House of Representatives
5 June 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 2883

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

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That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilize whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so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 the 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 Aldred, Mr Bourchier, Mr Bryant, Mr Burns, Mr McLean, Mr Eric Robinson and Mr Shipton.

Petitions received.

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 adjustments 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 adjustments in the Autumn session.
  2. Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burns, Mr MacKenzie, Mr Martin and Mr Uren.

Petitions received.

Health of Aboriginal Children

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 there are Australian Aboriginal children living under conditions of inadequate nutrition in a background of poor housing, hygiene, and overcrowding that amounts to a Third World enclave in the midst of affluence; that such a state of affairs is intolerable in our country; that only an effort on an unprecedented scale could create conditions that would give these children the rights set out in the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will make generous funding available for the specific purposes of: making a real improvement in the health, housing, education, employment and welfare of our Aboriginal people, doing so with due regard for the needs, hopes and aspirations of the Aboriginal people themselves. providing increased help, encouragement and opportunity for Aboriginal people to train as nursing aides and in other para-medical roles, and as fully qualified nurses, doctors and social workers; providing increased health education for Aboriginal people in ways that are acceptable to them. by Mr Hurford and Mr Jacobi.

Petitions 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 his 1977 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. byDr Blewett.

Petition received.

Closure of Post Office

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the closure of the May’s Hill Post Office has greatly inconvenienced local residents who must now travel outside the suburb to conduct postal business.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the decision to close the Post Office at May’s Hill, New South Wales, be reversed.

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

Petition received.

Television: Advertising of Alcohol

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:

Children are easily impressed and whilst advertisements are continually influencing them on how proficient at football, cricket and tennis et cetera they will become if they drink certain brands of beer, the manufacturers of these drinks fail to tell them of the pitfalls they will encounter once drinking has become a habit.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that advertisements such as these should be banned from television or at least censored in childrens and peak viewing hours.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. byMrGillard.

Petition received.

Australian Federal Police Force

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

The petition of the undersigned members of the Commonwealth Police Force’ and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That we the undersigned having great concern at the Government’s decision to form an Australian Federal Police Force, call upon the Government:

  1. To protect the interests of the Commonwealth Police Officers.
  2. To ensure that all members become ‘policemen’ under the Australian Federal Police Force Bill, and engage in Police work, duties and responsibilities, with their encumbent authority.
  3. To ensure the retention of, at least, the minimum rates of pay and working conditions now enjoyed by members of the Commonwealth Police Force.
  4. To ensure that all rights and privileges currently enjoyed by the Commonwealth Police Officers’ Association and its members under the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act are preserved.

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

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 programs.

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 Hunt.

Petition received.

Medical Benefits: Abortions

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

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

Your petitioners therefore humply pray that the Honourable Members should:

Amend the Medical Benefits Schedule so as to preclude the payment of any benefit for abortion.

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

Petition received.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport

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. We call upon the Commonwealth and State Governments to select a site for Sydney’s second Airport now and to protect it by immediate development.
  2. We do not agree to the expansion of the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport.
  3. We support the Marrickville Municipal Council’s opposition to the Airport extension proposals.
  4. We do not agree that nuisances from aircraft noises are reducing.
  5. We oppose any shorter evening ‘curfew ‘ hours.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that there be no extension of Kingsford-Smith Airport, Sydney.

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

Petition received.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport

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. We call upon the Commonwealth and State Governments to select a site for Sydney’s second Airport now and to protect it by immediate development.
  2. We do not agree to the expansion of the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport.
  3. We support the South Sydney Municipal Council ‘s opposition to the Airport extension proposals.
  4. We do not agree that nuisances from aircraft noises are reducing.
  5. We oppose any shorter evening ‘curfew ‘ hours.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that there be no extension of Kingsford-Smith Airport, Sydney.

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

Petition received.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport

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. We call upon the Commonwealth and State Governments to select a site for Sydney ‘s second airport now and to protect it by immediate development.
  2. We do not agree to the extension of the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport.
  3. We support Leichhardt Municipal Council’s opposition to the airport extension proposals.
  4. We do not agree that nuisances from aircraft noises are reducing.
  5. . We oppose any shorter evening ‘ curfew ‘ hours.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that there be no extension of Kingsford-Smith Airport, Sydney.

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

Petition received.

page 2885

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY: SMALL BUSINESSES

Notice of Motion

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-I give notice that on General Business Thursday No. 10 I shall move:

That this House, recognising the importance of small business to the Australian economy and acknowledging the particular problems of small business, directs the Government, amongst other things, to-

1 ) Upgrade the Finance and Small Business Branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce;

Improve the availability of finance for small business;

Provide more extensive management training and counselling programs for small business; and

Explore methods of easing the taxation burden on small business.

page 2885

CROATIAN EMBASSY

Notice of Motion

Mr GOODLUCK:
Franklin

-I give notice that at the next day of sitting I shall move:

That this House is of the opinion that-

The 6 major aims of the Croatian people in establishing the Croatian Embassy in Canberra were:

1 ) Recognition by Governments and the Australian community that the Croatian people are a distinctive ethnic group and not Yugoslavs;

That the Croatian people have a language which has been theirs through history and that the Croatian language is a modern language still used by the Croatian people;

Recognition of the Croatian people as a distinct ethnic community (and not as Yugoslavs) by enabling the Croatian community to have their own ethnic broadcasts in the Croatian language through the use of community media facilities and services;

The availability through Government departments and other institutions for interpreters, social and welfare workers, other liaison officers and other assistance to be made available in the Croatian language and through Croatians and not in the so called Yugoslav language ‘;

To obtain Government support for the review of Government and administrative discrimination of the Croatian people in matters of citizenship, employment and passports; and

That the Government should recognise the genuine aims and grievances of the Croatian community.

page 2885

FAMILY TRUSTS

Notice of Motion

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

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

That this House is of the opinion that the Treasurer should introduce legislation to outlaw the use of family trusts for tax avoidance purposes through the artifice of income splitting as practised by senior members of the Government -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! It is not in order for the honourable member to introduce debate into his notice of motion.

Dr Klugman:

– It is a substantive notice of motion.

Mr Armitage:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am giving a notice of motion. This is a specific motion dealing with the matter. It is a substantive motion as the honourable member for Prospect mentioned. As such, it is in order to introduce the fact that there are senior members of this Government, such as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) and the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife), who have been adopting this practice.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The illustration seemed superfluous to the spirit of the honourable member’s motion. If he wishes to proceed with his notice of motion, excluding any extraneous matter, he is at liberty to do so.

Mr Armitage:

– Once again, Mr Acting Speaker, I raise of point of order. It has been ruled in this place on a number of occasions, such as in the case of references to holders of the office of Governor-General, that a substantive motion must be moved to deal with these practices by individual members of this Parliament. That was laid down by Mr Speaker on a number of occasions. I am now endeavouring to introduce a substantive motion on the issue of the malpractices of members of this Government.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Chifley has made his position clear. If it is his intention to give notice of substantive motion against specific members of the Government or the Government in totality, he is free to proceed. I read his comment as an illustrative comment and one which was superfluous.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I will read the notice of motion afresh. I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That this House is of the opinion that the Treasurer should introduce legislation to outlaw the use of family trusts for tax avoidance purposes through the artifice of income splitting as practised by senior members of the Government, such as the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and, until recently, the Prime Minister.

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. Has the Deputy Leader of the Opposition also been included in that list?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. I caution the honourable member for Bendigo against taking specious points of order.

page 2886

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2886

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH DECENTRALISATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask a question of the Minister for National Development. He will recall telling the House yesterday in answer to a question asked by the honourable member for Griffith that he acted solely on a recommendation from the Decentralisation Advisory Board that a quarter of a million dollar grant should be made for the Launceston Conference Centre in his electorate. I ask: Is it a fact that the Decentralisation Advisory Board rejected a proposal for a conference centre costing more than $2m in Launceston? Did the Minister then refer the proposal to the consultant, Nicholas Clark, for a feasibility study? Did the consultant’s report confirm the advice of the Decentralisation Advisory Board and give some support to a modified proposal for a half a million dollar grant? Did the Minister, acting on the advice of the Commonwealth-State officials committee on the Callaghan report, then make a decision to fund half the cost by way of a Commonwealth grant for a quarter of a million dollars with the State Government providing a matching grant? If these are facts, did not the Minister grossly mislead the House about the Launceston Conference Centre yesterday when he denied any act of intervention in this matter and claimed that he had merely rubber stamped a recommendation from the Decentralisation Advisory Board?

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

– I am heartened by the tremendous interest that the Opposition is showing in the portfolio of National Development. The position with regard to the Albert Hall and the so-called Launceston Convention Centre is clear. The report that was commissioned by the Decentralisation Board that a consultant should then look at the whole question of a convention centre in Launceston resulted from a consideration of the first application that was made by the Launceston City Council and the State Government. As a result of a first look at that application by those two bodies, a consultant’s report was commissioned. The consultant’s report went to a committee of officials of the State, as I think the Leader of the Opposition mentioned. That report and the consideration by the State officials, to my mind, is clearly the work of the Decentralisation Board. The consultant’s report, together with the consultant committee’s report, came to me. I regard that as a recommendation from the Board.

page 2886

QUESTION

OIL PRICING POLICIES

Mr COTTER:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister for National Development aware of a report in the Sydney Morning Herald on 5 June that the New South Wales Prices Commission wants the Federal Government to change its oil pricing policies? Does the Government have any plans to give preferential price treatment to New South Wales oil consumers or Launceston gas consumers? Is the Government’s present pricing policy working? Has it been any incentive to exploration?

Mr NEWMAN:
LP

-To answer the part of the honourable gentleman’s question dealing with special preferences for New South Wales or Tasmania, the answer is of course, no. I have noticed the remarks by the chairman of the New South Wales Prices Commission about our oil pricing policy. I thank the honourable gentleman for asking the question because it is very important that I correct the statement that the chairman has made. It is unfortunate and regrettable that he does not understand the effects of the pricing policy. The International Energy Agency, consisting of 20 important countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, has endorsed the need to have a realistic pricing policy as an important plank in an energy policy. At the last international agency meeting, time after time countries emphasised the need for realistic pricing. In fact, it was heartening to find that Dr Schlesinger made special reference to the fact that Australia had introduced such a policy in its energy policy.

There is no inbuilt pricing mechanism that allows the spot prices which are now occurring around the world to creep into our pricing policy. The remarks by the chairman were incorrect. As to whether it affects exploration or not, it is very clear that it does. The parity pricing allows graduated movement to enable oil explorers, oil producers and anybody who is operating in that field to receive increasing amounts from parity pricing. If a new oil field is found, the price is free of the levy, as the Treasurer mentioned in his speech on the subject. This has led to a dramatic resurgence of exploration around this country, whether we are talking about the Queensland coast, the Western Australia coast or down in the Bass Strait. It would be absolute folly to go back on that pricing policy which has had such a dramatic effect in increasing chances of finding more oil in the country.

page 2887

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF: MORATORIUM

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Did the Minister for National Development leak the Cabinet decision on the moratorium on the Great Barrier Reef to journalists last Thursday? If so, did he have the Prime Minister’s authorisation to do this and breach Cabinet confidentiality?

Mr NEWMAN:
LP

-There is no doubt about it, members of the Opposition are a very persistent crowd. I would have thought that yesterday when the Prime Minister made clear to this House what our policy was going to be about the Great Barrier Reef the Opposition would have been satisfied. The Opposition’s questions nail once and for all who really has been trying to deceive the people of Australia about the real intentions of this Government. Let me repeat what the Prime Minister said yesterday: This Government has accepted the royal commissioner’s report, that is the Chairman’s dissenting report -

Mr Armitage:

– I take a point of order. I have asked a question, not about the decision on the Great Barrier Reef but on whether a Cabinet decision was leaked and Cabinet confidentiality breached. That is the question that needs to be answered.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– No point of order arises. The Minister is entitled to answer the question as he sees fit. I call the Minister for National Development.

Mr NEWMAN:

– This Government has now instituted a policy which protects the Great Barrier Reef against any of the effects of drilling or mining until we have the results of short and long term research.

Mr Armitage:

– Answer the question.

Mr NEWMAN:

– I point out one other thing to honourable members on the other side of the House.

Mr Hayden:

– I also take a point of order. Mr Acting Speaker, as you well know, under Standing Orders an answer has to be relevant to the question. This answer is not relevant. All the Minister is trying to do is demolish the question with a high impact hot air blast.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-There is no substance in the point of order. I ask the Minister to ensure that his answer remains relevant to the question asked.

Mr NEWMAN:

– I think that everybody would agree that if there is one expert on hot air in this place it is the Leader of the Opposition. I say only one more thing on this matter. It will settle once and for all the question of permits, royal commissions and the constitutional matter of the territorial sea..

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I raise a point of order. In view of the Minister’s history of not hearing questions, could the honourable member for Chifley ask his question again? He clearly does not understand the question.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Burke is taking a specious point of order. I warn him not to repeat that performance. The honourable member for Chifley asked his question. He seems reluctant to receive a reply because he is interjecting constantly. I caution the honourable member for Chifley against interjecting. I call the Minister.

Mr NEWMAN:

-I make this final important point: The crux of the the debate in both Houses has been whether the declaration of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park revolves around the report of the royal commission and the settlement of permits or the constitutional position in relation to the territorial sea. The royal commission’s findings have been settled. That means that the question of permits has also been settled because a moratorium now exists. The Opposition should note that the question of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park has still not been settled because the constitutional question of the territorial sea still has to be settled. That has been the position of my colleague in the other place. That was also the situation to which I held.

page 2888

QUESTION

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MEMBER

Mr BURNS:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to you, Mr Acting Speaker. It concerns the question raised in the Senate yesterday by Senator O ‘Byrne as an extension of a matter which Senator Cavanagh raised last Thursday night in which, he suggested that a member of the House of Representatives was summoned to your office regarding a barbeque set which was missing from the Senate court-yard. Have you at any time had occasion to call an honourable member to your office regarding such a matter?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-I inform the honourable member and the House that there is absolutely no substance to the implied allegation.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. This matter seems to have caused some concern. I believe that in the other place as well as in this place a number of questions are apparently unresolved in the minds of honourable senators and honourable members. I ask you, Mr Acting Speaker, and Mr President to inquire into the full circumstances of the alleged event and ensure that if there is anything to report it will be reported to this chamber by you.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Whilst there is no point of order, the Chair takes heed of the remarks of the Leader of the House. I shall address myself to the matter and report to the House as soon as possible.

Mr Uren:

- Mr Acting Speaker, would you also take into consideration -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Is the honourable member for Reid seeking leave to make some remarks or is he seeking the indulgence of the Chair?

Mr Uren:

– With your permission, Mr Acting Speaker, I wish to speak on the same subject. I was the person in charge of Opposition business at the time the matter was raised in the House last Thursday. You were in the chair at the time. I explained then that Senator Cavanagh had apologised and that -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:
Mr Uren:

– I explained that later outside the House the honourable member -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Reid will resume his seat. I cannot extend my indulgence to allow the honourable member to go any further than he has gone already. The honourable member’s remarks are not pertinent to the question. I shall report to the House on this matter.

Mr Uren:

– The Leader of the House was able to give certain information. After the apology was made, the honourable member for Isaacs told me personally that he was satisfied.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr Uren:

– Certain Government members must not try to play politics with this matter.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

page 2888

QUESTION

MINISTER FOR NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr DAWKINS:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I refer the Minister for National Development to the question I asked him yesterday concerning his secret lunch with representatives of oil companies organised by the Liberal Party in Western Australia. I ask the Minister whether he was informed by a representative of Associated Surveys Pty Ltd of West Perth, who is connected with the Liberal Party in Western Australia, that in relation to the lunch the finance committee had had support from some of the companies represented, but wished to impress the overseas groups especially with the necessity to support the Government and free enterprise.

Mr NEWMAN:
LP

-Yesterday I gave the honourable member an answer which I have no reason to change. I do not think that the group to which the honourable member refers is known to me. I will have to check correspondence and see whether something has come into my office of which I am not aware. I will check with my office to see whether any communication has come to my office. But as I said at the beginning, I have no reason to change the answer I gave the honourable member yesterday.

page 2888

QUESTION

INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE

Mr CARLTON:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer him to his statement on the investment allowance of last Sunday, 3 June 1979, which he might recall was designed to ensure that businesses needing to complete projects by 30 June 1979 in order to qualify for the investment allowance were not held to ransom by union industrial action. Can the Treasurer confirm that eligible plant ordered by 30 June 1978 and first used or installed ready for use after the date of his statement, that is, 3 June 1979, but before 30 June 1979 will still attract the 40 per cent investment allowance rate?

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

– I can confirm for the honourable member for Mackellar that that in fact will be the case. However, I should make it clear to the House that the purpose of the decision that was announced last Sunday by the Minister for Industrial Relations and myself was not to subtract from the existing provisions of the investment allowance- all of those provisions remain unimpaired and unaffected- but to add to the existing provisions of the investment allowance a further proviso to insulate, as far as possible, against union blackmailing of businesses which, through industrial stoppages, are not able to have plant installed and ready for use by 30 June, thereby losing the benefits of the investment allowance.

The addition that has been made is simply so that firms that are placed in a position where they have ordered equipment before 30 June 1978 but have not had it installed and ready for use by 30 June 1979 may still qualify for the 40 per cent investment allowance if it is installed and ready for use after 30 June 1979. The only proviso is that their entitlement would fall against their assessable income in the later year, that is, not in the current financial year. But those additions in no way take away the eligibility of people who comply with the precise terms of the law as it now stands.

page 2889

QUESTION

IMPORT PARITY OIL LEVY

Mr KERIN:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I refer the Minister for National Development to his answer yesterday to a question on import parity pricing of crude oil. Will the Minister acknowledge that the Treasurer’s statement on 24 May covered the question of exemptions from the Government’s new policy only by way of passing reference? Will he also accept that the question was not dealt with in the enabling legislation presented to the House last week? Will he make a full and frank statement to this House about the extent to which the Government has watered down its decision that windfall profits resulting from import parity pricing should accrue to public revenue rather than to individual producers?

Mr NEWMAN:
LP

– I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the question yesterday. I think the question the honourable member is asking now is one which should be addressed to my colleague the Treasurer.

page 2889

QUESTION

ISOLATED PATIENTS’ TRAVEL AND ACCOMMODATION ASSISTANCE SCHEME

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP

-I direct a question to the Minister for Health. I refer to the introduction earlier this year of the Isolated Patients’ Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme. Has this highly successful health care facility given equality of treatment to thousands of country residents, both children and adults? Has a further relaxation of conditions of travel been introduced to overcome some anomolies in the scheme? Can the Minister inform the House of the details of the revised conditions under which assistance to patients will be provided?

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

-The Isolated Patients’ Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme, known as IPTAAS, has, as the honourable member for Cowper indicated, been welcomed in country areas throughout Australia. The scheme is designed to assist people with the cost of travel and accommodation when they have to seek specialist medical attention that is not available to them locally and they have to travel more than 200 kilometres from their place of residence to seek such attention.

There were some administrative difficulties with the scheme because of drafting problems. Hopefully they have now all been removed. The first anomaly related to residents of some offshore islands including Kangaroo Island, Bathurst Island, Melville Island, Elcho Island and also the Furneaux group of islands near Tasmania. All the residents of off-shore islands are now eligible to be assisted under this scheme regardless of whether they live 200 kilometres away from specialist medical attention.

Dr Klugman:

-I raise a point of order. Mr Acting Speaker, could you suggest to the Minister that he send a copy of his second reading speech to the honourable member for Cowper?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. The honourable member for Prospect will resume his seat. Before the Minister resumes his answer I would acquaint him of the requirement that he keep his answer as short as might be seen reasonable. If he feels that his purpose would be better served by a ministerial statement he might seek the leave of the House to make one.

Mr HUNT:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I object to the Opposition treating with absolute cynicism the people who live in remote areas of Australia. Even if members of the Opposition are not interested in the welfare of these people I happen to be interested and I hope that every member of this Parliament would also be interested in the welfare of people who live more than 200 kilometres from the capital cities. This is a question that is of tremendous importance to human beings not living close to the capital cities. If I may be permitted, I will spell out what those changes entail.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The Minister is entitled to answer the question as he sees fit, while he remains relevant. The Minister will be mindful that Question Time is limited and he will restrict his remarks to a reasonable length. The Minister may be assured that the Chair was not influenced by the specious point of order of the honourable member for Prospect.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Seek leave.

Mr HUNT:

– Thank you very much, Mr Acting Speaker. The honourable member for Newcastle represents people who live very close to specialist medical attention. No doubt he has no interest in the answer to the question. But there are other people in this House who represent people who live more than 200 kilometres from specialist medical attention. Those people who represent isolated folk undoubtedly have an interest in the answer.

The second change to the scheme related to the question of prior approval. Prior approval was required before an applicant could become eligible for benefit, but this was found to be an impractical provision. Doctors at Cunnamulla and in places represented by my friend the honourable member for Riverina are not disposed to make long distance telephone calls to get prior approval from the Director of Health in the capital city of each State. So the prior approval requirement has been removed, the only condition being that people must submit their claims within six months of having incurred the expenditure. The third change will mean that residents of many local govenment areas, which previously were considered non-isolated and thus totally excluded from the scheme, will now be able to be considered for the benefits.

It will be noted that patients still must travel 200 kilometres to the nearest suitable specialist. The aim of the change is to assist patients in isolated areas who have to travel beyond the nearest city in order to obtain specialist attention. The honourable member for Lyne brought to my attention a case in his own electorate, and I am sure the House will be interested in it. A child in Port Macquarie suffering from spina bifida, which for New South Wales residents could be treated only in Sydney -

Mr Uren:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order in support of you. The Minister is making a lengthy reply. You have asked the Minister to be brief. He is being repetitious. Last week he made a second reading speech -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Reid has made his point. I call the Minister for Health, but I require him to keep his reply brief.

Mr HUNT:

– I am sure that the parents of spina bifida sufferers will want to hear the rest of this answer. I repeat: The honourable member for Lyne gave the example of a child living in Port Macquarie and suffering from spina bifida, which can be treated only in the city of Sydney in New South Wales. The child would have been eligible under the original scheme because Port Macquarie was an isolated area. However, a child suffering from the same complaint and living in Taree, which was not deemed to be an isolated area, was excluded from consideration under the scheme because of the proximity of Taree to Newcastle, even though the required specialty was not available there. Under the new arrangements, patients coming from either Taree or Port Macquarie will now be eligible, and that is a very great improvement. I know that the Spina Bifida Association and other associations responsible for the care of handicapped children will welcome the changes.

