pensioner, is not available. However, the annual liability for divorcees in receipt of Class A or Class B widows pension was estimated to be of the order of $!20m at the end of December 1978.

  1. The number of claims lodged by divorcees for Class A or Class B widows pension during 1978 was estimated at 12,200. In many cases the grant of pension or benefit is not contingent on divorce. For example, separated wives with children may qualify for a Class A widows pension or a supporting parents benefit six months after the event giving rise to eligibility i.e. the date of separation. A divorce may occur later without altering her status as a ‘widow’ or supporting parent for purposes of the Social Services Act.

Woomera Rocket Range (Question No. 3622)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 3 April 1 979:

  1. In view of the decreased activity at the Woomera Rocket Range, will the restricted area of the range be reduced in line with present day requirements of that facility.
  2. Has there been any relaxation of conditions for entry to the restricted area for activities such as prospecting.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) To preserve the area for possible future requirements of the Australian Services there is no present intention to change the existing boundaries of the Woomera prohibited area.
  2. The present conditions applying to entry to the Woomera prohibited area will continue. These permit entry to the area for activities such as prospecting, subject to compliance by the party concerned with specified safety and security requirements.

Leukaemia (Question No. 3627)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 3 April 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has he received a further letter, dated 23 March 1979, from Mr I. H. Davies of 1 Kanimbla Road, Nedlands, W.A., regarding leukaemia and allied disorders in ex-servicemen of World War II, disputing the results of a study carried out by Dr J. W. Donovan of the Department of Health for his Department.
  2. Is he completely satisfied with the results of Dr Donovan’s study, in view of the criticism voiced by Mr Davies.
  3. If not, will he consider financing an independent study of the incidence of leukaemia and allied disorders in exservicemen who served in areas where malaria was endemic.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I am satisfied with the study carried out by Dr Donovan which was supported by a number of other medical experts whose opinions were incorporated in the final protocol of the study.
  3. See (2) above.

Unemployment (Question No. 3660)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 5 April 1979:

Which of the consultant’s recommendations to the Myers Inquiry into Unemployment Benefit Policy and Administration of July 1977 have been implemented by the Government?

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The recommendations of the consultant were substantially incorporated in the recommendations of the Myers Inquiry and these recommendations were in turn reviewed both departmentally and by an inter-departmental review team. The current departmental procedures are therefore attributable in part to all of these influences and in part to other reforms initiated departmentally. Accordingly, it is not practicable to identify changes as being exclusively attributable to the consultant’s recommendations alone. The following changes that have been effected since the consultant’s report are considered to involve substantial implementation of recommendations made by him- the payment of unemployment benefit in arrears; the introduction of a positive stimulus system of payment under which the claimant must personally justify his entitlement to each fortnightly payment of unemployment benefit; the conduct of periodicial reviews of entitlement through field officers and departmental procedures. greater emphasis on special procedures to identify claimants and to detect abuse; personal interviews of new claimants of unemployment benefit; additional staff and counter facilities in response to increases in workload; upgrading of managerial resources and the granting of wider discretionary powers to local managers; advance payment of the initial benefit cheque in cases of hardship to avoid recourse to welfare agencies; and greater readiness to issue counter cheques to persons in need.

Financial Assistance for Projects in Tasmania (Question No. 3666)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 5 April 1 979:

  1. With reference to the Government’s 10 point policy package for Tasmania announced in November 1977, has a request been made by the Government to the board which administers the Government’s decentralisation program to give special and prompt attention to Tasmanian projects.
  2. If so, (a) what projects have received funds under the program, (b) what sums were received, (c) when were the funds received and (d) under what terms (i.e. interest rate, grant component and loan repayment period) were funds made available to these projects.
  3. What has been the per capita allocation under this program to date for Tasmania compared with each of the five mainland States.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. Yes.

  2. (a) As at S April 1979, financial assistance had been approved for the following projects:

    1. Holiday Village, Stewart’s Bay
    2. Expansion of engineering facility, Launceston
    3. Albert Hall extension and upgrading, Launceston
    4. Oceanarium, Bicheno
    5. Galvanising plant, Launceston.

    1. The financial assistance offered for these projects is as follows:

    2. $322,000
    3. $530,000
    4. $250,000
    5. $80,000
    6. $100,000.
    1. The dates of payment of approved assistance depends on the settlement of legal formalities and the rate of project expenditure by successful applicants. Payments to applicants at 17.4.79 totalled $546,000.
    2. (i) 12 year loan at 9.5 per cent (one year principal deferment) and a 6 year loan at 9.0 per cent; (ii) 10 year loan at 9.0 per cent; (iii) Grant; (iv) 7 year loan at 8.8 per cent; ( v) 1 5 year loan at 9.0 per cent ( two year principal deferment ).
  3. The per capita allocation of approved projects to date is:

Australian Passports (Question No. 3672)

Mr James:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 April 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many persons holding Australian passports travelled overseas during each of the years 1975-76 to 1977-78.
  2. How many passports have been reported as lost or stolen in each of these years.
  3. How many of these have been recovered.
  4. Has his Department considered the possibility of issuing Australian citizens with an optional travel document to alleviate the fear of losing passports.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs advises that 793,086 Australian citizens departed during 1975-76, 814.060 during 1976-77, and 836,586 during 1977-78.
  2. Australian passports reported lost numbered 2851 in 1975-76, 3843 during 1976-77 and 4467 during 1977-78.
  3. Australian passports reported recovered numbered 1 93 in 1975-76. 288 in 1976-77 and 35 1 in 1977-78.
  4. As Australian posts overseas are able to replace lost passports quickly it is not considered necessary to make an optional travel document available to Australian travellers.