Mr Wallis:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. If the Minister is going to make a statement on this scheme, will he say when he is going to extend it to people who require paramedical services?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

page 2890

QUESTION

FEDERAL NARCOTICS BUREAU

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question is directed to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Why did the head of the Federal Narcotics Bureau, Mr Harvey Bates, resign from the Bureau last Friday? What was the nature of the deals or pressures which caused him to change his mind and withdraw his resignation?

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

– I draw to the attention of the honourable member for Hughes and the House a paragraph that was contained in my statement at the time of Mr Bates’s resignation. It states: . . that Mr Bates gave as his reasons he did not believe that all the facts were before the Government when it took a decision to conduct an inquiry into allegations relating to the Narcotics Bureau; he had not been personally consulted and that while he had no objection whatsoever to the establishment of an independent inquiry, he objected to the manner in which it had been brought about and as a result the composition of the investigation team.

That statement was contained in the media release that I issued at the time of Mr Bates’s resignation. That is the explanation that he gave me at the time of his resignation for the action that he had taken. He indicated to me that he did not feel that it was appropriate for the investigation to be carried out by a multi-police unit. That is the decision that has been taken by the Government. The investigating team will consist of a senior officer of the Victoria Police Force, a senior officer of the Commonwealth Police Force and senior officers of the New South Wales and Queensland police forces, a group of four policemen in total.

When I learnt he had handed his resignation into the Department I asked him to reconsider his decision. He said that he felt he could not. I must say that he was emotionally distressed at the time. I judged at the weekend that I should contact him again, which I did. I invited him to see me. At that time I invited him to reconsider his decision. I did that because I believed the man was under great stress at the time. He had given long and valuable service to the Commonwealth under successive governments. He had given long and valuable service in this difficult field of narcotics law enforcement. I spoke with him at great length on and off during yesterday. I put to nlm that he could do more back at his desk than in retirement in the interests of the work that has been his life work. He said that having made a decision to resign, to withdraw or seek to withdraw that resignation was a difficult decision to take. Having taken the decision he took late last week, he wondered whether he could be effective back at his desk. I said I believed he could. I emphasised to him in my office in front of the permanent head of my Department that there was no way in which the Government would change its decision in relation to the investigation. That was a Government decision and it would stand. I told him there would be no deals and no undertakings would be given. I was inviting him to return to his post if he so desired. He indicated to me late yesterday afternoon that he would return to his post and a news release was issued. I answered a number of questions in public late last evening similar to the one put to me by the honourable member for Hughes.

page 2891

QUESTION

EXPORT OF URANIUM

Mr BIRNEY:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Resources been drawn to statements made by the honourable member for Reid at a street rally in

Sydney yesterday that a Federal Labor Government would repudiate any contract or commitment entered into under this Government with respect to the mining and export of uranium? I ask the Minister: What would be the effect of any such repudiation on the people of Australia?

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

– I can think of no more serious breach of promise than that where a national government breaches commitments legally entered into with another country to supply an essential energy resource for its requirements. Yet, this is exactly what the honourable member for Reid has been saying repeatedly that Labor would do. What he is saying is that he completely disregards an undertaking which a nationally elected government has entered into. This has been an issue raised twice at election time. Twice the Labor Party has been resoundingly defeated. This was one of the major issues. Yet the honourable member for Reid continues to make these threats and allegations. I would like to know what the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition is. Does he support this stand? I know of another member of the Labor Party- one of great significance, who may have some bearing on the Leader of the Opposition- who has shown a much more responsible attitude. That person is Mr Hawke, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. He is not going to be dominated and influenced by a few radicals of the left wing movement. He understands the consequences of this country entering into sound, firm undertakings with its major trading partners. If the Opposition wants to keep making these great noises, let it go to the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia and say that the jobs of its members are in jeopardy if it undertakes uranium development. Let the Opposition go to the Australian Workers Union and say that Mary Kathleen mines do not mean anything to it and that the jobs of the AWU’s members will be scrapped as soon as it gets into office. This is exactly what the Opposition is saying. I think it is worth quoting from the first report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry where it states:

By a generally accepted principle of international law a state which undergoes a change of government is bound by the treaties entered into on its behalf by the previous Government. However, it has long been part of the Communist view of international law that this principle has no application to a situation where the change of government is effected by a revolution of the people.

I suppose what the Australian Labor Party is saying is that it would accept the Communist Party’s interpretation of international law; that it is quite free to breach any undertaking; that it is quite prepared to suffer the risks of a loss of reputation with Australia’s major trading partners in denying them this essential energy resource. I am very jealous of Australia’s very high reputation as a trader and supplier, and that is what we want to maintain. Yet the Labor Party does not take that into account. Let the Labor Party tell the people of Darwin in the Northern Territory, who are looking forward to this form of development to give them a little more activity and more job opportunities, that it is going to close these mines when it comes into office.

If the Labor Party wants this to be another major issue at the next election in 1980, let it come forward. I would have thought it had learnt its lesson in the previous two elections. But obviously a few hotheads within the Labor Party movement are going to keep it tied to these antiquated attitudes. It is strange how the left wing has this anti-uranium attitude. Yet we never hear a word about the Soviet Union or the East European countries which are pushing ahead with nuclear power generation as fast as they can. These countries realise the need for alternative forms of energy and realise that most people around the world want to have access to energy to maintain a high standard of living, to have industrial development. It is all right for a few people who want to get round in a loin cloth or to live up a tree to live without nuclear power, but the great bulk of the people look to the future so that their children can have a standard of living comparable to ours.

People living in developing countries want a standard of living comparable with that of most of the developed countries. Let the Labor Party continue to preach its attitude that it is going to breach international commitments and see where that gets it. I do not believe the Australian people will accept its attitude.

page 2892

QUESTION

CAPRICORNIA MAKINE NATIONAL PARK

Mr HAYDEN:

-The Minister for National Development will recall that in responding to a question earlier from the honourable member for Chifley he said in his unanswer, if I may use an inelegant word, that the delay in declaring the boundaries of the Capricornia Marine National Park was due to the fact that constitutional questions had not yet been resolved. How does the Minister harmonise that explanation to the House with the statement -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask honourable members on my right to remain silent.

Mr HAYDEN:

-How does the Minister harmonise that explanation with the statement of the Prime Minister made in the House last night in relation to the declaration of such boundaries that: ‘The Government acknowledges that it has constitutional powers in this area’, a view firmly upheld by the High Court decision of 1975 in what is known as the seas and submerged lands case? In order to remove any doubts from suspicious minds that the Minister may be misleading the House, will he -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition are not in order.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I was going to say ‘perhaps unintentionally’. I think that you jumped the gun.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition is not entitled to introduce any imputations into his question.

Mr HAYDEN:

– To remove the cause for obvious concern about this sort of answer coming from this particular Minister, will he state specifically the nature of the constitutional questions that have yet to be resolved in the light of High Court decisions and the statement of the Prime Minister that there are no constitutional doubts about the authority of the Commonwealth Government in this area?

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

-The honourable gentleman asked for a comment on a speech that I made last night when I announced the Government’s decision concerning the 1974 report of the royal commissions into exploratory and production drilling for petroleum in the area of the Great Barrier Reef. It ought to be noted that in the question he asked, he deliberately confused the issue and deliberately distorted what was said last night and what was contained in the speech. I have made it perfectly plain that there are two issues involved in relation to the Great Barrier Reef. On the one hand, the Minister has a very particular responsibility in relation to the reports of the royal commissions, the decisions of the Government in relation to those reports and what would happen to certain mining leases. It is quite plain as a result of the Government’s decision that there is an indefinite moratorium pending the conclusion of short and long term research which will be commissioned as a result of Budget discussions and as a result of a report from the Australian Marine Sciences and Technologies Advisory Committee. As a result of the decision of the High Court of Australia which, as my statement acknowledges, gives the Commonwealth undoubted power from the low water mark out- there is no question of that- a number of practical matters had to be resolved between the Commonwealth and the States. Quite plainly the concerns of the States cannot end at a low water mark point. There are many things for which they need to be responsible- jetties, harbours and all the rest- around their coastlines. It is ludicrous for the Commonwealth to assume responsibility for those and many other matters.

Mr Hayden:

– How do jetties come into the boundaries for a marine park, for God ‘s sake?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The Leader of the Opposition still cannot stop his gibberish and deceit. He goes on and on and he knows quite well that what he says is caught by the microphones but that you, Mr Acting Speaker, in the chair do not always hear what he says. I can only suggest that the honourable gentleman go on because more and more the people of Australia will see him for what he is.

Honourable members interjecting-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The permanent Leader of the Opposition is hunted by Senator Wriedt and by Mr Hawke, neither of whom has any confidence in him whatsoever. The Government is determined to resolve the practical problems established as a result of that High Court decision by consultation and negotiation with the States. We believe that it would make sense to give the States practical authority over the territorial sea out to the three-mile limit. So far as Queensland is concerned, that has very real implications -

Mr Hayden:

– These are fibs, if you don’t mind me saying so.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-There goes the Leader of the Opposition. He asks a question but he cannot take the answer.

Mr Hayden:

– Where are the constitutional difficulties- constitutional questions- as distinct from administrative?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The House will come to order. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to remain silent. He has posed a question and it would seem logical that he should sit in silence and await the reply.

Mr Hayden:

– I raise a point of order. The Prime Minister is referring to administrative difficulties, not constitutional questions. His response is obfuscating the issue, if not dishonest.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order arises.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I wish to make this point of order. We had a major debate yesterday about the Minister for National Development misleading the Parliament. The Prime Minister is now seeking to do the same through evasion.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. There is no point of order. I ask honourable members to remain silent.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Since the Leader of the Opposition finds himself totally unable to understand a simple proposition, let me state the issues again. Two issues, separate but interrelated, are involved in this matter. One concerns the royal commission’s report and what should happen in relation to that report. Those decisions were announced yesterday. There will be a moratorium on exploration pending the resolution of short and long term research which will need to be undertaken and which will be commissioned -

Mr Hayden:

– What are the constitutional questions?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Again the Leader of the Opposition cannot stop his interjecting. That research will be commissioned as a result of an Australian Marine Sciences and Technologies Advisory Committee report that will be available for the Government to examine during the Budget discussions.

Another set of problems is posed by the High Court of Australia decision on the Seas and Submerged Lands Act, which clearly, as I indicated yesterday, gave the Commonwealth constitutional power. However, that does not mean to say that no problems result from that High Court decision. Very real, practical problems have been flowing out of that High Court decision which gave the Commonwealth constitutional power. Quite plainly, the Opposition has a view that it should act without any consultation with States; that it should have no concern for their legitimate interests; and that it should have no concern for the matters in which the States have traditionally had a concern, an interest and a responsibility. It has been the purpose of this Government to seek to solve these problems, whether they be in mining, fishing or other offshore matters, by consultation and negotiation. Very great progress has been made over the last two years on a number of intricate and difficult problems with good will on both sides.

One of the proposals we have made to the States is that they should be given practical authority out to the three-mile limit of the territorial sea. That would enable them to undertake matters of particular concern to them. With Queensland, the Government immediately runs into a difficult set of questions in relation to the Great Barrier Reef, which at some places comes close to the Queensland coast. Therefore, there needs to be a reconciliation of the general offer to the States giving practical authority out to the three-mile limit, as is the wish of the Commonwealth, and there is a need to preserve the position of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in order to preserve the integrity of the reef. We have made it perfectly plain that our conviction and determination in relation to that are absolute. However, practical matters need to be negotiated with Queensland. We seek to resolve those matters by negotiation and by consultation rather than by the arbitrary means which the previous Administration would have used.

I think it is to the very great credit of this Commonwealth Government that it has sought to solve problems in relation to the Seas and Submerged Lands Act by negotiation and consultation when these issues have bedevilled Commonwealth and State relations for more than a decade. We have made very great progress and we will not be deterred by some irrelevant suggestions from members of the Opposition.

Mr Hayden:

– Like dishonesty to the Parliament.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Again the Leader of the Opposition interjects into the microphone in his traditional way. I therefore ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

page 2894

CHILD MIGRANT EDUCATION

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

– Pursuant to section 12 of the Immigration (Education) Act 1971 I present a report on provisions for child migrant education for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 2894

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

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

– For the information of honourable members I present reports of the Industries Assistance Commission on acetyl products, oxo alcohols, butyl acetates, et cetera and vices.

page 2894

TRADE PRACTICES CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Trade Practices Consultative Committee on the operation of the Trade Practices Act in relation to primary production in Australia.

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

That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Trade Practices Consultative Committee.

page 2894

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS COMMISSION

Mr MacPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · Balaclava · LP

– Pursuant to section 41 of the Australian National Railways Act 19171 present the annual report of the Australian National Railways Commission for the years ended 30 June 1976 and 30 June 1977 together with a copy of covering letter from the Chairman of the Commission. The reports contain an explanation as to why their presentation was delayed. Essentially this was because of problems associated with amalgamating the accounts of the former Commonwealth railways system and the two transferred State rail systems. A further delay resulted from publication difficulties as explained in the Chairman’s letter.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Acting Speaker, with your indulgence, I ask the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair), in view of the long delay in presenting these reports, to move that the House take note of the reports.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House take note of the papers.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2894

DOMESTIC AIR TRANSPORT POLICY

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity and Acting Minister for Transport · Balaclava · LP

For the information of honourable members I present the report of the domestic air transport policy review. Honourable members will recall that in October last year the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) presented parts 1 and 2 of the review to the Parliament. Part 1 covered trunk route services and the two-airlne policy, and part 2 covered regional and local commuter air services. These parts have now been consolidated into volume 1 and the appendices to the review reports have been consolidated into volume II.

page 2895

ENVIRONMENT DAY 1979

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the text of a statement by the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) on World Environment Day 1979 and what it means for Australia.

page 2895

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

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

– I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-If the Minister claims to have been misrepresented, he may proceed.

Mr VINER:

-I do. On 31 May, as reported in Hansard on page 2741, the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) made an assertion regarding a quotation by me a day or two before concerning a statement by the honourable member at a conference on employment held at the City of Penrith. The honourable gentleman said, when referring to me:

  1. . when he quoted out of context and when he left out parts of sentences of a speech which I had made and which he had taped. He did so without my permission.

I wish to tell the House that I did not tape what the honourable gentleman said at that conference. The City of Penrith itself taped all the proceedings. I read from a transcript of those proceedings prepared by the City of Penrith which had been made available to me. I also inform the House that the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Gillard), the honourable member for Prospect and I each signed for a copy of the transcript. It is quite clear, therefore, that when the honourable gentleman made this assertion regarding me he knew that it was not correct.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-If the Leader of the Opposition claims to have been misrepresented, he may proceed.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I claim to have been misrepresented by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) which is, of course, not novel. During Question Time I asked a question of the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) which was in relation to an inconsistency between an answer he had given to a question from the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) today and a statement from the Prime Minister last night. Mr Acting Speaker, you will recall that the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) has been asserting that the reason for the delay in the declaration of the boundaries of the Marine Park, Capricornia section -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition has indulgence to state quickly in what respect he was personally misrepresented.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Exactly. It has to be established as an important point that the Minister for Science and the Environment has been arguing that the reason for the -

Mr Bourchier:

– The Leader of the Opposition is not making a personal explanation. He should not be allowed to use the forms of the House to carry on his scurrilous attacks.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Bendigo will resume his seat. The Chair will determine the matter. I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Why waste pearls on such people? At Question Time the Minister for National Development claimed that the reason the boundaries for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park off Rockhampton had not been declared was that constitutional questions had not been resolved. That did not harmonise with the statement of the Prime Minister last night that -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition can explain only in what respect he was personally misrepresented. He cannot engage in debate on the issue.

Mr HAYDEN:

– It is incredible. Unless I can explain this, it is not possible to show how the misrepresentation took place. It will take about 10 sentences.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition may proceed, but I require him to keep in mind the restrictions that apply to personal explanations.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I asked the Minister how he harmonised that statement with the acknowledgment last night in the House by the Prime Minister that the Government has full constitutional powers in this area. The Prime Minister sought to respond to that question in place of the Minister and to impute bad faith on my part. He sought to assert that there were constitutional questions that had to be delayed, and the questions he enumerated were such crucial constitutional matters of principle as wharves and jetties. They are administrative matters, not legal or constitutional matters. I am putting to you, Mr Acting

Speaker, that not only did the Prime Minister not answer the question but he also misled the Parliament and sought to deceive it. This is further evidence of the pattern of dishonesty that has been associated with this Government by a succession of Ministers.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member wish to make a personal explanation?

Mr UREN:

-Yes. During Question Time the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) said that I had threatened uranium mining companies about commitments entered into for the export of uranium. I have made no threats. I have expressed the clearly stated policy of the Labor Party, which resulted from a unanimous decision of all sections of the party, that until all the unresolved problems have been resolved it will not honour any contracts entered into or any commitment made by a non-Labor government. I have said that we would stand by that commitment. Each time I make that statement I quote specifically from Labor Party policy.

Mr HAYDEN (Oxley-Leader of the Opposition)- I wish to make a statement on the same matter.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr HAYDEN:

-Yes, on the same matter. In his answer during Question Time the Deputy Prime Minister called on me as Leader of the Opposition to make a declaration of where I stood on this issue. Of course, I stand squarely behind the party policy outlined by my colleague. The Deputy Prime Minister also said that the Labor Party, committed to the repudiation of contracts with overseas countries, was following the communist principles of international law. The repudiation of the contract on Fraser Island, as you well know, Mr Acting Speaker, was carried out by this Government and followed that principle which the Deputy Prime Minister outlined.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition is engaging in debate. He will resume his seat.

page 2896

AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION: ZONING AND CHARGING PRACTICES

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave- In making this statement I acknowledge fully the importance of the strenuous representations of so many of my colleagues in this House and in the Senate. I have been constantly reminded by members in both metropolitan and country areas of the communications problems which exist in Australia. A number of my colleagues, including the honourable member for Kennedy ( Mr Katter), who is in the House now, have invited me to the more remote parts of Australia where I have been able to see the problems for myself, and seeing is believing. My colleagues’ representations have led to these changes, which mean big cuts in telephone costs throughout Australia. Without the dedicated work of honourable members such as the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Gillard) such major changes would not have been made.

Mr Cohen:

– What about members on this side?

Mr STALEY:

– There have been representations from both sides of the House. I wish to advise the House of the decisions which will reduce certain categories of telephone call charges across Australia. There will be direct and big financial benefits for those who live adjacent to outer metropolitan telephone zones as well as for people in isolated rural areas and the more distant country towns. In addition, there are potential savings for every Australian telephone user.

The reductions result from a comprehensive investigation undertaken by the Australian Telecommunications Commission at the request of this Government into its zoning and charging practices, particularly in relation to local call areas. Telecom was asked by the Government to determine, among other things, the possibility of providing cheaper access for customers with telephone services in those areas of Australia which do not have access to a basic service centre at local call rates. The review has been completed and the changes to take place in the charging structure represent a major progressive reform which will have a significant and beneficial impact on those sectors of the Australian population which do not have comparable access to some business and community services taken for granted by metropolitan subscribers. Telecom has found it possible to give all people in rural areas access to a service town at very cheap rates, in line with government policy, and also to introduce this new charging system for people living adjacent to metropolitan areas. This will enable calls to be made to and from the centres of interest and the cities in the case of outer metropolitan people, at a rate of 9c for three minutes where local calling does not already apply. Telecom will also cut certain other trunk charges.

The reductions will operate from May next year under a scheme to be launched by Telecom called ‘Community Access 80 ‘. It is a bold and innovative step towards helping Australians, particularly those in rural areas, who currently pay more for their communications than the Government would desire. Telecom has responded splendidly to the Government initiative in this matter. Under the new scheme- this is a very important feature- distance will no longer be a barrier to country people’s ability to communicate with their nearest service town. A community call is to be introduced at a charging rate of 9c for each three minutes and this will apply between a telephone subscriber and the nearest community service centre, irrespective of distance and whenever that centre is not in the normal local call area. This will be of substantial benefit to people in many rural areas. At present, local call charges usually cut out beyond about 30 kilometres and sometimes even less.

Under the new scheme, 9c community charge for each three minutes will apply both ways between a subscriber and the nearest service centre, even if that centre is 300 or 400 kilometres away. In one particular case in the electorate of my friend the distinguished honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter) there is a customer on the Nullarbor Plain whose nearest service centre is Kalgoorlie, nearly 700 kilometres away. The extent of his benefit under community calling, which is given despite the distance, is that by day he will save $2.61 on every three minute conversation. The tyranny of distance which has for so long added considerably to the costs of running a farm or property will be significantly overcome by these cuts. A reasonably flexible approach has been taken by Telecom in identifying the nearest service centres, and factors such as medical services, schools, shops, banks, garages, transport and special business facilities have been taken into account.

Community access 80 recognises that today appropriate services are usually concentrated in the larger country centres, and smaller towns closer to the subscriber cannot provide all of the support necessary for farm and property management and for personal needs. It is not expected that the new concessions will alter the established pattern of communication between a rural landholder and his service centre; instead he will be making the same calls he currently needs but as community calls with considerable saving. It should be stressed also that the savings work in reverse; the service centres will have the same community call concession when contacting the landholder. This will ease some of the costs of running a town business.

In addition to this new community call service, there will be further benefits for people living in those rural communities with large distances between them. Trunk call charges within the one charging district will be set at a maximum of 8 lc for three minutes (day rate)- the night rate is of course much cheaper after the changes the Government introduced last November- and between exchanges in adjoining districts at a maximum of $1.35 for three minutes (day rate) irrespective of distance.

In our remote and isolated areas, where charging districts cover thousands of square kilometres, this new concession incorporating a maximum charge means that the cost of the longer distance trunk calls where population density is low will fall substantially. At the same time, the trunk rate applying to distances between 485 and 645 kilometres has been reduced by consolidating it with the rate now applying over distances between 325 and 485 kilometres. This represents a saving of over 10 per cent and will affect calls on routes such as RockhamptonBrisbane, Lismore-Sydney, Hobart-Melbourne, and Perth-Kalgoorlie. The Government is gratified that major benefits from this review will go to outback people who have suffered because of the vast distances and sparsely populated areas of our continent and who have had to pay a higher price for their communication services.

The Government has also been concerned by the effects of communications on the rapid expansion and development of towns and satellite cities adjacent to our metropolitan areas. It is clear that many people living in these areas now travel into the metropolitan cities for their work and business and have a need for the cheapest possible phone rates between their homes and the cities. To meet this problem, Telecom will apply as part of its community calling plan, the special community calling rate of 9c for each three minutes between the charging zones adjoining the metropolitan areas and the central metropolitan zone. This change will affect the services to many thousands of people throughout Australia.

This new rate will enable callers in areas such as Penrith and Campbelltown near Sydney, Cranbourne, Bacchus Marsh and Kilmore near Melbourne, Gawler near Adelaide, and Rockingham near Perth to call into the centre of their capital city at the community call rate. This will halve the cost of a daytime call from Penrith for example, to the central business district of Sydney from 18c to 9c for each three minutes. Similar savings will apply for the outer urban areas of other capital cities. The Government sees this proposal as not only aiding families whose breadwinners are employed in the city, but of considerable benefit to industries that have decentralised to these outer areas and still depend on the major city area for sales and supplies.

I want to make it quite clear that there will be no increase in the charge for any calls as a result of the community calling plan. The new arrangements will require modification to technical equipment at many points throughout the network, while on some routes additional circuits will be required to carry increased traffic. Telecom advises that the earliest date at which it will be practicable to complete these changes and introduce Community Access 80 is May 1980. It could take a little longer in some instances, particularly on country routes to complete the upgrading program, but all charges involved will come down as from May.

Telecom will forgo a considerable amount of revenue as a result of these concessions but because of some considerable increase in traffic as a result of them, the cost in net terms will be about $13m a year. The capital cost for implementing Community Access 80 is expected to be just under $2 m.

Neither the Government nor Telecom would see these reductions and benefits as the means of answering every individual criticism of the present charging structure. Despite the reduction now being made for calls over distances between 485 and 645 kilometres, the longer distance trunk rates remain higher than we would like. The costs of these calls affect many business and private communications and have significance for centres such as Albury-Wodonga. The Government is hopeful that, as Telecom’s revenues allow further reductions in tariffs in the future, it will be possible to make adjustments which will benefit such centres. A small number of other areas may also feel disappointed that they have not been able to gain specific advantage under Community Access 80 other than in the general reductions to some longer distance calls. When it is possible, other longer distance rates will be the next target for reduction.

Looked at overall, however, a significant step has been taken in reducing charges and removing inequities, particularly those affecting rural people who have been deserving of special assistance for so long. It is a move which is especially tailored to meet Australia’s long distance communications problems.

It is only about six months ago that I was able to announce substantial cuts in subscriber trunk dialling call charges throughout Australia. Some of those reductions gave a 60 per cent cut on the day rate. Now, a short time later, Telecom has made it possible to grant further concessions and lower charges for many telephone customers. This ability to introduce big cuts in telephone charges at a time when almost every other cost is sadly on the increase emphasises the significance of this announcement, and provides ample evidence that both the Government and Telecom are concerned to ensure that communications services are provided to the Australian public at the lowest possible cost. I present the following paper:

Telephone Call Charges- Ministerial Statement, S June 1979.

Motion (by Mr Fife) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-Because of the way in which the Government has handled this matter, I am prompted to protest about the lack of time which the Opposition and, I am sure, some people on the Government benches have had to study the whole program. After adequate time in which to study this program they would have liked to have come back into this chamber and intelligently debated the whole issue of communications that evolves out of proposals such as this. It seems to me that some of the principles involved ought to be examined because there are weaknesses in them. I am not critical of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) because he is one of those Ministers who fall over backwards to try to give a shadowMinister information in sufficient time to enable him to meet his commitments as a spokesman for the Opposition. I understand that because of a production hold-up, the Minister was not in a position to have the document delivered to me any earlier than it was delivered. But be that as it may, honourable members are forced into speaking on this matter in the permitted time allowed each speaker of 15 minutes without a preparation that would justify an examination of such a serious matter.

Mr Baillieu:

– Well, sit down and give us a go. We have something to say.

Mr INNES:

– The only good purpose the honourable member’s head serves is to keep his ears apart. The honourable member for La Trobe makes inane interjections but as far as I am concerned this is a very important matter.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will address himself to the subject matter before the House.

Mr INNES:

– The Opposition acknowledges that Community Access 80- this newspeak name- is a major step forward. I repeat that the Opposition acknowledges that the program is a step forward. But, from an immediate examination of it, certain weaknesses are revealed. One of them becomes obvious from the opening remarks of the Minister. I refer to the politicising of something that we of the Opposition thought was eradicated by the recommendations of the Vernon Committee, and I will make a couple of points about that in a few moments. One major point that we of the Opposition see in this program is a probable by-passing of small towns closer to telephone subscribers than the proposed community service centres. A booklet has been provided with the statement made by the Minister. But maps which are essential to an understanding of how this program will operate have not yet been drawn. For instance, the map on page 14 lists the towns of Blacktown, Dural and Liverpool, and the adjoining areas of Richmond, Penrith, Camden and Campbelltown. But one cannot find from that document nor the Minister’s statement whether the community call that is available now, say from Camden to Liverpool, will still be available under this program from Camden to Dural. The Minister may be able to make some explanation about that at some time in the future, but I believe it will not now be available.

Mr Staley:

– No, it is not. It comes under the normal rules.

Mr INNES:

– It is under the normal rules. There is no improvement under this program.

Mr Staley:

– It applies to the inner area and to the adjoining area in the normal pattern.

Mr INNES:

-That is right, I understand that, but it does not cover the whole of that peripheral area. In fact, the residents of Camden can make a local call to Sydney but they cannot make one to Blacktown. I think this is a logical question to be asked. But the information that is available on this aspect is insufficient and the Minister should make an explanation. I repeat what I said a few moments ago. Maps showing the situation have yet to be drawn. My information is that Telecom is not in a position to be able to show clearly what this program is all about.

It would be uneconomic for say, country people to travel past towns closer to telephone subscribers in order to take advantage of services provided elsewhere, which I understand is the fundamental question that is involved. For instance, a resident might be able to use the community service centres from Penrith to Sydney or from some other centre such as Mudgee or a place around that area, but the distance travelled to obtain the service would wipe out any benefit that may be gained. It is impossible to give an example of all of the areas involved because, as I said before, maps of zones and service centres have not yet been drawn. Subscribers might travel to a motor garage at Kalgoorlie, for instance, to take advantage of cheaper telephone calls, but they would have to weigh up the question of practicability. As to outer metropolitan subscribers, the booklet illustrates the position in respect of Sydney. Under the new scheme the urban fringe zones will have available cheaper calls to the city centre but, I repeat, not to adjoining areas. This means that urban fringe dwellers will not get the advantage of cheaper calls. There needs to be some clear explanation of what this is all about and what value it really is to subscribers.

According to the Sydney map, the people in Penrith, as I indicated before, cannot obtain services cheaply to places such as Dural or Engadine, but in my view they should be able to do so. It is an anomaly and it ought to be considered and cleared up. It is an obvious anomaly. It encourages people to make longer and more expensive trips. It does nothing to help the businesses in the outer metropolitan areas. What does it do to the economy of some of the towns to which I have referred? What will happen if all the business in small centres is diverted to another area? It seems to me that some of the points that have been made will have to be explained much more clearly so that the people will understand this scheme. The whole urban area should be a single call area. The collective urban fringes should be another single call zone. Eventually, as infrastructure and costs permit, all Australia should be a single call zone. Sure, that is something in the future, but the anomalies to which I have made reference are clear anomalies and the explanations should be clearly spelt out.

There are other references I would like to make, but there is not much more that one can say about the operation of the proposal that the

Minister has put before the House today. As to the method by which this program has come before this House, if Telecom and the Australian Postal Commission were acting as independent agents- I hope I am not boring the Minister who is speaking with another honourable member- we would imagine that the decisions that were taken would clearly be along the lines of decision making by independent authorities, but that is not the case. I think it is quite correct to say that the Minister has not gone through the charade of saying that these authorities do operate independently. There is plenty of evidence to show that they have been influenced in two things, one being a reduction in charges due to pressures by the Minister. That is acknowledged. In my view, that sort of thing ought to continue. The commencement date of the operation of the scheme is May. One could by cynical by saying that this might be in the interests of Government because in the next couple of months it will have to produce the Budget, but before reaching that point the planning for this program appears to be incomplete. The point that the Opposition makes is that out of the Vernon report came, we hoped, a depoliticising of the operations of basic communications services to the public.

Mr Staley:

– There is no fiddle in this.

Mr INNES:

-That might well be so.

Mr Staley:

– They are the existing zones.

Mr INNES:

– But the point you made- and it is ringing in my ears- is that without the dedicated pressures from members of this House and without the Commonwealth Government’s intervention in this matter these changes would not have taken place. That is OK but you cannot have it both ways. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in a policy speech, I think early in 1977, made great play of the fact that telephone charges were going to be reduced. He used it as a political football. With all due respect to you, Mr Minister, the fact is that you are doing exactly the same thing this afternoon. The matter of pricing and financing of the area of communications in general and in particular on this question of telecommunications ought to be looked at. When we talk about the user pays philosophy we ought to be talking about what is regarded as the user pays’. In fact, a common feature of the tariff structures of each of the commissions is the substantial degree of cross-subsidisation. An example of this is the letter rate. The letter rate between Darwin and Launceston is the same as it is between Malvern and Carlton. Similarly, the engineering costs of the provision of a comprehensive trunk network for telephonic communication, including very low traffic areas, bears little relationship to the revenue derived from each area. Isolated, low traffic areas are being substantially subsidised by high traffic areas. If that is to be done- and we understand from the commissions themselves that this is so- the decisions to extend some aspects of the network are taken not on economic grounds but purely and simply on social grounds.

Mr Staley:

– It is in the Act which has regard to the needs of Australia, including rural areas.

Mr INNES:

-That is right. I am not disregarding what is in the Act; I understand that. I am saying that the decisions are being taken on social and not economic grounds. If that is the criterion and it is proposed to have a subsidising of people in certain areas by people in other areas- and that is what is happening in crosssubsidisation; it cannot be denied- then a different process should be used to determine the pressures that the Government applies to commissions like Telecom before arriving at conclusions. The Minister should not come along as he did here today, place a statement on the table, give members of the Opposition about two hours to read it, about 2Vt hours later produce a booklet that describes what is going to happen and then stand up and make great play in politicising the issue by referring to pressure from individual members of this House for the purpose of obtaining a result.

The result, so far as it goes, may well be a good one. We are the first to acknowledge that. Before we get to this point, I am suggesting that the whole discussion of this user pays philosophy needs to be examined. It should not be made a mockery of by the Government applying pressure. For example, the Prime Minister in his policy speech may announce cuts in telephone charges prior to an election or the Minister for Post and Telecommunications prior to the Budget may advance a proposition to put some icing on the cake as to what people can expect in the next month or two. I am referring to the whole question of telephone charges, crosssubsidisation, and the disadvantages to pensioners and other people on fixed incomes who will subsidise the changes for people who will benefit in a business sense. I say good luck to them if that is going to assist in the isolated areas. Nobody is arguing about that.

What I am suggesting is that the whole pricing and financing structures of the Commissions, if they are to be influenced by Government pressure along the lines of the Government taking advantage of certain cuts in charges, ought to be the responsibility of this Parliament. We should consider the priorities that ought to follow when we are dealing with matters such as this. A whole range of issues is involved. I refer to the paper itself and to the booklet. I emphasise what I said before about the non-appearance of the major charts and maps that are fundamental in understanding and intelligently debating this question. I should have been given permission to make some comments on the paper at this time and at some time in the future. I am putting it to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications again that this debate ought to be resumed in the House after everybody has had a chance to examine the matter. The Opposition ought to be given a reasonable time to debate it in a proper way. As I said at the outset, the Opposition acknowledges this step, prima facie, as one in the right direction. However, all the fundamental problems I have put to the Minister ought to be taken on board and acknowledged as an Opposition protest about the processes, not necessarily about the final principles that have been spelt out in the statement.

Debate (on motion by Mr MacKenzie) adjourned.

page 2901

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1 979.

States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1979.

page 2901

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2 ) 1 979.

Income Tax ( Mining Withholding Tax) Bill 1 979.

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1978-79.

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1978-79.

page 2901

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-by leave-The Joint Committee of Public Accounts released a statement on 31 May 1979 giving detailed terms of reference for its proposed inquiry into the funding of tertiary education. I seek leave to have a copy of this statement incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

page 2901

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA JOINT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. Tel. 72 62 12 31 May 1979

Press Release

page 2901

PUBLIC INQUIRY-FUNDING OF TERTIARY EDUCATION

The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Mr David M. Connolly, MP, announced this morning that the PAC would hold an inquiry into the Funding of Tertiary Education. The terms of reference for the inquiry are:

Mr Connolly commented that the Public Accounts Committee inquiry had been initiated because, in the view of the Committee, past inquiries into Post Secondary or Tertiary Education conducted by both Federal and State authorities over the last few years have not focused upon the evident need to simplify the co-ordination process for the funding of Tertiary Education. The entire structure, including Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and Technical and Further Education, were being funded through what appeared to be a very complex system of Federal /State Departments, Committees, Councils and Commissions with no clear line of responsibility for the efficiency and economical expenditure of funds.

Mr Connolly said that this year’s expenditure on Education from the Federal Budget has been in excess of $2 billion of which $1.262 billion was allocated directly to tertiary institutions alone for recurrent and capital purposes. ($685.5 million for Universities, $460.5 million for CAEs and $116.5 million for TAFEs which reflects the fact that TAFEs are funded approximately one quarter only by the Commonwealth.) The Committee is aware of the Government’s intention to increase the funding of Technical Education throughout Australia and it is concerned that this should be achieved more simply and cost effectively than appears to have been the case with Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education. The Public Accounts Commute inquiry hoped to produce a concise report which would be tabled in the Autumn Session of Parliament in 1980. The basic aim was to achieve an administrative process which ensures the most rational allocation of scarce resources in this area.

Mr CONNOLLY:

-Since then, the Committee has determined that at least five newspapers reported this statement; however, not one reported it completely accurately. The Sun News Pictorial and the Age did not distinguish between the activities of a parliamentary joint committee and the Government and referred to a Government committee. The Committee believes that this is of great significance because it is multi-party in composition and jealously guards the apolitical nature of its inquiries. We cannot function unless this is the position. Other newspapers, notably the Austalian Financial Review and the Canberra Times, quoted incorrectly from the text of the statement. The SunHerald on Sunday 3 June reported that the Committee would be investigating claims of waste and deception by tertiary institutions. These claims were alleged to have originated from Cabinet. While we cannot comment upon their origin, they certainly did not come from evidence before the Public Accounts Committee. The Committee will be examining the co-ordination of funding and expenditure of tertiary institutions and the evaluation of courses is only one part of its terms of reference. The Sun-Herald finished its report by saying that the Committee will particularly investigate one specific allegation relating to a Victorian college. The Committee has received no such information and made no mention of such an allegation in its statement. It is a matter of regret and concern to the Committee that its Press releases cannot be reported correctly. The Committee hopes that in future the Press will exercise greater care in reporting the activities of parliamentary committees.

page 2902

FEDERAL NARCOTICS BUREAU

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I have received letters from both the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) and the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by Standing Order 107,I have selected one matter, that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Adelaide, namely:

The Fraser Government’s incompetent handling of the Federal Narcotics Bureau.

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

More than the number of members required by

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-The issues I raise under this heading, namely, the Fraser Government’s incompetent handling of the Federal Narcotics Bureau, are indeed grave ones. The immediate episode which has initiated this debate- the Eric Robinson-type resignation of the Commissioner for the Federal Narcotics Bureau, Mr Harvey Bates, is a bizarre one to say the least. The Opposition raises this subject in sorrow but it is its duty to seek to persuade the Government to change its course because its present direction is an exceedingly dangerous one. What greater chaos or disaster could be imagined than for a law enforcement agency to be penetrated by the very people it is duty empowered to police? That is the situation arising from one of the allegations that has been made against this agency. Here we have the most serious of allegations- that the Federal Narcotics Bureau has been infiltrated by organised crime. By all accounts, the multimillion dollar drug ring is better equipped than the community’s Bureau itself. What of our relations with overseas narcotics agencies? How can they be expected to have confidence in our efforts to deal with what is essentially an international evil when the drug underworld has access to the secret records and files of the Narcotics Bureau?

Australia may well be cut off from information ordinarily supplied by overseas police forces and international drug control policing programs. Nothing they gave us could be regarded as secure. The allegations involve access to the Narcotics Bureau computer enabling drug criminals to keep one step ahead of the police authorities. These are some of the harsh facts which we have to face. Let me give some details. Last Friday the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) announced that the New Zealand couple Isabel and Douglas Wilson, had passed information to the Queensland police in June 1978, a year ago, that an unnamed Narcotics Bureau officer had been involved in the giving of information to drug traffickers. The Minister’s response to this most serious allegation was to set up an investigation of police officers involving the Commonwealth police, the Queensland police, the New South Wales police and headed by an officer of the Victorian police. Why not somebody from the South Australian police? They could be far more objective in this area than anyone of the other four police forces which have been involved. Indeed, there is less ill-will between them and some of the other agencies than exists between the four police forces that have been chosen.

The subsequent resignation of the Bureau’s Commissioner, Mr Bates, and the Minister’s frantic attempts to have Mr Bates withdraw his resignation are matters of public notoriety. Mr Bates’s withdrawal last night of his resignation adds a touch of farce to the whole affair. The Opposition charges that the Government’s handling of this whole matter has been inept and incompetent can now be substantiated by further details which I intend to give the House. Two people are dead. These are just the most recent deaths. There are charges that, related to the drug ring, there have been five deaths in recent years. But, in relation to the two most recent deaths, the Victorian Police Force not only leaked the initial disclosures to the Melbourne Sun, it now charges that the Narcotics Bureau, in fact, sat on allegations made by the Wilsons for a year without conducting proper investigations. It further charges that the Narcotics Bureau’s data on the people at the top of the drug distribution tree is seriously defective.

What is the Government’s response to this? It sets up a police inquiry to be headed by the same police force that is making some of these serious allegations. In that sense the police forces involved, in particular the Victorian Police Force, are to act as the accuser and the judge and jury for the allegations. The tensions which have existed between the Narcotics Bureau and State police forces for some years are well known. The Government cannot claim that this so-called external investigation is impartial. Clearly it is not. I repeat that the same people are the accusers, the judge and jury. However there is an even greater defect in the investigation than its lack of impartiality. All the investigation will attempt to establish is whether the allegations made by the Wilsons are founded or unfounded. The ramifications of this affair extend well beyond that. This Parliament is at present being asked to give greatly extended powers to the Narcotics Bureau in the investigation of drug offences. As recently as last Wednesday that legislation was before this House. It is still before the Senate. Yet, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs admits that he knew of the allegations last Monday. I assert that it was the height of impertinence to try to sneak the legislation through this House before the allegations became public knowledge. One suspects that it was only the fact that the Minister realised that the full story was about to break that prevented him from attempting to rush the legislation through the Senate as well.

I call for the Customs Amendment Bill 1979, temporarily at least, to be withdrawn. It is all the more vital for the Opposition’s amendments providing greater safeguards to be adopted when that legislation returns to the House if, indeed, it is withdrawn as I believe it ought to be. We cannot give these vastly increased powers to the Narcotics Bureau until we are satisfied that the purpose for which they are to be used is the purpose for which this Parliament intended them to be used. Until we are satisfied that there are sufficient checks and balances against their abuse. I call on the Government to withdraw the legislation from the Parliament and when that legislation comes back into the Parliament to provide those extra checks and balances that the Opposition, with the support of some members of the Government parties, has sought.

Neither during his Press conference nor subsequently has the Minister raised the question of ministerial responsibility relating to this matter. The Minister, by implication, believes that his officers were at fault for not informing him about the allegations. The Minister must accept responsibility for the wrongdoings of the Department which he administers. Certainly, that responsibility does not warrant the resignation of the Minister. I am not now calling for his resignation. The Opposition calls for such resignations sparingly. We had one example of the Opposition calling for a resignation in this Parliament yesterday because there was due cause to do so in relation to the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman). However not a word has been said about how this matter of the relationship between the Minister and his Department is to be rectified in the future and how the Minister will have more effective control of the Bureau. It is right and proper that that should be examined. Certainly, a police inquiry will be quite unable to determine the proper relationship between the Minister responsible for Customs and the Narcotics Bureau. The matter is just being glossed over at present.

I emphasise that this matter does not just raise the question of whether allegations first raised by a New Zealand couple, who have since been murdered, are correct. It goes to the very heart of the credibility of the Narcotics Bureau and to the Minister responsible for that Bureau. The Government is continually giving the community dire warnings about the effect of the drug trade on the lives of Australians, particularly young Australians. On two occasions it has introduced drastic measures to try to deal with that trade. On both occasions, despite some dispute about the details and extent of the legislation, the Opposition has given the Government basic support. Now allegations are made that elements of the

Narcotics Bureau itself are involved in the drug trade. That is the gravamen of the allegation. Until the extent of the infiltration, if any, by drug traffickers into the Narcotics Bureau is established, there can be no confidence in the Bureau, either internationally or in Australia. The allegations and all the repercussions cannot be swept under the carpet or dealt with by a half-baked inquiry with all the appearances of a kangaroo court. We need a far better inquiry than the one we know about now.

Next, I want to deal with the question of the Eric Robinson-style resignation of the Narcotics Bureau chief. We hold no brief for Mr Bates, nor do we seek to malign him. However, this Parliament and the Australian people are entitled to know what concessions were made to Mr Bates that led him to alter his position from a resignation in protest against the form of inquiry to be undertaken by the Government to a position where he was prepared to withdraw that resignation. I am sure that the Minister and objective members of this House will agree that, indeed, we did not get a satisfactory answer to a question asked along those lines in Question Time today. No concessions have been publicly acknowledged. However, we are entitled to ask why a man would feel on Friday that his integrity made him honour bound to resign, yet he could withdraw that resignation the following Monday. We have not been given satisfactory reasons. Mr Bates’s resignation and subsequent withdrawal only add to the intrigue surrounding the whole affair.

The Opposition’s position in relation to this grave matter is quite clear. It was stated on Sunday by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). We believe that only a royal commission-type inquiry will suffice. We reject the kangaroo court-type inquiry set up by the Fraser Government, which, as far as we know, is still the policy of that Government. The questions involved are too important to be swept away by a limited police inquiry. The Government already has a judge suitably equipped for the task. I refer to Mr Justice Williams, who was appointed in 1977 by the Government to head a federal inquiry into drugs. It is not as though we are calling on yet one more judge to undertake a task outside his normal area of work. The judge is already working in this area and he should be given the extra terms of reference to do the extra job that is required. We call on the Government to give Mr Justice Williams these new terms of reference so that this matter can be resolved to the satisfaction of the Australian community and the international drug law enforcement community. Unless this is done, there can be no confidence that this whole matter has been investigated properly and completely. Unless this is done, the fractured relationships with the international drug law enforcement agencies caused by this bizarre episode cannot be repaired and restored.

Let me refer to some of the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition in that Press release he issued last Sunday and which we believe must be considered by a judicial inquiry. Firstly, the extent to which the Narcotics Bureau has been infiltrated by persons involved in drug trafficking and organised crime must be considered. We do not believe that the inquiry can be limited to the initial allegations made by the Wilsons. Millions of dollars are involved in the narcotics trade. The Government has itself recognised this by providing for new penalties to attack the financial nature of the trade. With such amounts of money involved and with such penalties involved, the temptation of drug traffickers to attempt to gain inside information from the Bureau is obvious. The temptation of some people in the Bureau with access to information of use to drug traffickers to accommodate people offering huge sums of money for their co-operation cannot be ignored.

Secondly, we believe that the inquiry should investigate the degree of diligence shown by the Bureau in investigating the allegations made by the Wilsons. Last Sunday in the Sun-Herald it was reported, no doubt from inspired leaks from sources in the Victorian Police Force again, that the Narcotics Bureau had been much less than diligent in investigating the allegations. Thirdly, we believe that a royal commission must investigate the question of whether the New South Wales and Victorian police forces were provided by the Narcotics Bureau with information which might be in the interests of the Wilsons. Obviously we do not suggest that because people provide information such as that provided by the Wilsons, a 24-hour protective guard should be placed around them. However, on the evidence available it appears that there was no communication to either the New South Wales or Victorian police forces despite the fact that the Wilsons were at various times within the jurisdiction of these forces. Fourthly, a royal commission would need to inquire into and report upon the proper relationships between the Minister responsible for Customs and the Narcotics Bureau and the relationship between the Minister and his Department and the Department and the Bureau. It is all very well for the Minister for

Business and Consumer Affairs to say that he was not informed of the allegations until last Monday week and that with hindsight he should have been notified. But what is he doing about it? No police inquiry is going to clear up that matter.

It is the duty of the Minister to establish the proper relationships between himself and his Department, the Department and the Bureau, and himself and the Bureau. He has not done so. Questions can arise from time to time about the degree of independence of State police forces from the Crown. That arose in the Salisbury affair in South Australia. The Opposition believes that all police forces should be subject to complete ministerial responsibility. The Narcotics Bureau should not be considered to be a police force. It cannot treat the Minister responsible for it as a person who will be provided with information only on a need-to-know basis. The Minister must take responsibility for his Department, and responsibility means that he must be informed. Clearly he cannot be involved in the investigation of every offence in relation to narcotics, but when an allegation which goes to the very heart of the credibility of his Department is made, he cannot simply abdicate responsibility by saying: ‘I was not told. In retrospect I think I should have been told’. This matter is central to the whole issue and is one that in view of the failure of the Minister to establish a proper relationship, can be established only by a royal commission.

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

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

– The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) has raised this matter today. Of course it is understandable he would in the light of the events of the past few days. His major point concerns the investigation that is about to take place into the allegations by two deceased persons, a Mr and Mrs Wilson. They alleged that information contained on tapes made by the Queensland police was made available to the Narcotics Bureau. A member of the Narcotics Bureau was present, as I understand it, during the time that the Wilsons were being interrogated. During that interview allegations were made that information was being leaked from the Narcotics Bureau to people outside who were engaged in drug trafficking. The form of investigation which the Government has decided upon is a police investigation. The honourable member raises the question as to how the members who are to take part in this investigation were chosen. Clearly, there are four police components involved, the Commonwealth police, the Queensland police, the Victorian police and the New South Wales police. The Wilson investigations and the Wilson allegations in some way connect with those three States. So it was decided by the Government that senior officers of those four forces would make up the investigating team.

The advice before the Government indicated that the kind of investigation that needed to be carried out was one that should properly be carried out by police and not a royal commission. It is possible that as a result of the investigation I am referring to, criminal charges will be laid. It is possible. All that we have at the moment are allegations. But they are serious allegations and need to be investigated fully by the police. When the Government issued the statement of its intention to establish this investigating team, it said that action was being taken to advise the Federal Government National Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs. It also stated that the AttorneyGeneral would receive a report in due course from the investigating team and that that report would also be made available to the royal commission. So in so far as the royal commission may have an interest or responsibility in this matter, the information gathered by the investigating team will ultimately be made available to it.

When this matter was first raised it was raised with me as a result of a newspaper article that had appeared on the front page of the Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial on Monday of last week. That was the first advice I had that an allegation had been made that information had been leaked from the Narcotics Bureau to a drug trafficking ring. However, it is important to keep in mind that in the Daily Telegraph of Monday, 26 March, 1979, there was a report of tapes but no reference to the Narcotics Bureau; that report came out of Queensland. The Commonwealth Government is extremely concerned with the allegations which have been made and which will be properly investigated by the police investigating team. It is a team that is outside my administration, and quite properly so. It is an external investigation. The Minister responsible for that team will be the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay) within whose portfolio Commonwealth Police are situated. The Government is concerned not only with these allegationsthey are serious and are being investigated- but also with the whole question of illicit drug trafficking in this country.

I was appointed to this portfolio on 17 July 1977. As I recall the date, it was two days after

Don Mackay of Griffith disappeared after playing a leading and responsible part in a public campaign against drug trafficking. I was aware of the fact that the Narcotics Bureau was within what had become my ministerial portfolio. Like all responsible Australians, I was concerned about the menace of drug trafficking and what it means in terms of destruction of human life. I was concerned about allegations and reports that were appearing in the media in relation to alleged drug trafficking activities. I harboured a desire to ensure that whatever needed to be done at Commonwealth level would be done to maximise the Commonwealth’s effort against illicit drug trafficking. I discussed the matter with my departmental advisers and subsequently the Government. The Government decided that action should be commenced on two fronts. Firstly, it should establish a national royal commission into drugs, a wide-ranging inquiry into all aspects of this sordid activity. In taking that decision, the Government knew that that would be a time consuming route. Nevertheless it was something that needed to be done, something that ought to be done. So the Government took this decision. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) announced the Government’s decision on 5 October 1977.

Secondly, without in any way prejudicing the outcome of the Royal Commission, the Government believed that action should be taken to upgrade the facilities and strengthen the legislation in relation to penalties and surveillance. It was in January of 1978 that I announced a package of new initiatives in this field. The Government has either put into place those initiatives that were announced or is in the process of doing so. In the terms of reference of the Royal Commission item (e) states: the adequacy of existing laws (including the appropriateness of the penalties) and of existing law enforcement (including arrangements for co-operation between law enforcement agencies) in relation to the prohibition, restriction or control of the importation, exportation, production, possession, supply or use of, or trafficking in, drugs.

Undoubtedly, the Royal Commission will be interested in the events of the past few days, and when the Royal Commissioner receives the report that will be forwarded to the AttorneyGeneral, he will examine that report and take whatever additional action he believes is necessary in the circumstances. The honourable member for Adelaide accused the Government of forcing the legislation through this House when it had knowledge of the allegations. I do not believe that the honourable member for Adelaide made that accusation lightly, nor do I believe that he intended to mislead the House.

The facts are that the newspaper article which was the vehicle by which I first learnt of the existence of the Wilson allegations in relation to leakage of information appeared on 28 May. The legislation had been proceeding through this House for some time before then, and indeed it passed through this House on 29 May, which was the day after the publication of the newspaper article to which I refer.

I wish to sum up in this way. Firstly, I indicate to the honourable member for Adelaide and to every member of this House that so far as the Government is concerned, so far as I am concerned, we will do everything possible, we will provide whatever facilities we can, to ensure that a maximum effort is prosecuted to reduce the incidence of drug trafficking in Australia. Secondly, the Government’s decision to have these allegations properly investigated by a police team is an appropriate decision. In saying that, I emphasise that the information will be available to the Royal Commission. It is necessary for the investigation to be a police investigation because there is a possibility that it will lead to the laying of criminal charges.

Thirdly, I wish to comment further on what I said at Question Time today. On Sunday I got in touch with Mr Harvey Bates, the Commissioner of the Narcotics Bureau, and in conference yesterday, as I indicated at Question Time, I invited him to withdraw his resignation. I repeat what I said at Question Time: There were no bargains; there were no deals. I indicated to Mr Bates that the decision the Government had taken would stand and that the investigation would be carried out by the police in the manner that was announced on Friday. It was obviously difficult for him to contemplate coming back to his position after having resigned. He took the decision, and when he met last night with the media he said that the only reason he came back to his post was his desire to continue the work in which he has been involved for many years and to wage a war. He did not use the word war; but he indicated that he wanted to continue in the fight against drug trafficking.

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

-I compliment the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) on taking seriously the allegations that have been brought about by the administration of the Federal Narcotics Bureau and his own responsibility in this matter. This attitude is quite different from the attitude of some other Ministers in this Government. However, I do not accept his response to my colleague the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr

Hurford) that the issues with which we are concerned, and which have been raised by the events of last week, are sufficiently covered by paragraph (e) of the terms of reference of the Federal Government National Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs. I think that in paragraph (e) the Royal Commission needs much more specific and directive reference about some of the problems relating to the Federal Narcotics Bureau, in terms of its administration, its responsibility to the Minister, its relationship with the Commonwealth and State Police, and its effective accountability. In what I am about to say I hope to provide some justification for arguing for broadening or making more specific the terms of reference of the Royal Commission.

As has been noted, last week this House made provision in a Bill for the Narcotics Bureau to have quite unprecedented powers in relation to listening devices. At the same time, there is another Bill in the Senate which gives wiretapping powers to the Narcotics Bureau. The penalties for serious offences of drug racketeering have been raised to life imprisonment. If we are to give those great powers and responsibilities to the Narcotics Bureau, then undoubtedly this Parliament has to assure itself that we have a Bureau of quality, honesty and integrity. After the revelations of the last week, I believe that at this moment the Parliament cannot be confident that we have a Bureau which is honest and of great integrity.

Let us be honest about this and realise that in this type of criminal field there are great temptations and possibilities for corruption. These possibilities are omnipresent, and that is simply because of the enormous profits involved in drug racketeering. In my speech on the Customs Amendment Bill I said that it is the issue of profit which is at the heart of this problem. In some way we must destroy the profit that is coming in from drugs in order to break the whole racket. In may ways, I believe that some of the Governments policies are misconceived, but it is profit that we must get at. While those great profits remain they will attract organised crime and there will be enormous temptation to corrupt the police and the enforcement authorities, and the money will be available to do so.

The events of the last few days have brought to public attention long-simmering issues affecting the integrity of the Federal Narcotics Bureau. There are three major questions we need to consider. The first is the question of whether the Federal Narcotics Bureau has been penetrated by criminal elements. There is evidence that this view has been held for some months at least in some Commonwealth and State police circles. Secondly, we have to consider the question of the relationship between the Federal Narcotics Bureau and the State and Commonwealth police forces. Again, that has been a long troubled relationship. At present attention has been focused on that relationship by the nature of the proposed police inquiry. Thirdly, we need to look at the relations between the Federal Narcotics Bureau and the Federal Government which, in recent days, have clearly reached a nadir.

I will take each of those points. Firstly, I shall consider the penetration of the Bureau. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has confirmed most of what I am about to say. In June 1978, Douglas and Isabel Wilson apparently made the following allegations to the Queensland police. They alleged, on the basis’ of information from a notorious New Zealand criminal, that an officer of the Federal Narcotics Bureau in Sydney, who had access to the Bureau’s computer, was supplying information to a major drug smuggling syndicate. It was suggested that the officer was paid something like $25,000 for that information. As the Minister has confirmed, a Narcotics Bureau officer was present throughout the interview and the allegations were kept tightly secret because it was considered that any publicity would sign the Wilsons’ death warrant. There was apparently an unsatisfactory inquiry within the Federal Narcotics Bureau which neither proved or disproved the allegations made by the Wilsons. The Minister, in his own words, did not know of these allegations, nor apparently of the Bureau inquiry, until Monday 28 May, a year after the allegations were made and some 10 days after the bodies of Douglas and Isabel Wilson had been found in Rye, Victoria. They had been shot dead. These circumstances are extraordinary, given that the Federal Narcotics Bureau does not have the autonomy of a State police force. It is an executive agency which is much more directly responsible to the Minister who has a responsibility for all levels through the agency.

Three fundamental questions arise from this first point. First: Was the Minister informed at any time before 28 May 1979 of the allegations made by the Wilsons of the penetration of the Bureau? Secondly: Was the Minister informed at any time before 28 May 1979 of the internal inquiry conducted by the Bureau? Thirdly: Did the Minister only learn of these matters on 28 May 1979 as a result of a leak by the Victorian police to a Melbourne newspaper and not through the Bureau for which he was responsible?

The second point I shall consider is the issue of the relationship between the Federal Narcotics Bureau and the Commonwealth and State police forces. These relations have been notoriously poor. They have even been disfigured by personality clashes. An officer exchange program between the New South Wales police and the Federal Narcotics Bureau was abandoned. There have been complaints from the Federal Narcotics Bureau that it was not getting enough cooperation from the Victorian police on Interpol requests. There is an absurd duplication resulting from the fact that the drug intelligence unit is in the Commonwealth Police and not in the Narcotics Bureau. That is something that needs investigating. The drug intelligence unit is in the Commonwealth Police which is in conflict with the Narcotics Bureau. One would think that, if there was a rational organisation of this arrangement, that drug intelligence unit would be in the Narcotics Bureau. Perhaps we need to reconsider the whole organisation of those central police forces and authorities. Again, tension has resulted from the fact that in 1970 the New South Wales police alleged that their officers had been shadowed by Federal Narcotics Bureau agents. There had been State and Commonwealth police suspicion that the Federal Narcotics Bureau has been penetrated.

Of course, this fear of penetration is supported by earlier allegations that in the mid-1970s members of the Narcotics Bureau in Sydney were recycling confiscated drugs. In May 1978 an ex-officer of the Bureau, Ian Ramsay Brown, was convicted in a Victorian court. One of the charges of which he was convicted was the recycling of hashish stolen from the Federal Bureau in Sydney. When that incident was referred to the Minister, he replied that it was ‘of an historical nature ‘. If he means by that that it was in the past and decided in the sense that the man had been convicted, I agree. But it is a factor which is very present today in the whole relationship between the State police and the Narcotics Bureau and their fear of penetration. That case suggested that there had been previous penetration and involvement of the Federal Narcotics Bureau in criminal activities. The Canberra Times this morning shows further State police evidence of the suspicion that they have of the way the Narcotics Bureau operates. Given this history of friction, conflict and distrust, is it wise to appoint an inquiry into the Federal Narcotics Bureau staffed by senior officers of the Victorian, New South Wales, Queensland and Commonwealth police forces? I agree with the Minister that it is clearly necessary that we need an independent inquiry into the Federal Narcotics Bureau. But is it a good idea to include officers from the forces which, for the last nine years, have been on and off in conflict with the Federal Narcotics Bureau?

Finally, I shall consider the issue of the relationship between the Minister and the Narcotics Bureau. When the Commissioner of the Bureau resigned- admittedly it was a Robinsonlike resignation- he made the statement that one of his reasons for resigning was that all the facts were not before the Government. That is an extraordinary position- the Bureau is about to be investigated and there is not sufficient confidence in the chief officer of the Bureau to talk to him and to get the facts about this inquiry. Does the Minister fear that he is the person who is leaking the evidence? I am not suggesting that but an extraordinary element of distrust seems to exist when the head of the Bureau cannot be talked to about these issues. He was not consulted. Did the Minister not trust his own Commissioner? There were also the problems for Mr Harvey Bates concerning the constitution of the inquiry. I have suggested that he may be justified in having fears about the composition of the inquiry, given the history of police and Federal Narcotics Bureau relationships over the previous nine years.

Finally, I wish to state why we want to widen and not just examine the issue of the Wilsons, which is at the immediate heart of the matter. We need to examine the relationship of the Narcotics Bureau and the State and Commonwealth police forces. We need to look at the relationship between the Ministers and the Narcotics Bureau. We need to look at where the Drug Intelligence Unit should be located, where is the most appropriate place to put it. We need to examine certain civil liberties questions in relation to the Bureau, and the whole issue of Bureau accountability.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Before I call the next speaker, I point out to the House that there seems to be some confusion as to what to call the occupant of the chair. During the absence of the Speaker, the Right Honourable Sir Billy Snedden, the Chairman of Committees is the Acting Speaker. When he is in the chair he is referred to as ‘ Mr Acting Speaker’. When a Deputy Chairman of Committees is in the chair, he is referred to as ‘Mr Deputy Speaker’.

Mr CARLTON:
Mackellar

– I can see the difficulty under which the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) and the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) are labouring in this debate. They are honourable gentlemen in every respect of that term. In recent weeks in this Parliament they have been engaged in a genuinely bipartisan attempt to assist the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) for whom they have considerable regard in drawing up new legislation which will enable the Commonwealth Government to take a much firmer line against the chief organisers of illicit drug activity in Australia. Because of unfortunate events involving suggestions that criminals have penetrated the Federal Narcotics Bureau- allegations which at this moment still have to be investigated- the honourable members are in a position where, if they wish, they can create trouble for the Government and for the Narcotics Bureau. They can create trouble in the Government’s attempts to track down the leading criminal elements in the drug problem. I have noted the restraint of the two honourable members in the debate. I am thankful for it because I do not think that either of them- certainly the honourable member for Adelaide referred directly to this in his speechwould suggest that the Minister is incompetent which, in fact, is the term used in the Opposition’s suggested matter of public importance. The matter of public importance reads:

The Fraser Government’s incompetent handling of the Federal Narcotics Bureau.

I think that many things that they have said before and in this debate indicate to me that they have considerable confidence in the Minister’s ability to handle the Bureau and to advance the cause of tracking down the major drug offenders. The honourable member for Bonython in his speech asked a question specifically about when the Minister had first heard of these allegations. I can only refer him to the joint statement made by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay) and the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, I think on 1 June, where they said that the allegations were made initially to the Queensland police in June 1 978 by Mr and Mrs Wilson whose bodies were recently discovered at Rye in Victoria. The Federal Narcotics Bureau decided at that time to keep the allegations under review. The allegations came to the notice of the Government on Monday last. I think that was a quite clear statement from the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and I can only repeat what he said on that occasion in answer to the honourable member for Bonython.

It is suggested that the Minister acted unwisely in not consulting the head of the Narcotics Bureau before the Government made its decision to carry out a police inquiry. The Minister is a very careful man, as I am aware from knowing him as a State Minister for many years and since his taking up a portfolio in this House. He acted slowly and deliberately in this matter. He consulted with the head of the Department concerned and took his advice. It was the Government’s belief- I think correctly- that if an inquiry was going to be conducted into a particular bureau it was not the proper approach to consult with the head of that bureau as to the nature of the inquiry, but it was the proper thing to consult with the superior of that person, who was the departmental head. That was done and that would seem to be a satisfactory thing to do. I think the remarks made by the honourable member for Adelaide and the honourable member for Bonython about the proposed royal commission or extending the precise terms given to Mr Justice Williams are unnecessary complications in a situation where we have to establish a group consisting of police officers who can ferret out the facts. Obviously they will be people carefully chosen. The information that they obtain will be given to Mr Justice Williams. In my opinion the information does clearly come within the terms of reference given to him when the royal commission was first set up.

Since the Opposition’s charges relate more generally to the Minister’s control of the Federal Narcotics Bureau, I thought it worth while to indicate just what has been done by the Government in relation to this Bureau since the honourable member for Farrer became the Minister responsible for the Bureau. We all know that in late 1977 the royal commissioner, Mr Justice Williams, was appointed to examine the drug problem and that was in conjunction with, I think, four States. There was wide agreement that that needed to be done. There was another inquiry covering a different area conducted by the New South Wales Government. That inquiry is still proceeding. Not waiting for the royal commissioner’s report, but with the full agreement of the royal commissioner, the Government proceeded to take another set of steps to take the fight against drug runners further and to make sure that they would be brought to heel more rapidly. The first step taken was in February 1978 to increase the staff of the Bureau by some 50 persons. That has since been done. Secondly, there was a visit by the Minister to the major drug running centres in South East Asia. As a result of that visit additional officers were appointed in Asian centres. Australia now has five full time officers stationed in the cities of Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok and Jakarta. In fact, we have the second largest international liaison group in that area.

In July 1978 the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) announced additional coastal surveillance measures so that anybody trying to run drugs in through the remote parts of the Australian coast would be more likely to be detected. The aim of those measures was to raise the number of aircraft flying hours in 1978-79 to 27,000 from the 4,600 in the previous year. Those measures have been put into effect. A Federal drugs hotline was established in Canberra to give a 24-hour service for the receipt of information from anybody seeing anything suspicious around the coast. That service is still available. I think it is worth while drawing attention again to that hotline so that if anybody anywhere in Australia sees anything suspicious which he believes ought to be reported in relation to possible drug running he can ring a Canberra number code 062-733677. Anyone can ring free of charge and advise of any suspicious circumstances. That service is available 24 hours a day.

The Customs Amendment Bill which is before the Senate at the moment, or which is about to go into the Senate, passed through this House with considerable amendment, with a great deal of bipartisan support and with quite worthwhile amendments recommended by the Opposition and accepted by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. That Bill is a major advance in tracking down the really bad criminals. Until now it has been very difficult to get hold of those people who operate mainly on the telephone and who are the principal organisers of these vile activities, but who are never themselves in possession of drugs. This Bill goes a long way towards making it easier to catch these people. It would be a tragedy if we followed the advice of the honourable member for Adelaide to withdraw this Bill. This Bill introduces a specific offence of conspiracy in relation to drug offences. This means that those people who organise, not just the little runners or the traffickers and so on, but the master criminals, can be charged with an offence of conspiracy in relation to drugs. The Bill approves the use of listening devices. A separate Bill to amend the Customs Act 1901 which was introduced by the Attorney-General allows for telephone taps. This, of course, is a way of tracking down these people in a way that has not been possible legally until now. Legal telephone taps in certain circumstances can now be used.

There is also the question of a seizure of profits. The honourable member for Bonython said we must attack the profits. This Bill does that. In 1977 some steps were taken, but in the present Bill they are strengthened so that the assets of suspected criminals can be frozen while legal proceedings are under way. A pecuniary penalty which is equal to illegal profits can be placed upon a convicted criminal. This is the first time in the world that legislation of this kind has been introduced. The penalties for the master criminals have been increased. For commercial quantities of drugs, that is, 1 ,000 times trafficable quantities, life imprisonment without the option of a fine is now the maximum sentence. I think all these measures are ones which this Government, under this Minister, has been introducing since 1977 in order to crack down on illegal activities. It would be a terrible shame if at this stage we raised grave doubts about the Government’s capacity to carry this into operation. I think we must stand behind the Minister. He will act carefully and sensitively. It is up to all honourable members of this House on both sides to give him the maximum support.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman)Order! The discussion is concluded.

page 2910

JUDICIARY (DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to remove doubts that have arisen as to whether, as a matter of law, the provisions made by section 3 of the Judiciary (Diplomatic Representation) Act 1977 in relation to Mr Justice Fox’s service and salary while performing the functions of AmbassadoratLarge apply to his service under extensions of the original term of his appointment. Mr Justice Fox’s term of appointment was extended from the original period of 12 months for a period of a little more than two months in October 1978 and for a period of some further five months in January 1 979. It is now proposed, and Mr Justice Fox has agreed, that his term be further extended from 8 June, when his present extension will expire, until the end of next year. The doubts that have arisen are legal, technical matters and the Government feels that Mr Justice Fox’s rights should not be left in any doubt. The position was quite clear under the 1977 Act in relation to his original term of appointment and the amendments will merely put beyond question that those rights continue to apply, and have continued to apply, in relation to the extensions of his term that have already taken place and to any future extension that may be approved by the Governor-General. When the 1977 Bill was before the Parliament the Government indicated that the time Mr Justice Fox would be engaged on his work as Ambassador-at-Large would be at least 12 months, but might well be longer. Experience has proved this forecast to be correct and it has already been found desirable to extend Mr Justice Fox ‘s appointment beyond the initial period of 12 months.

The work on which Mr Justice Fox has been engaged as Ambassador-at-Large for nuclear non-proliferation and safeguards is, in the view of the Government, work of great national importance. He has been engaged in extensive international consultations on non-proliferation issues and has, in these consultations, conveyed the Government’s concern for a stronger world non-proliferation regime. He has travelled extensively and tirelessly in Asia, Western and Eastern Europe and North America and has made an important contribution to international understanding on nuclear non-proliferation questions. Late last year Mr Justice Fox led the Australian delegation to the mid-term plenary conference of the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation. The International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation is due to hold its concluding conference in 1980. As a result of the study made by that Conference, there is likely to be international consideration of important proposals for strengthening the international non-proliferation regime in a number of areas. For this reason the Government is grateful that he has agreed to delay his return to judicial duties and continue in this vital role. The Government believes that Mr Justice Fox will be able to make his own special contribution to policy in all these fields and will be an invaluable adviser to the Government on nuclear matters. As I indicated earlier in my remarks the amendment embodied in the Bill before the House is of a technical nature and I hope that the House will give it a speedy passage. I there commend the BUI to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 2911

TARIFF PROPOSALS

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

– I move:

Customs Tariffproposals No. 19(1979)

The Customs Tariff Proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1966. The Proposals implement the Government’s decision on recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission in its reports on vices; acetyl products; and oxo alcohols, butyl acetates, et cetera. The Government has accepted the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission in its report on vices that tariff quotas which have applied to imports of industrial type vices since July 1977 be removed and that all vices under reference be dutiable at 20 percent.

The proposed duty rate involves a rounding of the previous long term rate from 19 per cent to 20 per cent and elimination of the preferential margin of eight percentage points. The Commission in its report concluded that this level of assistance will enable the Australian industry to compete profitably against imports from the United Kingdom, the main source of competition against the Australian product. The Government supports this conclusion and will take steps to maintain adequate statistics of imports to ensure that early action can be taken should the Australian industry be injured by imports from other sources.

In respect of the two chemical reports the IAC concluded that a duty of 25 per cent would, if applied also to certain imported substitutes, provide reasonable assistance for production of the main chemicals under reference. The major products covered by both reports are produced by the one producer using broadly similar processes and skills, and the Commission believes that to assist the company in its forward planning it should be given an indication of an acceptable level of assistance for the interrelated products of the various plants in its chemicals complex. The Commission did however recommend minimum rates for entry for a small number of chemicals covered by the two reports. In respect of one group of these, cellulose acetate moulding compounds, the Government agrees with the Commission’s reasoning given in the acetyl products report.

In respect of the remainder of these chemicals, however, the Government considers that, given different circumstances, these chemicals could be economically produced in Australia.

Adoption of the 25 per cent duty rate for these goods also will allow the industry to make commercial decisions and for resources to move into the production of these chemicals in response to market forces, uninhibited by the fact that they were dutiable at a lower rate than similar goods under reference. This approach is consistent with the approach of the IAC in providing a common rate for goods currently produced in Australia. All goods under reference will of course continue to be eligible for by-law if they meet normal by-law criteria.

In addition, the Commission recommended that acrylic monomer, which was not specifically under reference, also be dutiable at 25 per cent when used in the manufacture of paint other than full gloss or automotive paints or industrial lacquers, as for these purposes it is substitutable with vinyl acetate monomer which was under reference. Whilst the Government agrees with the Commission’s approach it would be impractical to administer. The Government is proposing therefore that acrylic monomer for use in all paints and lacquers be dutiable at 25 per cent and for other uses remain at minimum rates of duty. The costs to users of certain paints in adopting this proposal would be far outweighed by the costs to the Government in policing the Commission’s recommendation in this respect, if adopted.

The new rates covered by the Proposals operate from tomorrow. Tariff quotas on vices will also terminate as of tomorrow. The Proposals also implement an administrative change necessitated by a change in tariff classification of certain correction fluids by the Customs Cooperation Council to which Australia is a contracting party. No change in duties is involved. A summary of the tariff changes contained in the Proposals has been prepared and is now being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Proposals to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 2912

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill provides for the validation until 31 December 1979 of duties collected in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 16 to 19 introduced into the Parliament at various times since 3 May 1979 and not covered by the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1979 introduced into the House on 22 May 1979. Under section 226 of the Customs Act the collection of duties in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals is protected against legal challenge for six months or until the close of the session of Parliament, whichever occurs first. The introduction and passage of a validation Bill is therefore a necessary machinery measure which takes over from section 226 pending the introduction of a customs tariff amendment Bill, anticipated for the Budget sittings, to enact the changes contained in the Proposals.

The tariff changes validated by this Bill relate to decisions of the Government on the following reports by the Industries Assistance Commission:

Nuts, Bolts and Screws- Proposals No. 16, introduced 3 May 1979.

Australian Citrus Industry- Proposals No. 1 7, introduced 3 May 1 979.

Miscellaneous Industrial Machinery (relative to Injection Moulding Machines)Proposals No. 1 8, introduced 22 May 1 979.

Acetyl Products; Oxo Alcohols, Butyl Alcohols, et cetera, Vices- Proposals No. 19, introduced 5 June 1979.

Details of the changes involved were supplied to honourable members at the time of introduction of the relevant Tariffproposals. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 2912

EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of the Bill now before the House is to enact the excise tariff alteration introduced into Parliament on 2 May 1979 by Excise Tariff Proposals No. 4.

These proposals increased the excise duty on naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gasLPGfrom $13 per kilolitre to $14 per kilolitre following a domestic price rise of $27 per tonne by local producers effective 30 April 1979.

In November 1978, the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman), when announcing the Government’s policy to offset additional profits accruing to producers of naturally occurring LPG, indicated that the domestic price would be kept under review and that where necessary the excise duty would be increased accordingly. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 2913

VISIT TO AUSTRALIA OF BRITISH PRIME MINISTER

Ministerial Statement

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– by leave- I am very pleased to announce that the newly elected Prime Minister of Great Britain, the Right Honourable Margaret Thatcher, M.P., has accepted an invitation to visit Australia and will be here on 30 June and 1 July. The visit is particularly welcome, coming as it does so soon after Mrs Thatcher’s assumption of office.

Mrs Thatcher’s association with Australia is a long-standing one, and that is appreciated by all of us. She visited Australia in 1972 and again in 1976, and her visit on this occasion as Prime Minister will serve to emphasise the close consultation that has been such a feature of relations between Australia and Britain over the years. Both governments value their close co-operation, which reflects the very real interests and traditional ties between our two countries.

As well as providing an opportunity for a broad review of Australia-United Kingdom relations, the visit will permit both Prime Ministers to discuss other important matters, including the results of the Tokyo Summit, from which Mrs Thatcher will have just come, the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting to be held in Lusaka in August, and international developments generally. I am sure that all Australians will give Mrs Thatcher a very warm welcome during her visit.

I might add that visits by United Kingdom Prime Ministers to Australia have been somewhat of a rarity. I think the Right Honourable Harold Macmillan, who visited Australia in 1958, was one Prime Minister who visited Australia while he was in office. But since then, I think the visits have been by former Prime Ministers or people who were later to become Prime Ministers.

Mr Bryant:

– Harold Wilson came to Harold Holt’s funeral.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-He came to Harold Holt’s funeral, which I think is a separate case. It was a visit for a particular event. It was not in the nature of a particular visit by a UK Prime Minister to Australia. But for those reasons also, Mrs Thatcher’s visit to Australia is all the more welcome.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– by leave- The Opposition welcomes the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). It is not often that the Prime Minister and I can reach complete agreement on a proposition that he brings before the House, but this is one of those happy occasions when the rule is established beyond any doubt by being broken.

This is welcome news. Mrs Thatcher is a distinguished head of state, a most significant figure internationally. As the Prime Minister has observed, there have not been many British Prime Ministers who have been able to visit this country and it is particularly gratifying that Mrs Thatcher is able to do so at this early stage after assuming her office.

I assure the Prime Minister and the British High Commission, which will be looking after arrangements in association with Mrs Thatcher’s visit, that the Opposition will do all it can to make Mrs Thatcher’s visit a warm and rewarding one.

page 2913

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 May, on motion by Mr Fife:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– by leave- I wish to inform the House that the Government will move several amendments to the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill during the Committee stage. The amendments relate to goods covered by a United Nations agreement on the importation of educational, scientific and cultural materials. Whilst Australia is not a signatory to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation convention commonly known as the Florence Agreement, it has generally adhered to its general policy of not impeding, by the imposition of customs duties, the free flow of educational, scientific and cultural material into Australia. Following announcement of the Government’s intention to apply a 2 per cent ad valorem revenue customs duty on goods currently imported duty free, the Government has received representations from a number of bodies requesting that the exemptions from the 2 per cent revenue duty be extended to such goods covered by the Florence Agreement.

I mentioned in this House at Question Time last week that these representations were being given careful consideration. As a result, the Government has now decided to exempt from the 2 per cent revenue duty such goods as are covered by the Florence Agreement. These include printed books, newspapers, journals, music, maps, plans, film, instruments, gramophone records, paintings, antiques, et cetera. In addition, the Government has also decided to exempt from the revenue duty certain paper and cinematographic film currently imported duty free and which form inputs into these goods when produced in Australia. Although this will mean the raising of approximately $7m less than anticipated, these further exemptions should maintain the policy of allowing educational, scientific and cultural goods to continue to enter Australia duty free, and to continue duty free inputs into such goods when manufactured locally.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-by leave-The Opposition welcomes the statement by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs ( Mr Fife ). However, I should like to remind the House that this Bill was adjourned at the end of the second reading stage. I say ‘at the end’ because I understand that all those honourable members listed to speak had made their speeches. I understand that the Bill will shortly go into the Committee stage. Having been granted leave to make a short statement, I take this opportunity to remind the House and the people of Australia that the Opposition has opposed this Bill at the second reading stage and will vote against it very shortly because the Opposition believes that it is part of the horror mini-Budget proposals.

This particular proposal will raise $80m in the way of import duties on those imports not otherwise subject to duties. We are glad that the amount of $80m is now to be reduced to $73m by the amendments which the Minister has just announced to the House. The Opposition will be supporting the amendments at the Committee stage, but only because they slightly improve the Bill. I repeat that the Opposition will vote against the Bill at the second reading stage and at the third reading stage as well because we believe that it is an unnecessary revenue-raising impost on the Australian people.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr V. J. Martin)

AYES: 68

NOES: 26

Majority……. 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

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

– There are two amendments that the Government wishes to make to this Bill, and I seek leave to move both amendments together.

Leave granted.

Mr FIFE:

-I move:

  1. 1 ) Pages 3 to 7 (inclusive), Schedule, omit the Schedule up to but not including the heading ‘AMENDMENTS OF PART I OF SCHEDULE 5 ‘, substitute the following:

AMENDMENTS OF PART IV OF SCHEDULE 1

l.Omit-‘Item 29.39’.

  1. Omit-‘Sub-item 29.44.9’. 3.0mit-‘Item 30.05’.
  2. Omit-‘Sub-item 34.02. 1 ‘. 5.Omit-‘Item37.04’.
  3. Omit-‘ Item 37.07’.
  4. Omit-‘Sub-item 84.08.9’.
  5. Omit-‘ Paragraph 84.23. 1 1 ‘.
  6. Omit-‘Sub-item 84.6 1 .2 ‘.
  7. Omit-‘ Paragraph 85.01.9’.
    1. Omit-‘Sub-item 87.01.2; Paragraph 87.01.31 ‘.
    1. Omit-‘Sub-item 90. 1 7.9 ‘.
    1. Omit-‘Sub-item 90.25.9 ‘.
  8. Omit-‘Sub-item 90.28.9’.

types of publications listed in Annexure A to the Agreement.

It would have been good to learn from the Minister how this mistake was made. The Opposition can only assume that it was a mistake that these particular items were included originally in the Bill because successive governments previously have not breached the spirit of the Florence convention. We can put it down to the usual stop-start methods used by the Fraser Government when it comes to Budgets. We can readily draw to our memories the changes after the last Budget in August 1978, when many items had to be removed and many changes had to be made because of sloppy preparation. The same situation applies to the horror mini-budget of 24 May this year. Already this change is being made. However, the Opposition is against the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill altogether. We have just had a vote on the measure. We do not have the numbers to stop what was originally an $80m impost being drawn from the Australian people, but at least this amendment will reduce that amount to $73m. To that extent, it is welcomed. The Opposition will not be opposing this particular amendment, but at least on the voices we will be opposing the Bill again on the third reading.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I would like to make a few remarks about the Government’s decision to introduce this amendment. I suggest that it is a victory for the sensitivity of people over the boorishness of the Government. As the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) has pointed out, at the time of the last Budget some of the less sensitive measures that were introduced by the Government and later repudiated- the tax on paper boys and the tax on the blind- were in line with the sorts of measures the Government has

introduced here. The rationale behind this levy is the raising of extra revenue by taxation, a measure which over a period the Government has found it increasingly easy to introduce and which has brought it into increasingly greater disrepute. The Customs duty on books and other publications breaches one of the basic mores of our society that knowledge should be freely available to all and not subject to taxes and other government restrictions. I am pleased to see that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife)- one of the Ministers on the front bench whom we on this side of the House respect- has seen the insensitivity of the legislation and has introduced this amendment.

The basic need for the free flow of information between countries has been recognised by no less a body than the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Australia is a member of UNESCO, and these beliefs are incorporated in the Florence Agreement, which was adopted in 1950 and guarantees a free flow of specific types of published material, including books, newspapers and periodicals. The Agreement, as the honourable member for Adelaide has pointed out, has been ratified by 81 countries. Unfortunately, Australia is not one of them. However, in the past it has upheld the principles of the Agreement by not imposing tariff or quota restrictions on the publications specified. When the Government brought down the mini-Budget it obviously had no qualms about breaking this implicit acceptance of the spirit of the Florence Agreement. This comes as little surprise. The Opposition and the Australian public have become quite used to this Government breaking its promises, as has happened so often in the past, but at least in this area the breaking of the promise has been quickly repudiated. I applaud the Minister for his quick acknowledgment of the mistake. I particularly applaud the New South Wales branch of the Children’s Book Council of Australia, which sent me a telegram stating:

The Children’s Book Council of Australia NSW Branch considers that the Government’s proposal to tax imported books a contravention of the spirit of UNESCO of which Australia is a member and in particular of the Florence Agreement. Such a tax will preclude many parents in providing cultural enrichment for their children which is deplorable particularly in this the International Year of the Child. (signed) June Smith (President)

The Opposition, of course, intended to oppose this Bill in the first instance. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has seen fit to introduce this amendment, and we applaud him for that decision, while opposing the Bill in total.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

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

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Fife)- by leave- proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I point out to the House that the Opposition is opposing this Bill not only at the second reading stage but also at the third reading stage. However, because there is a lot of legislation before the House the Opposition will not be taking it to a vote. I want at this stage to record the Labor Party’s opposition to this impost. Admittedly it has been reduced from $80m to $73m, but that is brought about merely by removing the tariff on books, which would have restricted the rights of individual citizens to acquire books for purposes of private education and self-development. That is one improvement. The Bill still contains the offensive clause which provides for the raising of 2 per cent import duty on many other items, which will merely add to the inflation of this country. It is part of the horror mini-Budget, as I mentioned earlier, and we are against it. We will record our opposition on the voices.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2919

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED (LOAN GUARANTEE) BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr Nixon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-As stated by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) in his second reading speech, the purpose of this Bill, the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1979, is to authorise the Treasurer, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to guarantee borrowings raised by Qantas Airways Ltd to finance the purchase of its 18th and 19th Boeing 747 series aircraft. In accordance with past practice, the guarantee is limited to $US94m or its equivalent in other currencies. This amount represents 80 per cent of the total purchase price of the two aircraft, spare parts and associated equipment. In essence the Bill is a routine piece of legislation and is not being opposed by the Opposition. This debate, however does provide an opportunity for general discussion on the activities and financial performance of Qantas as well as related civil aviation matters. Again, it is to this Government’s discredit that in introducing the Bill the

Minister delivered a scanty speech on its subject and provided no information to the Parliament on the financial results of Qantas or the financial contribution the two aircraft might make to Qantas. Likewise, he made no mention of the liquidity position of Qantas or its projected results. This is basic information associated with legislation of this type and ought to be available to the Parliament. Only the Minister is in a position to obtain the type of data required, particularly as the reduced international air fares to some parts of the world became available almost four months ago. The Opposition has noted that Aircraft 1 8 is to be of combi configuration, that is, of combined air cargo and passenger capacity. It is planned that this unit will be used in providing an improved air cargo service between Australia and Frankfurt as well as between Australia and the United States. Aircraft 19 is to be of standard passenger configuration and will be used to cope with peak summer traffic on the United Kingdom, Europe and United States routes.

Whilst the Minister mentioned that Qantas is to commence a conversion program of its existing all-Boeing 747 fleet to increase the passenger capacity of each aircraft to 455 seats, he gave no detail of the effect the conversion will have on the operating economics of each aircraft. Such detail would have assisted in assessing the impact the increased capacity will have on the financial performance of Qantas and whether it offered the prospect of either further reducing air fares or offsetting future cost increases. Let me make this point. The public discussion of the level of air fares, airline performance and operating results has been hampered by the continuing refusal of this Government to provide adequate information on the operation of our airlines. The result has been that the public perceives the airfare schedules, both domestic and international, as being anomalous and unnecessarily high. The Department of Transport has the information in its possession; it has the staff to prepare it for the Minister. Obviously the Government prefers to see public discussion on airline policy based on a lack of essential data, misinformation and slogans even on propaganda distributed by foreign airlines.

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bill.

Mr MORRIS:

– The Minister is not present, nor is the Acting Minister present; so if the Minister for Administrative Services who is at the table cares to respond I would welcome it. It would be a change. I ask the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay), that, in the national interest, in his reply and in future debates on airline measures he provide that adequate airline information to the Parliament.

I now turn to the proposed amalgamation of Trans-Australia Airlines arid Qantas Airways Ltd to which I referred recently. On 19 February 1979, the Minister for Transport in answer to Question on Notice 2931, which I asked on 21 November 1978, responded by dealing with a reference to paragraph 15.1.7 of Part 1 of the Domestic Air Transport Policy Review. It is a reference to an examination of the proposition that Trans-Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd should be merged. In reply, the Minister stated:

  1. 1 ) (2) and (3) The possible merger of TAA and Qantas was considered by the Administrative Review Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Bland, and the review of Transport Business Undertakings under the chairmanship of Sir James McNeill.

The Minister then refers to the terms of reference of both committees. But the substantial part of the answer goes on to say:

Details of when and where the committees deliberated are not readily available. Both reports including their findings, are confidential to the Government and will not be released.

Again that shows lack of information. Part (4) of the answer is the critical part. It states:

The Government has no intention of merging TAA and Qantas.

I learned a few weeks ago of the proposal for the amalgamation of Trans-Australia Airlines and Qantas that could feasibly operate from December 1980. This matter has been raised in a public forum on a number of occasions. Again it is up to the Minister for Administrative Services who is at the table to provide some clarification of the issue. I am not in a position to say that such a move would be in the best interests of air travellers and Australia or not. I, and the Opposition, have not had access to the relevant facts at this stage to form a considered view. I am aware that recently the New Zealand Government merged its international airline, Air New Zealand, with its domestic carrier, the National Airline Corporation or NAC. Similarly, some years ago the United Kingdom amalgamated its publicly owned airlines British Overseas Airways Corporation and British Empire Airlines to form the present airline BA or British Airways. I understand also the management and operational structures of TAA and Qantas are similar. However, because this Government has refused to release the reports of the 1976 Administrative Review Committee and 1976 McNeill Committee we do not know their recommendations and we do not know the basis for the Government’s decision notified to me on 19 February 1979 not to merge TAA and Qantas.

Those reports together with the merger proposal for December 1980 should be made available to the Parliament without further delay. It must be noted also that any move to amalgamate TAA with Qantas would have major implications for domestic airline policy. It may be that such an amalgamation could result in significant cost savings in Australian airline operations that could be passed onto air travellers in the form of lower air fares. That question cannot be resolved in the absence of the relevant information. What this Government fails to realise is that air travel is the basic form of long distance public passenger transport for Australians both internally and externally. As such it is imperative that every opportunity should be explored responsibly to reduce costs. The advantages of air travel should be available to as wide a range of Australians as possible and this is an objective to which the Australian Labor Party is steadfastly committed. The benefits of air travel must be available to the Australian community as a whole and not restricted to the so-called elite of our society as has been the practice of successive conservative governments during the past 30 years. Likewise, every opportunity should be explored to encourage overseas visitors to come to Australia thus providing a beneficial stimulus to our beleaguered tourist industry.

The recent introduction of reduced international air fares is a step in the right direction and at this early stage has brought about a substantial increase in visitors to Australia. We still need to be vigilant however to ensure that adequate seat capacity is made available to cope with the increased demand for travel to and from Australia. Preliminary figures for the first two months of operation show that the number of passengers to Australia from West Germany has increased by 70 per cent over last year, from the United States of America by 62 per cent, and from the United Kingdom by 40 per cent. Overall, short-term arrivals in Australia are up by 27 per cent while short term departures have increased by approximately 38 per cent, again when compared with the same period in 1978. 1 understand also the estimate for total short-term arrivals in Australia during 1979 is about 730,000 persons and that total short-term departures are anticipated to reach around 1.3 million to 1.4 million persons.

The 7 per cent increase in international air fares and air cargo rates approved by the Minister for Transport to operate from today will undoubtedly have some impact on the level of passenger and cargo traffic. It is fair to say that, as the 7 per cent increases affect all International Air Travel Association airline members, the impact of the increases should be relative to all other international destinations. A few weeks ago the shadow Minister for Immigration, the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) and I criticised the long delay in concluding lower air fares arrangements to Greece and Italy. Irrespective of the Minister for Transport’s denials at the time, it is fact that the unavailability of lower air fares to Greece and Italy was effectively discriminating against the two largest ethnic groups in Australia, that is, persons of Greek or Italian descent.

On 22 May the Minister for Transport announced the reduced fares that will be available to Greece from today. It must be stressed that persons who have come from Italy and Greece to settle in Australia have especially strong ties with those countries because of their unique extended family links and traditions. The continuing failure of the Government to conclude lower air fare arrangements with Italy has continued the discrimination against people of Italian descent. There are more than 700,000 Australians of Italian descent and, like other Australians, they want and are entitled to the benefit of lower cost air travel to their homeland. I want the Government to accelerate its negotiations with the Italian Government so that the lower cost air fares to Italy can be introduced as soon as possible.

It has been pointed out to me that persons of Italian descent residing in Darwin appear likely to miss out on the advantages that may become available to those in the capital cities. I ask the Government, through the Minister at the table, to give particular attention to those people of Italian descent now resident in Darwin who wish to visit Italy when the arrangements can be concluded. We should note also that reduced air fare agreements have been signed with the United Kingdom, the United States, West Germany, Canada, Greece, Yugoslavia, the Netherlands and New Zealand. It is imperative, therefore, that increased efforts be made by this Government to conclude an agreement with Italy. Similarly, increased effort from this Government is needed to develop lower air fare arrangements with the nations of the Middle East region. We have heard a lot about what lower air fares might do for Australia. But I think

Parliament’s attention should be drawn to some of the reports that have been coming back from West Germany, in particular. I refer to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 29 May by Philip Derriman in London called ‘Tourism boost loses its bounce’. I refer to a paragraph in which the spokesman for the German Travel Agents ‘ Association said:

  1. . the German travel industry dislike the fares–

That is, the new reduced fares- pardy because of their complex seasonal variations, but mainly because of the problems inherent in them for German travel companies trying to organise Australian package holidays.

The article goes on to quote one leading tour operator, Mr Helmut Voss, who said that the new fares were a ‘slap in the face for the German travel industry’. Further, a leading Frankfurt travel consultant specialising in Australian tours, Mr Manfred Dreke, said he believed German tourist traffic to Australia would rise by about 20 per cent this year although this would be on a low base figure of only 20,000 persons or so.

Mr Dreke is reported as being confident the total could rise fairly quickly to 50,000 or 60,000 if Australia could get the German travel industry on side but that he thought forecasts reported in Australia of up to 100,000 a year were ‘far too high- absolute rubbish’. I mention that because the view has been expressed to the Opposition and to the Government that the major reason that there is not more travel into Australia is that the foreign airlines do not spend sufficient funds on the generation or promotion of traffic in their home countries. The points made in that article by Philip Derriman are, firstly, the limitations that the German travel industry see upon travel to Australia; secondly, the fact that the travel industry itself does not like the form of fares that has been arranged. I will come back to that matter a little later on when I refer to the operating results of Lufthansa.

I want to turn now to the Government’s second international airline comprising the two Boeing 707 149-passenger airlines, purchased from Qantas by the Government and currently being fitted out as flying hotels for the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Honourable members are aware that the major function of the second international airline is to transport in luxury and absolute comfort the Prime Minister and Ministers on their regular and frequent international safaris. Earlier this year -

Mr Bourchier:

– They are being used to carry Air Force personnel; wake up to yourself.

Mr MORRIS:

– I quoted from the Press release of the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen). If you want to refute what he says, that is on your head. I will repeat it for you: Honourable members are aware that the major function of the second international airline is to transport in luxury and absolute comfort the Prime Minister and Ministers on their frequent and regular international safaris. Earlier this year, in what I believe to be an abuse of his powers, the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) authorised the payment from his advance for contingency purposes of $ 10.2m to Qantas. The payment was for the purchase of Qantas ‘s remaining two Boeing 707s, initial spares and related equipment. The excuse for this abuse of the Minister’s advance was that Qantas needed the money urgently. I will return to that later, but the fact is that the use of the Minister’s advance to pay Qantas for the flying hotels instead of putting through a special appropriation Bill was to prevent the Parliament voting on the expenditure as a separate item. There is no doubt in my mind that had he done so the special appropriations Bill would have been thrown out by the Senate.

Qantas revenue for the year ended 3 1 March 1978- the latest figures publicly availabletotalled $648,645,000. This Bill before the Parliament is to guarantee a borrowing by Qantas of $US94m. Qantas paid a dividend to the Government of $6.44m for 1977-78. Qantas revenue for this year is up considerably on last year’s revenue. I understand that a substantial operating profit was made by Qantas in the year ended 31 March 1979, the months in which the so-called urgent payment had to be made from the Advance to the Minister for Finance. The tremendous amounts of money involved exposed the transparency of the claim by the Minister for Finance that Qantas had to be paid urgentlymore so when we recognise also that Qantas had earlier planned to dispose of the Boeing 707s in May and June 1979, not in February as occurred.

Options on the 707s had been granted earlier to companies overseas, subject to government approval. However, once the Prime Minister decided that he wanted them for his use on his frequent international safaris, the options were overruled and payment rushed through to avoid a parliamentary vote on that item of expenditure as a single item of expenditure. Not only was the purchase of the aircraft a waste and an extravagance, but also I believe the manner in which Qantas was paid was an abuse of ministerial power.

Like many other large organisations, Qantas comes in for its share of criticism, some informed, some less than informed. Despite what some of its critics might say, I have found amongst Qantas travellers generally a great deal of affection and pride in its operation as Australia’s international flag carrier. Sir Freddie Laker has described Qantas as an ‘international airline par excellence’. That is not to say that Qantas is perfect. In fact, from time to time people have complained to me- I have no reason to disbelieve them- that sometimes Qantas, because it is the Australian international flag carrier, appears to take people for granted. I do not think that is good enough. Where those instances occur, certainly it should be brought to the attention of the Minister for Transport and certainly to the attention of Qantas. In the Opposition’s view Qantas, as a publicly owned transport enterprise, should operate efficiently and competitively.

The airline has shown that with tighter and more efficient management it can operate profitably and competitively. Last financial year it showed a pre-tax profit of almost $ 16m and paid a dividend of $6.44m. This result showed a complete reversal of the previous losing trend in the previous year, 1975-76, when Qantas lost $26m. In 1977-78 Qantas carried 1.6 million passengers, a decline of one per cent on 1976-77 and the revenue load factor fell from 62 per cent to 59.8 per cent. A calculation of those figures shows a profit of approximately $10 per passenger carried. Qantas has shown that it is prepared to take the initiative on such issues as lower fares. In saying that I rely on what was said by the Minister for Transport. It has advocated cheaper fares between Australian capital cities for international passengers and domestic passengers. The latter suggestion the Government has obviously rejected. In this respect it is giving a lead to the domestic airlines, because apart from tinkering with the basic fare structure the major domestic airlines, at the Government’s instigation, have shown a marked reluctance to introduce lower air fares for the benefit of all Australians on a year round basis.

On the subject of Qantas I refer to the Air Navigation Regulation 106A about which the Minister for Transport had so much to say last year, particularly in his well publicised raid upon the premises of ACTU-Jetset. No subject could have received more extensive publicity than that raid. It was the subject of Dorothy Dix questions in the House, the subject of statements in the House and the subject of Press releases by the Minister. It received a great deal of other national media attention. Yet, some months ago when I asked the Minister a question on notice about what other travel organisations had been visited by his raiders, Commonwealth Police and Department of Transport officers exercising their responsibilities under Air Navigation Regulation 106A, the answer came back that seven organisations had been visited in the period since April 1976 when the new regulations came into force. Strangely, the Minister for Transport, after the great public campaign against ACTU-Jetset, refused to name the seven travel organisations upon grounds which I can only regard as spurious, namely, that the disclosure of the names of the seven travel organisations may in some way adversely affect the operations of the travel organisations concerned. I think it is a very reasonable conclusion to draw that a distinct partiality has been exercised by the Minister for Transport in this issue. I believe he has a clear responsibility to the people of Australia to provide the names of the other seven travel organisations that were raided by Commonwealth Police, sometimes in association with the Department of Transport officers. I turn now to freight. We know that aircraft 1 8 will offer an improved cargo service between Australia and Germany. Combi aircraft were added to the Qantas fleet in October 1977, improving cargo capacity and allowing many more commodities to be shipped by air. The combi aircraft can carry 28 tonnes of cargo compared with 12 tonnes on the Boeing 747B passenger aircraft and 5 tonnes on the former Boeing 707 aircraft. In 1977-78 Qantas carried 12,600 tonnes of Australian exports and in the first eight months of this year 11,223 tonnes- a 32.1 per cent increase over the previous year. Undoubtedly air cargo revenue will form an increasing proportion of total airline revenue. There has been some criticism of Qantas air cargo rates and lack of air cargo capacity, especially for low value, highly priced, sensitive cargoes such as chilled meat and eggs. Two basic problems to be faced are the restrictions of existing policies and the imbalance of export-import traffic. There appears to be greater opportunity for the consolidation of cargoes.

The recent International Civil Aviation Policy Review found that in non-scheduled operations the existing rules relating to split charters have proved to be too restrictive in terms of commodities, size limitations and the number of consignments. It respect of scheduled operations the Review considered the existing freight rate structure to be constrained in scope, that the lack of unit load rates out of Australia was hindering development and that rate innovation was needed. The proposals of the International Civil Aviation Policy Review relating to freight require careful and critical examination by the Parliament and the industry to ensure that the decisions made will maximise Australia’s access to international trade.

But what is the position in respect of the current years operations of Qantas and what prospect does the future hold? Regrettably the Minister for Transport told us nothing about these matters in his second reading speech. Instead we have to turn to the Australian Financial Review and a report by leading aviation writer Ali Cromie of an interview with the General Manager of Qantas, Mr Keith Hamilton. In that interview Mr Hamilton pointed to some of the changes that face international aviation operators out of Australia. He mentioned the possibility of Qantas charter nights from February 1980, the problems associated with meeting peak capacity demands to Europe, and the fact that Qantas was in the process of arranging two ‘ additional nights to Europe this month. He expressed concern at the continuing predominance of traffic out of Australia and the capacity imbalance that this caused. Allied to that difficulty was the fact that in some periods there were heavy bookings out of Australia with low return load factors.

Mr Hamilton indicated also the possibility of alterations becoming necessary to the existing seasonal fare structures. It is interesting to compare Mr Hamilton’s views with the recent comments made by the Chairman of Lufthansa, Dr Culmann. The West German Government holds more than 74 per cent of the capital of Lufthansa, thus the airline is effectively Germany’s national international flag carrier. I wish to quote from an article which appeared in the Australian Financial Review of 22 May 1977 headed: ‘Low fares, fuel costs nag Lufthansa hopes’. I again refer to some of the comments within Australia about the level of international air fares. I said that the Australian Labor Party is committed to a regime of lower air fares which is as responsible as possible. It is interesting to look at what Dr Culmann has said. In his report he refers to the likely results for Lufthansa. The report reads:

Despite price rises due to take effect this month, fares were still artificially low, Dr Culmann said.

This was aggravated by price cutting on some US and Australian routes.

Earlier in the report, in reference to fuel supplies for aircraft, he says:

In the first four months of this year, air fuel prices had risen by more than 40 per cent and the severe shortage of fuel had also hit Lufthansa.

There was no point in winning additional landing rights in US cities … if there was not sufficient fuel available for regular flights.

That gives some indication of the problems faced by an international carrier operating in Australia. It also gives a little more balance to the global scene of international airline operations, as opposed to that which is put forward by particular sectors of industry within Australia. I am not saying that either argument is right or wrong, but we sorely need, as I said earlier, the Government to produce information in relation to airline operations so that we can have a discussion in Australia that is based on fact, that is based on rationality, that is based on possibilities and not on speculation and exaggerations. I refer again to the German travel scene. I ask the Acting Minister for Transport or the Minister who replies to the debate later to direct his attention to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 24 May 1979 written by Philip Derriman, which is headed: ‘Qantas wins German ire, ban threat’. It goes on to report that Qantas had stumbled into a dispute with the German travel industry because it was marketing holiday packages to Australia. I believe that on an international basis there are traditional and established arrangements in the marketing of holiday travel out of West Germany on an international basis. It is a little difficult to understand that Qantas would tumble into such a situation about which the newspaper report stated:

Qantas ‘s mistake- apparently made unwittingly- was to begin offering Germans its own Australian holidays a few weeks ago. This struck a raw nerve with the German travel industry, which insists that airlines should leave the holiday business to tour companies.

The Qantas office in Frankfurt has now been served notice by the German Travel Agents Association to stop advertising the Qantas holidays and to withdraw its brochures by June 1 .

I think that article needs an explanation by the Minister, firstly in connection with Qantas ‘s tumbling into that kind of situation, but probably more importantly as to what are the real prospects for marketing Australia within Germany as a desirable holiday destination, particularly in the light of the present state of the Australian tourist industry, and particularly in the light of expectations that have been put forward by certain sectors of the travel industry in Australia.

As I pointed out when I commenced my speech, the Bill is a routine measure. It is not opposed by the Opposition and I hope that in his response the Acting Minister for Transport will give some explanation on the points that I have raised. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill.

Mr DOBIE:
Cook

-I would like to speak to a few of the subjects which the previous speaker, the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris), brought before the House. Firstly, I am pleased to see the Acting Minister for Transport (Mr Macphee) in the House. He has come from a Cabinet committee meeting to hear the debate and I think it should be recorded that he has been sitting in the House throughout most of the speech of the previous speaker. Secondly, I would also like to say that the allegations that the Government is being anti-ethnic towards the Greek and Italian communities are just so much nonsense. It would have been interesting if the previous speaker had decided to bring himself up to date. For example, I have reason to believe that the arrangement between Sydney, Darwin and Greece was concluded and agreed upon today. It would have been rather nice if the shadow Minister for Transport -

Mr Morris:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member is misrepresenting what I said. My remarks were specifically directed to Australia and Italy. I am aware of the arrangements between Australia and Greece.

Mr DOBIE:

– I am sorry but I was under the impression that the previous speaker had mentioned Greece. If I have made a mistake, I apologise to the honourable member. I would also mention that to say we are not negotiating in respect of the Italian situation does not represent the true position. We have been negotiating with the Italians since October. It has not been a case of putting off the negotiations from one week to the next. They have been serious and hard negotiations. In the few minutes available to me before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, I would like to emphasise to all honourable members the airline policies of this Government. There is concern shown that the members of the Australian public get cheaper air fares. I think that the success of the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) during the last year indicates what has been achieved in this important field. A further point that has to be borne in mind in any discussion is that no responsible Australian Government can enter into negotiations with any country in any part of the world in which Qantas will be disadvantaged. We do not have to love Qantas or travel with the airline all the time. But we have to accept the fact that it is our national carrier. We have an immense investment in Qantas. Any Minister or spokesman for this Government who was not aware of his responsibilities in this regard would be acting with a degree of irresponsibility that I could not support.

The shadow Minister for Transport mentioned the Boeing 707s being acquired from Qantas by the Royal Australian Air Force. He had every reason to mention them because I see that the Minister for Transport mentioned them in his second reading speech. Let me repeat again and again that 80 per cent of the usage of the 707s that have come into the VIP fleet will be for defence purposes. Eighty per cent of their usage will be for defence purposes.

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– That is quite right.

Mr DOBIE:

– The Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence confirms that. This 80 per cent will not include usage in collecting refugees, as announced by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) this week; nor will it include usage for overseas personalities such as British royalty, heads of state from friendly countries and other official guests who come to this country. There is a total misunderstanding- I will be generous and say that it is merely a misunderstanding at this stage- by the Opposition as to the purpose of the planes. Let the members of the public who are listening to this speech at the moment be aware that for an infinitely small amount of their time these 707s will be used for the purposes of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). That should be clearly known, clearly stated and clearly understood by the Australian public, even if it is misunderstood by the Federal Opposition in this Parliament today.

The Bill we are discussing today does not cover the use of the 707s or the airline agreements. These matters are covered in other Orders of the Day . The title of the Bill is the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1979. Its stated purpose is to authorise the Federal Treasurer to guarantee borrowings raised by Qantas Airways to finance the purchase of the eighteenth and nineteenth Boeing 747 series aircraft. It is the clear understanding of this House that Qantas can and does borrow money in its own right. However, this Bill is not for the purpose of approving the amount for the purchase of the aircraft; nor does it involve any department of the Federal Government in the actual direct expenditure of money. The House clearly understands this too. However, in providing Federal governmental guarantees to a loan which is not described to the House, we are establishing a very large possible financial commitment for the future.

All we know and all we have been told is that the guarantee will be limited to 80 per cent of the total purchase price of these two aircraft and associated equipment and that this represents $US94m or the equivalent in other currencies. I must lodge my objection to this, just as I did in a similar debate last year when we went through the same exercise for the purchase of aircraft 16 and 17. If we are to guarantee a loan I believe Qantas should be made to provide for the information of honourable members, firstly, the purchase price of each of the B747s under discussion; secondly, the purchase price of the spare parts being bought; and thirdly, the purchase price of the associated equipment being acquired. It is fascinating to know that plane No. 1 8 will be for use on the routes between Australia and Frankfurt and across the Pacific to the United States of America. It is grand to note that 747 No. 19 will be used for peak services to the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States. That is fascinating information but it is remarkably vague as to what the future plans of Qantas may be. I shall return to this matter at a later time.

If the House is to approve the loans, not only should we know the price of the equipment being bought, and in some detail, but also we should be told in precise terms where the loan money is being obtained, in what currencies it is being obtained and what rates of interest will apply. We do not know the form of the loan which will be approved in principle today. It is most disappointing. The formality of the Treasurer being authorised to guarantee an unspecified loan of $US94m under the cloud of such a lack of knowledge by the House is an empty formality. When I raised this matter last year a stony silence was the stern response from the Minister. If no information is to be provided about the loans or the purchase price of the aircraft, spare parts and associated equipment- whatever that means- on the grounds that it would be revealing commercial information of advantage to other competing purchasers of Boeing 747 aircraft, let that be said. Let us determine whether we should go through with this charade of seeking parliamentary approval.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr DOBIE:

-Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was referring to the fact that we had not been given enough information on the financial side of the operations of Qantas. Honourable members will recall that I had mentioned that if Qantas were maintaining this silence for commercial reasons, of not letting its competitors know, then this should be said, so that the Parliament did not have to go through the charade of seeking parliamentary approval. I think we have to determine whether Qantas, in its avid desire to be selectively self-governing, should seek its internal loans on its own commercial standing without government guarantees. In case some honourable members opposite might consider my views on this subject as being somewhat radical, coming from someone on this side, I would point out that the information which I am seeking- the man who is to follow me in this debate will be very much aware of it- in this debate has been traditionally supplied to this House. It is only in the last year or two that we have not had this information when similar Bills were presented to the Parliament.

I ask the Minister for Transport to include this information in all future Bills relating to aircraft purchases. I ask the Minister: Is the form of the Federal Government guarantee which this Bill is to authorise available to non-governmental airline operations in Australia? If not, then why do the private operators not have this negotiating advantage when seeking overseas loans for aircraft purchases? Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be aware that a government guarantee is worth a sizeable amount of interest when one seeks loans on the overseas money market. We must remember that when one seeks loans in the American market government guarantees are very real. They are very real in America, if not the practice in Australia. I think the non-government airlines do have a disadvantage in seeking loans without government guarantee. As a former banker, I am disturbed by the lack of information provided. I believe it is something that should be investigated by the Minister and a determination reached as to whether this type of Bill should be presented by the Minister for Transport on behalf of the Treasurer or whether, as I believe it should be, the Treasurer should come into the House himself seeking a direct authorisation, with the full disclosure of information, that is financial information.

I am generous enough to suggest that Qantas has nothing to be secretive about, but I fear that in coming to the House with no information it leaves itself open to such an accusation by less generous people. As we are aware, these airlines loans Bills have become the opportunity to talk on the Government’s airline and related policies. However, I would point out that Government Business orders of the day Nos 42, 61 and 67 should be the time for such discussion. It would be a fair comment for all of us to say that the managers of the business in this House seem to be working against such opportunities being made available. I would like to move on to a few comments about the usage and composition of the Qantas Boeing 747 fleet. I would like to take this opportunity of personally congratulating the Minister for Transport for the great effort he put into the negotiations for cheaper air fares for passengers coming to and going from Australia. It was a gargantuan task and there can be no doubt that it has brought cheaper travel to Australians seeking to go overseas. The Australian public has cause to thank the Minister for Transport.

I do have some concern, however, as to what the new arrangements are doing to encourage non-Australian residents to come to Australia to utilise the tourists facilities in Australia. But with a lack of statistics on just who the air travellers are, it is not possible to draw any conclusions. I have no doubt that the Minister is alert to this problem and regards as important the matter of getting Qantas and the other airlines which are participating in the cheap fares to co-operate and to provide those statistics. The shadow Minister for Transport made mention of the type of passengers now being carried. With respect, the figures that he cited still do not go as far as I would like them to go. I know he would agree with me on this point. I think we should be showing whether the increased volume of travellers to and from Australia are Australian residents. I believe this more sophisticated data should be requested in firmer tones from all the airlines, including Qantas.

If cheap air fares are going to be very successful- as they look like they are going to be- one can only hope that the board of Qantas has taken the right measures to order more planes to cope with its future needs. I look forward to an announcement that Qantas has acted with due efficiency, that it has not lost sight of the need for an even greater expansion of the Qantas fleet, and that it has the best possible priority listing with the manufacturers of the 747 for aircraft No. 20 and beyond. Last year I was critical of the apparent lack of planning by the Qantas board for new routings. For a long time I have expressed concern that Qantas is limiting itself more and more to the main routes and is moving away from the sense of enterprise and spirit that had been the reason for the early success of this famous airline operator. However, I took some hope when recently I saw the Chairman of Qantas give a European-type embrace to one of his fellow directors by kissing him on both cheeks during a television program. Sir John Egerton seemed duly embarrassed, but there were some of us who wondered whether, in view of this new public display of affection and attitude by the new directors of Qantas, there were not some new routes in the air as far as Qantas was concerned.

I believe we are very fortunate in having the Qantas operation. It was my good fortune to travel from London recently on a Qantas flight. I would like to pay a tribute to the three cabin crews who serviced the people on that plane. There was a time in recent years when Qantas was regarded as having perhaps grown a little stale in its service. I was delighted to notice within the last few weeks how fresh and how good its service, in fact, was. We are fortunate, too, in that we have so many professionals working for the organisation. I would, however, reiterate the criticism which I made last year. Although we have an international airline like Qantas- I remind honourable members that Qantas was the first round-the-world airline- we no longer have a Qantas plane flying across the Atlantic, over the Indian Ocean or across the South Pacific. One begins to wonder, when one looks at the equipment problems with regard to New Zealand, and as we move into the use of the efficient 747 aircraft, whether we should not be encouraging Qantas to diversify in its future equipment needs.

Mr Dawkins:

-The use of DC10s

Mr DOBIE:

– One would immediately think of the use of the very successful airbus operation. One has to consider, when one mentions these subjects, that the operation into Wellington from Australian airports is still the source of much embarrassment. I think it is a great shame that the Qantas airline has not grappled with this problem in co-operation with Air New Zealand.

Mr Dawkins:

– Of course they can.

Mr DOBIE:

– The honourable member for Fremantle does not know, with due respect, the Wellington situation. DC 10s cannot land in Wellington. That is one of the problems. I am sorry, but the honourable member’s information is not right. If we continue to buy only 747s, which are perfect planes for using on the main routes, we have a problem in that Qantas will not be able to experiment. I put it to the House and to the Minister that the problem of deciding who shall carry whom across the Indian Ocean is something that Qantas has to face very quickly. At present, the problem of getting to southern Africa is in the hands of one airline only. The problems of getting to eastern Africa do not involve Qantas. I put it to the Board of Qantas that it should consider flying to Mauritius and Nairobi. If it has some problem about flying into southern Africa- God knows what that problem could be- it is about time that its members set to, stopped kissing each other on television, and worked out some of the problems that face them.

I support the acquisition of more 747B aircraft. I wish that more excitement and spirited discussion were forth coming from the Qantas Board about what it might do in the future. It is nonsense to think that we are not getting any comments from the Board’s members about what the future tourist trade to Australia will be. I commend to Sir Lenox Hewitt and his worthy Board members the suggestion that they should now be giving thought to where they should go in the future apart from the main lines to London, various European ports and the American ports. I support the Bill. I sincerely hope the Minister will decide that in future such Bills will be treated as financial Bills and that on separate occasions more opportunity will be given to discuss airline policy in this country.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-The Bill before the House is the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill, which provides a guarantee to permit Qantas Airways Limited to borrow $US94m for the purchase of its 18th and 19th 747 aircraft. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. As the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) has said, it gives members of the Parliament the opportunity of saying a few words about the affairs of Qantas and the loan arrangements of the Government. The loan of $US94m will now be added to the more than $4,000m that this Government has borrowed overseas in the period in which it has been in office since 13 December 1975. This is the Government that was so critical of the Labor Party endeavouring to borrow a similar amount to carry out the development of this country. I draw those few facts to the attention of honourable members.

I join with the honourable member for Cook in expressing my regret and disapproval at the fact that honourable members in this place are not informed of the details of the loan. We have not got any information. The very short second reading speech of the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) consisted of two pages typed in double spacing. It gave us the briefest possible information about the operations of Qantas Airways Ltd and why the Parliament should approve this loan. No detail was given to us about the period of the loan or the rate of interest. At one time this sort of information was made available to the Parliament. At one time we knew that the loan was to be an EximBank loan over a period of 10 years with so many repayment periods. The rate of interest was given as well as the amount of money which had to come from other sources.

Mr Dawkins:

– When was that last done?

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-This Government did it. This is the information that should be brought to our attention. We should also be given information on where the Government is going with its airline pricing arrangements and what the future prospects are with regard to fuel. I will deal with that matter in greater detail at a later stage. I believe it is important that the Parliament knows where it is going, particularly in the development of an airline. I was interested in the comments of the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris), the Opposition’s shadow Minister for Transport, on the amalgamation of Trans-Australia Airlines and Qantas. If the Governor-General and the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has not made that monstrous decision and organised that conspiracy which brought about the downfall of the Labor Government in 1975, the two airlines would have been amalgamated by this time.

At that stage I had offered Sir Donald Anderson, who was then the Chairman of Qantas, the position of Chairman of both Qantas and Trans-Australia Airlines. This was to have been the lead up to the amalgamation of the two airlines. After I had consulted with Sir Donald and discussed the whole project with him, he agreed to accept the dual appointment. Regrettably, at that stage Sir Frederick Scherger, who was a great chairman, had just resigned because of age and we had to appoint a new chairman. The possibility of the amalgamation of the two airlines was discussed, and Sir Donald agreed with it. He concurred fully with the proposition and accepted the dual appointment. Unfortunately, before the decision could be taken to Cabinet, ratified and implemented, Sir Donald, on medical advice, resigned not only from the position of Chairman of TAA but also as Chairman of Qantas. As we now know, he passed away a very short time later. I ask the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris), as spokesman for the Labor Party on transport matters, to pursue this point because there would be definite economies for the Australian airline industry in the amalgamation of the two airlines. Certainly that was the opinion of the Department of Transport at that time.

I was surprised that the honourable member for Cook talked about preferential treatment being given to Qantas as a government airline when private airlines do not get this guarantee. I assume that when an honourable member comes into this place to make a speech he has done a little work to make sure that his facts are correct. Honourable members will recall that earlier this year we approved a similar arrangement for Ansett Airlines of Australia to borrow overseas about $1 1.12m, I think, to purchase the 727-200 series aircraft. That money probably finished up in Associated Securities Limited, its finance company. At the same time, because of the foreign currency position, TAA used its own money rather than borrowing the cheap money available from overseas. This is one of the matters on which I think the Minister for Transport should be present to comment. I draw attention to the fact that the Minister is absent when we are discussing important transport legislation and the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) is in the chamber in his place. With all respect to him, even though advisers from the Department of Transport are present- even though they are good men- I think it is the responsibility of the Minister for Transport to be present to give us the information we require.

In 1977-78 exchange losses on loans were $15,831,000, and that was the reason why TAA elected to use its own reserves to purchase its 727-200 series aircraft late last year. No explanation has been given as to why Qantas is not following a similar procedure. Is it in a position to continue sustaining losses in excess of $ 15m each year, based on exchange rates? The 1977-78 annual report shows how Qantas has suffered. In previous years it made profits- I suppose that ‘gains’ is the correct term. In fact, in every year it has made some sort of minor adjustment. But in the last two years it has lost over $23m as a result of exchange rates. No explanation of the position has been given to us. Does Qantas expect that problem to be overcome or will it continue? When an airline is making a limited profit, as Qantas is at present, it cannot continue to sustain those sorts of exchange rate losses. I hope that some explanation will be given by the Minister for Productivity in his reply as to how the Government views the situation and, most importantly, how Qantas views it. Can it continue to suffer these losses as a result of exchange rates?

The question of cheap air fares is always one of interest, but before I deal with that matter I wish to refer to aviation fuel. One is always reading about this matter in the newspapers. Only just recently- on 24 May- the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) said in part, in answer to a question about fuel costs, as recorded at page 2324 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 24 May:

In the meantime we have to try to ensure that our existing reserves of oil are extended Tor as long as possible. Oil is a wasting resource. Therefore, Australia must do all that is possible to encourage exploration. We must look at all possible means of conserving the oil that we have available and we must intensify our efforts to look for alternative forms of fuel and energy.

Further, in the Australian Financial Review of 23 May there is an article on the shortage of oil which states in part:

Amid calls for global oil rationing, the United States and other Western Governments were warned yesterday that the present world oil shortage may already have condemned them to a prolonged economic downturn, with rising unemployment and high inflation that would last until the middle of the next decade.

The warning came from Emile Van Lennep, the Dutchborn Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development . . .

In the Australian Financial Review of Thursday, 24 May, there is an article entitled ‘Oil Shockwaves Spill to Australia’, which reads in part:

There is a strong possibility that Australia will face a shortage of refined petroleum products in the second-half of this year as a result of the world oil shortage.

In the Daily Commercial News, which is another newspaper specialising to a great extent in transport, there is a similar type of warning. So in those newspapers and in that Hansard we have the warning about the position with regard to petrol and fuel oil. We have seen what has happened in Australia. In April of this year, there was a 47 per cent increase in the price of Avgas. Even though Avtur is quite OK at present, the question is: What is the position with regard to continuity of supply? There is nothing in the Minister’s statement, that brief two-page, double-spaced typed speech which gives us any indication, either from Qantas or from the Government, as to what is the position in regard to continuity of supply. Just recently in the Press, the Chairman of Qantas is reported as saying that on one occasion Qantas had to pay $1.10 a gallon for fuel at an overseas port. When we realise that it is only a matter of about three or four years since Qantas was buying fuel at 12c a gallon here in Australia, I think we have to start looking very closely at what is the position regarding our spending $94m on Qantas and its subsequent exchange loss to which I have referred. The accumulated long term debt of Qantas has increased in the last 10 years from $88,594,000 to $285,692,000-quite a substantial increase. Revenue, has not increased at the same rate for the same period. In 1 968-69, revenue amounted to $171,491,000 whilst in 1977-78 it amounted to $648,645,000. So the accumulated debt is increasing at a much greater rate than the increase in revenue.

We have a fuel problem and we should not try to fool ourselves that fossil fuel is there to be used in the quantities in which it was used 10 years ago. We cannot ignore the statements that have been made by world authorities such as Mr Van Lennep of the OECD. He has issued a warning that, as a result of oil price increases, in the next decade we could well find ourselves in a serious economic position. So these warnings cannot be ignored. Why can we not get an answer or a statement from the Minister as to just what is the real position so far as fuel is concerned.

Furthermore, we have not been given any idea of what Qantas ‘s program will be. I noted that the honourable member for Cook, with apparently great pride and joy, said that Qantas was the first round-the-world airline. Of course it was, but what he did not tell people is that the American leg of it was costing about $4m a year. Qantas was losing over $4m a year. So if the honourable member’s pride and joy is worth $4m a year, he can pay it, but I do not think that an airline should pay it. That loss was being incurred purely and simply because the Americans would not allow Qantas to pick up new traffic from the time it landed on the West Coast of America. Qantas could pick up only those passengers whom it had brought to the West Coast or whom it had dropped off on the East Coast on the way to the United Kingdom. Qantas could not pick up any fresh traffic. That was a loss that Qantas could not continue to incur and I believe that the right decision was taken to discontinue that route and a number of others on which Qantas was losing money, such as the route to Mexico. Qantas has to be treated as a commercial undertaking. Let us forget all these emotions about Qantas being the first round-the-world airline. If it costs $4m in the process, it is no damn good and it should be wrapped up as soon as possible. That is what the Labor Party did about it because it was not in the economic interests of the airline to go on doing that sort of thing.

I should like to hear from the Minister what the airline is going to do in regard to regional services around Australia and to New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Djakarta and to those close handy operations where it is not possible to operate 747s. Has any consideration been given to purchasing a couple of, say, A300s which are the most cost-efficient aircraft in the world today? They are very much suited to that type of operation. Incidentally, the local domestic airlines are pulling the wool over the Minister’s eyes here by preventing the introduction of this type of aircraft- these wide bodied, short range jets- into Australian domestic services. We get all this humbug about reducing domestic airfares, while the introduction of these aircraft is one way in which those air fares could be reduced. Of course

Ansett does not like the idea and, if Sir Reg does not like it, the Government does not like it. They are the plain facts of the matter. What Reg wants is what the Government does. The Government is like a puppet at the end of the Ansett string because when Ansett slings as much to a political Party as he has to yours, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the Liberal Party and the National Country Party and to the Australian Democratic Labor Party -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Do not drag the Chair into this.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I will try not to drag the Chair into this matter, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was just associating you as a member of the Liberal Party. I was just drawing attention to that fact. I pass up that point, sir. But I should like to hear something from the Acting Minister for Transport as to what is Qantas ‘s policy in regard to introducing new types of aircraft when 747s cannot be operated. I think that Qantas should have to give explanations, just the same as the domestic airlines have to give explanations.

I now come to this question of cheap air fares. We have heard a lot about cheap fares and what a great job the Minister for Transport has done in this regard. Cheap fares were something that had to follow the introduction of the 747. The 747 can carry 500 people or, at a pinch, as the aircraft showed during the aftermath of Cyclone Tracy, it can carry over 600 people. I am not talking in terms of domestic flights carrying such numbers but rather about an aeroplane that can carry up to 500 people. They have to get the people to fill those seats. There is only one way in which they will get people to fill those seats and that is by introducing cheap air fares. So as surely as night follows day, cheap air fares had to follow because, if Qantas did not fill those seats, Qantas would lose money, as we saw happen with discounting practices some few years ago when Qantas lost about $lm a week. There was only one way in which to fill those seats and that was by offering cheap air fares. That ties together with my earlier point whether we are going to have this sort of operation. What are the economics of it? What are the national implications of it? Do cheap air fares mean large numbers of aeroplanes using large quantities of fuel? Those are the questions to which the Department, the airline and the Minister have to give an answer to this Parliament.

Let us look at the cheap fares. As I say, they were something that was going to be introduced irrespective of which party was in office at the time. I express some sympathy for the Minister as far as arrangements with the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations are concerned. I should like to know what deals were made because we know that deals were made. In the days when American Airlines were permitted to come into Australia, it was done on a Country Party deal. The deal was that if Australia allowed American Airlines to come into Australia and overloaded the route at that time the Americans would buy more sugar and more beef. What is the deal as far as the ASEAN countries are concerned? Is it part and parcel of a foreign affairs exercise? What was the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) doing in all these negotiations which are purely and simply a transport matter?

We of the Opposition want the Government to come clean, to tell us what the deal is. Then we will have a better understanding as to why the ASEAN protests were taken into consideration. After all, the traffic is Australian people. It is Australians who are travelling to Germany and other countries where cheap air fares have been introduced. It is the right of the national carriers of the countries involved to carry people from their own countries. If Singapore Airlines or airlines from the ASEAN countries want to come into Australia they should fill their planes with people from their own country. I draw the attention of honourable members to the position some years ago when Jet About Tours operated between Australia and Singapore and later to Kuala Lumpur. Ninety-three per cent of the people travelling on those planes were Australians. The ASEAN airlines carried half of the traffic but they got all of the tourist dollars in the form of accommodation. Australian tourists are exploited through the accommodation that is provided in those countries. Even today Australians travelling through Singapore are being exploited at the airport shops and also in the money market because they do not get a fair exchange rate when they cash travellers cheques. Australians are being exploited all the way along the line. I would like the Government to tell us what is in the agreement and what went on behind the scenes. Give us the facts and let us have the truth of what is going on. The ASEAN countries have a problem -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

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

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity and Acting Minister for Transport · Balaclava · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a response -

Mr Bryant:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Just a moment. I find this most difficult. If the Minister speaks, he, of course, winds up the debate. I am sorry; I reverse my ruling. I call the Minister.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I raise a point of order. The Minister indicated that he was winding up the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Minister can say what he likes.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes, he did. He said that he was winding up the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! This matter is in the hands of the Chair. I am informing the House that the Minister does not wind up the debate.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– He said he was.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I call the Minister.

Mr Morris:

– I raise a point of order. Can you inform me, Mr Deputy Speaker, which Standing Order provides that the Minister speaking does not close the debate?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Chair is not here to quote the Standing Orders. The Chair is saying that it is not the Minister’s Bill and therefore he does not close the debate.

Mr Morris:

– I asked a question of the Chair. With great respect, I did not ask to be shouted at. Can you inform me, Mr Deputy Speaker, under what Standing Order the Minister does not terminate the debate when he speaks in the second reading debate?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-If the honourable member had listened he would have got his answer.

Mr MACPHEE:

-The Opposition members can please themselves. They have asked some questions. I will give them some answers or I will sit down and close the debate. They can please themselves whether they want the answers to the questions.

Mr Bryant:

– Are you going to gag it when you sit down?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr MACPHEE:

-The honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) in his speech -

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I raise a point of order. Will further opportunity be given to Opposition members in the rotation of speakers? Will members of the Opposition be afforded the call after the Minister speaks?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-If the honourable will resume his seat I will give him the answer from the point of view of the Chair. The Chair will call people as they rise. The Chair is not responsible for what happens after that. I call the Minister.

Mr MACPHEE:

-The honourable member for Shortland referred to the inadequacy of information on the finance and operations of Qantas Airways Ltd. I would point out that the Qantas financial year ends on 31 March and the Qantas financial report is tabled in this House. Last year the report was tabled in the Budget session and it is expected that this year the report will be tabled at about the same time. On the matter of the availability of other information regarding Qantas, such as that contained in the McNeill report, the honourable member should be aware that the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) has repeatedly said that the report will not be released because it contains information of a commercially confidential nature which, if released, could, in regard to Qantas, place it in a commercially disadvantageous position in relation to its competitors. The Opposition should not want to have it both ways. Each of the Opposition spokesmen on transport have said that Qantas has to be treated as a commercial operation. We cannot have a strong, efficient, competitive national airline- which were the words of the honourable member for Shortland- if at the same time we ensure that its competitors are given a commercial advantage on a plate. That would be the effect of providing publicly the information which is being sought. The predecessor of the Minister for Transport adopted precisely the same policy.

In regard to the matter of Italian air fares, the honourable member for Shortland still does not seem to appreciate that the negotiations which were necessary following the announcement of Australia’s new international civil aviation policy could not be undertaken simultaneously. The Minister for Transport has explained this many times and he has also explained that significant advances have been made in the negotiations. Many examples of that have been mentioned in the debate. There are now cheap fares to the United Kingdom, West Germany, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Greece, Canada, the United States of America and New Zealand. Negotiations began with Italy last November. Whilst the Italian authorities agree with the broad approach of Australia’s policy, unfortunately it has not yet been possible to finalise agreements on detailed fare types. It is hoped that a solution will soon be reached which will provide low fares on this most important route and provide an enhanced opportunity for members of our Australian-Italian community to visit their former homeland and to have their friends and relatives visit them here. As the Minister for Transport said as recently as 6 May, Australia is anxious to finalise a low fares agreement with Italy and the Government certainly rejects any implications that it is discriminating against travellers between the two countries. Today the Government announced fare concessions between Darwin and Athens, and we certainly are hoping to arrange similar concessions for travel between Darwin and Italy.

In regard to the matter of the holiday packages from West Germany which was raised by the honourable member for Shortland, let me enlighten him as to the factual situation. Qantas has had its people in West Germany exploring with the travel industry the possibility of introducing fare types which would assist the industry in marketing group travel to Australia. This proposal is also receiving attention in the Department of Transport and the Department of Industry and Commerce, and I am hopeful that in the near future concrete proposals can be finalised and put to the West German Government for consideration.

The honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) commented that no information was provided on such items as the amount of the loan, where it is being obtained, the form of the loan and the rate of interest. The borrowings are not to exceed $US94m or its equivalent in other currencies. This is 80 per cent of the total project cost. The proposed legislation will assist Qantas in its negotiations for these borrowings. The negotiations, yet to be completed, will cover such items as the amount, the selection of the lender, the form of the loan and the rate of interest. Arrangements for the borrowings are then subject to the Treasurer’s approval and adequate mortgage security being provided to the Commonwealth by Qantas.

Without consuming the time of the House I do feel somewhat obliged to refer again for the umpteenth time on the pan of the Government to the red herring of the purchase of the Boeing 707s for the Royal Australian Air Force. I point out that on 13 December 1978 the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) issued a statement which made it abundantly clear that the weight of security advice left the Government with no alternative. That statement said:

With increasing urgency the Government has been advised that the practice of Australia’s Prime Ministers travelling overseas on commercial aircraft was a grave risk not only to the Prime Minister, but to the passengers who had to share the commercial flights.

That was on 13 December 1978. Then on 5 June 1979 the Minister for Defence presented to this House a most detailed statement. I see no reason to repeat at length the information that was given but it is fair to report to the House that those problems of security and the uses to which the honourable member for Cook referred and to which the 707s will be put were major considerations. There is a crucial need for security. We do have in those two aircraft a valuable defence asset and it is a fact that Qantas was divesting itself of those aircraft. The Government decision was taken after the most exhaustive investigation by senior officials over many months and it was on the basis of that official and expert advice that the decision was made to buy the two aircraft.

I do not believe that I need detain the house very long by replying to the remarks by the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones). In fact he was quoting from the 1977-78 annual report of Qantas. He has the answers to the questions which he raised. He did refer to Qantas as a commercial undertaking and therefore, in his own terms, and certainly in the view of the Government Qantas is well qualified and responsible to assess its own requirements on all routes, and Qantas will make the answers to the honourable member’s questions quite clear in due course. The honourable member for Newcastle spoke the usual nonsense that has been spoken for many years about the relationship of Ansett Airlines of Australia to this Government. We make it quite clear that what we are seeking is stability in terms of our domestic and international services and, above all, to satisfy the requirements and demands of the Australian public for cheap air fares as a priority. The honourable member’s remarks regarding the ASEAN air fares will be enlightening to the members of the Australian public. They want and are entitled to have cheap air fares to the ASEAN countries just as they are entitled to have cheap air fares to Europe and North America. I move:

Question put. The House divided.

House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr P. H. Drummond)

AYES: 65

NOES: 25

Majority……. 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion ( by Mr Macphee ) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Motion ( by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. H. Drummond)

AYES: 69

NOES: 26

Majority……. 43

In division:

AYES

NOES

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Order! The honourable member for Hunter is indisposed and has left the chamber. I have agreed with the sanction of the Whips that his vote be recorded in this division.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2934

TAXATION ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Mr MacKellar:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · Balaclava · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, 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 would like to suggest that it might suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Estate Duty Assessment Amendment Bill 1979, the Gift Duty Assessment Amendment Bill 1979, the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979, the Pay-roll Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1 979 and the Pay-roll Tax (Territories ) Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1979 as they are related 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 these Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

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

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-The Bills now before the House are mere machinery matters, but they open up an area of interesting discussion in relation to taxation. What the Bills do formally is to abolish the valuation boards which had the function of resolving disputes over property valuations made by the Commissioner of Taxation. Such valuations arose principally in connection with estate and gift duties. With the impending abolition of these taxes from 30 June, the need for these boards largely disappears. So these Bills abolish the boards and provide that any residual duties of the boards will be carried out by a taxation board of review or a supreme court. The Bills also transfer to the taxation boards of review the function currently residing in the chairman of the valuation boards to inquire into and report on the financial position of persons who seek exemption from payments of income tax and also estate duty or payroll tax where payment of the full amount would involve serious hardship. So, as I mentioned, these are mere machinery amendments consequent upon the abolition of estate and gift duty.

However, what these Bills represent is something different from a mere machinery matter. They are, in fact, the final nail in the coffin of Australia ‘s only comprehensive national taxes on capital. They leave us in a unique position in the world. Every other developed Western country has some form of tax on capital at the national level. After 30 June all Australia will have will be extremely limited and easily avoided capital gains tax provisions under section 26 (a) and section 26AAA of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Section 26 (a), which provides for the inclusion in assessable income of capital gains where the intention of the taxpayer in acquiring the asset was to obtain such a gain, has been rendered virtually useless by the High Court of Australia. Section 26AAA, which was introduced by the Labor Government and provides for inclusion in assessable income of gains realised within 12 months of acquiring an asset, is easily avoided simply by holding the assets and not realising until the year has run out. Thus, Australia, in effect, has no capital gains tax and in 25 days time will have no other national tax on personal capital either. The uniqueness of our position has been demonstrated by the Treasury in its Taxation Paper No. 11 published in December 1974 on estate and gift duties. In that paper the Treasury had this to say:

New Zealand and Ireland, like Australia, have both estate duties and income tax, but no other general taxes on capital or wealth. The United States and all Western European countries other than Ireland not only levy income tax and estate duty, but also either capital gains taxes or net worth taxes (or in many cases both). If Australia had no death duties (it is often said- though rarely by persons concerned with the operation and principles of the tax system as a whole- that they should be abolished) and did not impose any other form of capital tax, Australia would be in an exceptional position on this aspect of ‘capacity to pay’. It would be the only advanced western country levying no other direct tax apart from income tax.

So said the Treasury in December 1 974, pointing out that Australia’s position would be utterly unique in the Western world and it would have implications for the equity of the tax system. All countries have some form of death duties, except for Canada which abolished death duties at the national level in 1972 but imposed a comprehensive capital gains tax. Other countries with which we want to compare ourselves have substantial taxes on personal capital, such as the United States which imposes a comprehensive capital gains tax and also has estate duties. Great Britain has a capital gains tax and estate duties. Sweden, with which perhaps we do not so often compare ourselves, has a capital gains tax, an inheritance tax, which is a form of an estate tax but a more equitable one, and a net wealth tax.

I pointed this out a year ago when the Bill to abolish estate and gift duties was brought in to the House, a Bill which was introduced by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) without offering any reasons for the abolition of these taxes. It is absolutely remarkable that the Treasurer could come before this House, as he did a year ago, propose the abolition of the only comprehensive national taxes on capital and not give one reason for doing so. It was the Opposition’s view then that there must be some form of capital tax to ensure equity in the tax system. It is even more strongly our belief now, especially as tax avoidance is resulting in high income earners and the wealthy escaping their fair share of income tax. That means there is all the more reason to apply effective taxes on capital now.

There are various reasons why we consider the lack of capital taxation is a bad thing. Firstly, it reduces the equity of the tax system. This stems simply from the fact that people with the same incomes, if they are paying different taxes- as they do if there is no taxation of capital gains applying- are not being treated equitably. There is a difference in the treatment of those who earn their income through wages and salaries and those who earn income at least in part through capital gains because the second category of people are not paying the same level of tax as the former. Secondly, people with substantial wealth are clearly better off than those without such wealth- that is, they have a higher capacity to pay even if they have no higher income. In this regard, perhaps the Treasury is worthy of further quotation. In the same publication I referred to previously, Taxation Paper No. 1 1 of December 1974, this statement appears directly after my previous quotation:

This broad view would support some tax on assets as an essential component of the tax system to recognise the advantages which accrue from the ownership of wealth.

That is the end of the quote from the Treasury, a not very radical source. That is one reason why we need taxation on personal capital. Without it one does not have an equitable tax system. Further, it is a bad thing not to have capital taxation because its absence -

Mr Neil:

– The people knocked this right on the head at the last election.

Mr WILLIS:

– Would you mind shutting up for a while? You have been a constant interjector for all the time I have been speaking. If you just shut up you might hear something and learn something.

Mr Neil:

– If you put that proposition forward you will be slaughtered in the next election as you were in the last election. People won’t buy that sort of proposition.

Mr WILLIS:

– I am talking to the honourable member for St George who would know nothing about this subject whatever. He is just sitting there chattering away, apparently in some sort of government campaign to start showing a bit of life because its members know that their standing in this community is so poor at the present time. The second reason for having taxation on capital is that without it there is an increased tax burden on wage and salary earners. The lack of capital taxation means that the Government has to find other ways to apply taxation. Almost inevitably it means that more tax is paid by those who cannot avoid it, essentially wage and salary earners.

The abolition of estate duty does not favour most wage and salary earners. Relatively few of them would have acquired an estate that was taxable on their death. For many whose estate was taxable the amounts paid in estate duty would not have been large. This is because the exemption for property passing to a spouse was $90,000 and $98,000 for primary producers. If a property were jointly owned then quite clearly an estate passing to a spouse would have to be very substantial, in the order of $ 1 80,000, before any death duty would have been applied. Even without a spouse, the estate had to be valued at over $40,000 or $48,000 in the case of a primary producer before the tax applied. In fact, only 12 per cent of estates were assessable for duty- that is, about one in every eight estates are taxed under this tax as it stands at present. Therefore, its abolition is of no benefit to most wage and salary earners. In fact, it is more than that; it is a positive detriment to them if they have to pay more tax to make up for the lost revenue of $100m, an amount which should have been much higher than that if loopholes in the tax had not been allowed to continue.

The evidence of the tax burden of wage and salary earners increasing unfairly is discerned from a comparison of the increase in their tax burden over the last two years with that of the non-pay-as-you-earn or provisional taxpayers, those people who earn more than $400 a year from non-wage and salary sources and therefore are liable for provisional tax. On the basis of the 1978-79 Budget estimates, it was shown that in the two years from 1976-77 to 1978-79, payasyouearn taxpayers’ liability in total was to increase by 21.2 per cent. That is a fairly substantial rise, particularly for a government which says it is a low-tax party. For nonpayasyouearn taxpayers the increase over that period as shown in the Budget Papers was to be 2.9 per cent. So there we had wage and salary earners tax obligations in the period 1976-77 to 1978-79 going up by 21.2 per cent on the face of the

Budget estimates. For provisional taxpayers, the people who are not wage and salary earners but earn their incomes from various business sources, rent, interest, dividends et cetera, their tax payments were to go up by 2.9 per cent, a very substantial difference indeed.

But these figures are somewhat superseded by the Treasurer’s statement in the House last week. In answering a question about the deficit he told us that the deficit was going to blow out by $700m. He gave us some reasons why that was so and said one of the reasons was that payasyouearn revenue would be down $46m on what was estimated in the Budget. On the other hand, he said that revenue from non-pay-as-you-earn taxpayers, provisional taxpayers, would be $200m less than the Budget estimates, much of which he said was due to tax avoidance arrangements. On that basis, over the period from 1976-77 to 1978-79, in the last two years, pay-as-you-earn taxpayers, the wage and salary earners, are going to have their taxes go up by 20.7 per cent.

Mr Neil:
Mr WILLIS:

– The member for Denison says rubbish’.

Mr Hodgman:

– I did not say a word.

Mr WILLIS:

-Well, the member for St George. I thought it was a suitably asinine comment for the member for Denison but I will attribute it to the member for St George. It is just a matter of taking the figures which are obtainable from the Budget Papers and the Treasurer’s statement. There is no worry about their accuracy.

Pay-as-you-earn taxpayers tax is up by 20.7 per cent and non-pay-as-you-earn taxpayers, on the basis of those figures, will have their tax obligation go down by 5 per cent. I ask the House to contemplate what is involved in this matter. In the last two years wage and salary earners tax obligation has gone up by over 20 per cent. For non-pay-as-you-earn taxpayers it is down by 5 per cent. How can that be? How can it be that wage and salary earners have their tax up by 2 1 per cent and the provisional taxpayers, those who earned their income through rent, interest, dividends and other business sources, have their tax payments down by 5 per cent? How can that be? Of course the answer is that it has a hell of a lot to do with tax avoidance. It is extremely inequitable if, on top of this system in which nonwage and salary earners are avoiding tax hand over fist and actually reducing their tax obligations, the Government starts abolishing taxes on capital which are paid by provisional tax payers. In that situation the Government is compounding the already gross inequity of the taxation system. That is something to which the Opposition totally objects.

Pursuing this arithmetic a little further, if the provisional taxpayers over the last two years had the same increase in their total tax payments as wage and salary earners have, then they would have been up for an extra $524m this year. This gives some idea of the kind of avoidance of taxes these people have been able to achieve over the last couple of years. If they had the same increase in their tax payments as wage and salary earners it would mean an extra $5 00m plus over that two-year period. We might well say: ‘It could be that the tax paid by provisional taxpayers has not gone up so fast because their numbers have not increased in the same way as the numbers of wage and salary earners have increased, or because their incomes have not increased at the same rate as those of wage and salary earners.’ Let me pursue that matter a little further. We find that the number of self-employed persons who are provisional taxpayers has increased by 2.9 per cent over the two years to March this year. That is a 2.9 per cent increase in the number of self-employed persons. The total number of wage and salary earners in that period has increased by 0.8 per cent. Over the two year period the increase in the number of provisional taxpayers has been three and a half times the increase in the number of pay-as-you-earn taxpayers. The fact that provisional taxpayers obligations have gone down cannot in any way be attributed to the fact that there are fewer of them.

On the other hand, we should look also at incomes. If we consider the national accounts we start to get some extraordinarily interesting figures on the movements of incomes for wage and salary earners and for non-wage and salary earners over the last two years. If the incomes of provisional taxpayers had increased at a lower rate than those of wage and salary earners then that would be some part of the explanation as to why their tax obligation had not gone up at the same rate, although it would hardly explain a decrease. But these figures in the national accounts show that from the December quarter 1976 to the December quarter 1977, the total amount of wages, salaries and supplements paid went up by 1 7 per cent. That is 1 7 per cent for wage and salary earners. For personal income from non-farm unincorporated enterprises and from dwellings interest and dividends we find an increase of 33 per cent, or double the rate of increase for wage and salary earners. In that period personal income from farm unincorporated enterprises increased by 48 per cent. So the total personal income from all unincorporated enterprises and from rents, interest and dividends increased by 37 per cent against wage earners’ incomes, which increased by 17 percent.

I stress the importance of these figures. Over the last two years, from the December quarter 1976 to the December quarter 1978, there has been an increase in wage and salary incomes of 17 per cent in total, and for non-wage and salary incomes an increase of 37 per cent in total, according to the national accounts. Yet at the same time we find that the total amount of tax paid by these wage and salary earners has increased by approximately 2 1 per cent for this financial year compared with 1976-77, whereas the total amount of tax paid by the non-wage and salary earners is down by 5 per cent. Quite clearly, there is tremendous inequity involved here. Wage and salary earners have had a much lower rate of increase in their incomes; the rate of increase in their tax has been greater than the rate of increase in their income. On the other hand, provisional taxpayers have had a very high rate of increase in income and their tax obligations have gone down.

I think this brings home dramatically just what is happening in our society. We are being absolutely ripped off by people who are avoiding tax hand over fist, and those people are not wage and salary earners. They are people who are earning income through various other business sources, and quite clearly they are tremendously effective in evading tax. Despite all the claims of this Government about what it has done to stop tax avoidance, this is the end result. These are the figures for this financial year compared with the figures two years ago. Quite clearly, the tax system is becoming totally inequitable. The tax obligation of wage and salary earners is being loaded. The tax obligation of provisional taxpayers is actually going down, despite the fact that their incomes are moving in the opposite direction.

This is very important material indeed, but it is not the end of the story. If we look at companies, we find that a similar situation arises. The gross operating surplus of trade in companies is perhaps some guide as to what is happening to company incomes overall. For the December quarter of 1978 the figure is up by 12 per cent over the figure for the previous year. At the same time, on the figures given in the Budget Papers we find that the total amount of company tax paid this year- less the $200m which the

Treasurer in his statement to the House last week said would not be gathered- will be down by 2.4 per cent. The total amount of company tax gathered this year, on the Treasurer’s figures, will be less than it was last year. This again is further evidence of the importance of tax avoidance. Tax avoidance is practised not only by personal income taxpayers but also by companies, and we have a dramatic example of that in companies having a substantial increase in income this financial year and at the same time reducing company tax payments. That is dramatic evidence of the effect of tax avoidance. In his statement last week the Treasurer admitted that tax avoidance was affecting revenue gained from companies, but these figures put it in a more dramatic light.

These figures in total show that over the last two years there has been a most amazing explosion of tax avoidance. The kinds of developments to which I have been referring have happened only in the last two years. It is not something that happened in the period when the Labor Government was in office. It is something that happened over the last two years. It shows that the statement made by Mr Bruce Pascoe, the President of the Taxation Institute of Australia, as reported in the Chartered Accountant in Australia of December 1978, is exactly spot on. He said:

During the past year or two -

He was speaking in December 1978- -tax avoidance became a big business in Australia. It became a disease which, being allowed to go unchecked reached epidemic proportions. It is, perhaps, not going too far to say that the taxpaying community of Australia almost went mad in its rush to become a party to a tax avoidance scheme.

That was said by the President of the Taxation Institute of Australia in December 1978 about the previous two-year period under the Fraser Government. The figures that I have given tonight bear testimony to the truth of that statement. A most amazingly effective tax avoidance procedure has been worked out by many provisional taxpayers and Australian companies. It is in the context of this massive tax avoidance and distortion of the equity of the tax system that it is an absolute outrage for this Government to be further reducing taxes which are paid by the wealthier section of this community, and that is what it is doing by abolishing wealth and gift duties. It is taking away a tax which did not apply to the vast bulk of estates of wage and salary earners when they died, but applied basically to the estates of wealthier people. They certainly were able to avoid it substantially because of the loopholes that were allowed to remain. Effectively, it was some sort of tax on capital, and to take it away at a time when the whole tax system is being massively distorted in favour of the high income groups is an absolute outrage.

Every wage and salary earner in this country should be outraged by the fact that this has happened. Especially is that so when at the same time as the Government is abolishing this tax on capital it is opening up a massive tax avoidance loophole, and it is doing that by abolishing gift tax. I will explain to the House just how that comes about. Gift tax was important for two reasons. The first was to prevent avoidance of estate duty through estates being given away before death. In fact, there are various loopholes in the gift tax which allow people to avoid that tax and to give away estates before death, but that is somewhat by the way. The intention of the legislation was to prevent the avoidance of estate duty. Secondly, it had the importance of preventing the avoidance of income tax by income splitting, and that is something which was recognised by the Treasury. In the publication to which I referred earlier, ‘Treasury Taxation Paper No. 1 1 December 1974, Estate Duty and Gift Duty ‘, it is stated:

If it is desired to maintain the individual as the basic taxpaying unit, the role of gift duties must also be seen as one of protecting income tax revenue, and of achieving equity in the treatment of recipients of wage and of property income, by reducing the purely tax incentives for inter vivos transfers of wealth. Though not discussed further here, gift duties must be seen as complementing the present Australian income tax as well as being an essential supplement to estate duty.

In December 1974 the Treasury was saying that gift duty was important as a means of preventing avoidance of income tax. Here we have a Government, supposedly concerned about the avoidance of income tax- in fact it has already passed that legislation and what we are discussing here tonight is just a consequence of thatwhich is about to abolish a piece of taxation which is designed in part to prevent the avoidance of income tax. What an absurd situation. Let me explain to the House how that operated. Income splitting can occur without a gift tax by facilitating the handing of income assets to children and to a spouse and so paying tax on the asset at much lower rates than if the income from the asset had all gone to the principal income earner. Trusts are another way of splitting income and they have been greatly used to avoid paying tax. But the abolition of gift tax will make trusts largely unnecessary as an income splitting device.

I shall give an example which will bring this point home. Take the case of a doctor who earns $35,000 a year in salary- probably a fairly lowpaid doctor- on which he pays tax at a marginal rate of 6 1.5c in every dollar in this financial year, assuming he has no other tax avoidance scheme, which again is probably a fairly large assumption. Secondly, let us assume that he buys a block of flats which earn a taxable income of $20,000 a year and that the flats are valued at $250,000. Without giving away the asset or without resort to trusts, he will pay tax in total on his income of $55,000- which is made up of the original $35,000 plus $25,000 return on the flats-of $24,948. The tax on the income from the flats is effectively $12,300. So, the total tax paid is almost $25,000. The tax on the additional income is $12,300. If he establishes a discretionary trust, that tax can be substantially reduced. The Government will allow him to do that because it thinks that trusts are a good thing. If he gives the flats to the trust and splits the income between a wife and two minor children equally, the wife and each of the two children will get an income of $6,668. The wife will pay tax of $930. The children will pay tax of $2,233 each. That gives a total tax paid on the income from the flats of only $5,396. Therefore, by resort to a trust, he has immediately saved $6,904, which is not a bad day’s work.

That is not the end of the story because if he, under this Government’s generous provisionswhich honourable members opposite are happy to endorse- decides: ‘Well, to hell with using a trust; that is a complicated legal device which is a bit expensive to set up: I will give the assets to my wife and children’, he can get the income tax reduced even further. If he does that, the tax on the income from those assets paid by the wife and the two children will be $930 each, which gives a total tax paid of $2,789. He will save $9,300 more than he would had he kept the income for himself. Of course, he can still effectively use the income because his wife has it. He can spend it on his children’s education, their clothes and their entertainment, et cetera. That is expenditure that he would have had anyway. Therefore, he saves a massive amount of money. This example I think shows how incredible this Government is. At the same time as it is making great noises and getting headlines by saying that it will rewrite section 260, it has passed legislation which is opening up opportunities for massive tax avoidance. It has passed legislation which will render trusts unnecessary. It has passed legislation which will enable greater tax savings to be made than would be possible under the present system by the use of trusts.

How can a government be believed which says that it is really concerned about equity in the tax system, if this is what it is doing? That great reduction in tax by giving the assets to the children would not have been possible while the gift tax applied, without incurring a very substantial gift tax. In the example that I have given of the block of flats worth $250,000, the gift tax payable would have been $65,062.50. That would be a fairly substantial dissuader and something which would cause someone to think again before he decided to give assets to his children. Most likely he would say: ‘Well, I will avoid that gift tax; I will use a trust’. Now he will not have to bother doing that. The gift tax, the $65,000 dissuader, is not there. AH that he will need to do now is to give the income to his dependants and to laugh at the enormous reduction in tax that this will provide. It is absolutely amazing that a government which says that it is so concerned about tax avoidance will enable such massive income splitting to occur and, therefore, rob itself of tremendous amounts of income into the future.

Briefly, I think it is important to note also that the lack of capital taxes is bad for a third reason, quite apart from the two that I have already given, that is, that it causes inequity in the tax system and increases the burden on wage and salary earners. It increases the inequality of the distribution of income and wealth. Unfortunately, time does not allow me to pursue this matter. Both the distribution of income and wealth in this country are far less equitable than is generally imagined. There is grave inequality of income and wealth ownership in this country. In respect of wealth, I quickly remind the House that surveys show that the bottom 10 per cent of income earners owns 0.27 per cent of total personal net wealth in this country. The top 1 per cent owns 22 per cent of net wealth and the top 10 per cent owns 58.5 per cent of all net wealth. There is gross inequity of ownership of wealth in this country. The Australian Labor Party strongly believes that we need to introduce taxes on capital to overcome these three deficiencies that I have mentioned and to introduce equity in the tax system to remove the burden of tax on wage and salary earners, to right the enormous tax avoidance which is occurring, and to restore some equity into the distribution of income and wealth.

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

-Very few honourable members on this side of the House would ever have doubted the sincerity of the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis).

Perhaps in this instance we should doubt his capacity to cope with the realities of the tax situation. He has failed either to understand the realities or to grasp what one could call the reasonableness of the Government’s position. The fact is that the statements by the honourable member for Gellibrand were arrant and utter nonsense. I will demonstrate that claim with a degree of vigour.

Apart from anything else, we have to recognise that capital gains taxes, to a large degree, are effectively double taxes. They are taxes which are levied on the accumulation of income of people who have, in general, paid tax when collecting those assets. They have paid tax on the income that has gone towards collecting those assets. I wonder whether, in the great schemes that we have heard mentioned by the honourable member for Gellibrand, he would include capital losses. I suggest to him that there is a Pandora ‘s box of which he is well aware and of which his Party is well aware because when it occupied the Government benches it had the opportunity to examine the very propositions that the honourable member for Gellibrand is now putting up. It is arrant nonsense for him, after three years of examining these propositions and after his government had the opportunity to do all the things that he says now, suddenly to discover the way and the truth. It appears to me that the way and the truth that are available to the honourable member for Gellibrand are that way and the truth that are available to someone who does not, in fact, have to do what he says he would do.

I submit that a basic question of integrity is involved when the Australian Labor Party raises matters of this nature, having failed to introduce one item of anti-tax evasion legislation during its three years in office, and having, in fact, done nothing except issue a general warning against