Lost Social Security Cheques (Question No. 3673)

Mr James:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 9 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many social security cheques were reported as lost or stolen during each of the years 1975-76 to 1977-78.
  2. 2 ) What sums were involved.
  3. ) What sums were recovered.
  4. How many of the cheques reported as lost or stolen were subsequently cashed.
  5. What was the annual loss to the Government over this period.
  6. What steps have been taken for detection of fraudulent activities and what steps are being taken to correct the situation.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. to (5) Instances of theft and fraudulent negotiation (i.e. negotiation without the authority of the payee) of cheques come to light in the course of investigations which follow a report from a payee that a cheque was not received or was lost or stolen subsequent to receipt.

Departmental action in cases where cheques are not received by the due date includes the issue of a replacement cheque to the payee. (In cases where the payee has received and then lost the cheque, the issue of a replacement is conditional on the stop payment notice lodged at the bank on which the original was drawn being effective).

Statistics are kept of numbers only of replacement cheques issued and details for the years 1975-76 to 1977-78 are as follows: 1975-76-88,454; 1976-77-98,3 16; 1977-78-89,718.

The majority of cheques which are replaced are in fact eventually either received by the payee and/or returned to the Department.

Clients are advised to return either the original or the replacement cheque to the Department if both cheques are received by them and in the event that both cheques are negotiated the resulting overpayment is recovered, in most cases, by the limitation of continuing entitlement.

The value of Social Security cheques which are returned to the Department and cheques which remain lost and therefore become stale is repaid to the Commonwealth Public Account.

Of the cheques issued by this Department very few are found to have been fraudulently negotiated. For the years 1975- 76 to 1977-78 the total number of cheques reported as fraudulently negotiated and the ratio of this number to total cheques issued is as follows: 1975-76-8,391, 1:7378;

1976- 77-12,539, 1:4914; 1977-78-12,084, 1:5356.

As cheques drawn by this Department are crossed not negotiable- within the meaning of Section 87 of the Bills of Exchange Act- persons who give value to a person with no title to the cheque become liable to the Commonwealth for its value.

In this regard the following amounts were recovered from bankers and traders in the years in question: 1975-76-$4 14,033; l976-77-$745,960;

1977- 78- $918,718.

  1. The Commonwealth Police are advised of all cases of fraudulent endorsement and negotiation of cheques drawn on an official bank account in accordance with directions issued under the Audit Act. Any steps for detection of fraudulent activities and /or to correct the situation would be taken by the Commonwealth Police.

Illegal Immigrants (Question No. 3674)

Mr James:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 5 April 1979:

How many illegal immigrants detained by his officers during each of the years 1975-76 to 1977-78 have had in their possession forged passports and /or identifications.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

Statistics of illegal immigrants detained who have had in their possession forged passports and/or identifications are not maintained.

Bovine Brucellosis and Tuberculosis (Question No. 3694)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 1 May 1979:

Since the Commonwealth, in association with the States, commenced the accelerated campaign for the eradication of bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis,

how many cattle have been tested, and how many and what percentage have been positive reactors,

what percentage of the beef and dairy herd are now declared free of either disease,

how many private and Government veterinaries and other officers have been used,

what is the average cost per test and

is trace back or periodic universal testing being used once a herd is declared free, in each State and Territory.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Between 1 July 1973 and 30 June 1978 14m samples have been tested for brucellosis, 1.6 per cent were positive and 5.3m tuberculosis tests have been applied- 0.47 percent producing positive results.
  2. At 31 December 1978 29.6 per cent of all herds were classed as negative or free of brucellosis, 7.3 per cent of herds were recently cleared, 54.8 per cent of herds have not been assessed, 4.3 percent are suspect and 4 percent are infected.
  3. About 800-1,000 people are involved in the campaign on a full or part dme basis at administrative, field and laboratory levels, in both the public and private sector. To give an idea of the relative importance of the two in 1 977-78 total operational expenditure was $22. 7m of which 54 per cent was expended on State and Commonwealth Government officer salaries and another 16.5 per cent was paid out as fees to private veterinarians who were involved in the campaign.
  4. As many of the costs for testing procedures are joint costs it is not possible to determine exactly what a brucellosis or tuberculosis test costs. The Bureau of Animal Health in monitoring the campaign uses a test equivalent figure. This varies from State to State and the range is from $1.54 to $2.83 per test equivalent.
  5. Traceback and periodic whole herd tests are being used by all States except Tasmania, which relies on milk ring testing, to monitor free herds. An evaluation of abattoir sample collection and traceback as a means of monitoring free herds is presently underway.

Meals-on- Wheels (Question No. 3708)

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 May 1979:

What was the subsidy given to the City of Parramatta Council by the Department of Social Security for the provision of the Meals-on- Wheels service in each of the years 1972 to 1978.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Under the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act, payments are not made to the City of Parramatta Council but to the Parramatta and Districts Senior Citizens’ Centre. Payments for the period 1972-1978 were:

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 8 May 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1979/19790508_reps_31_hor114/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant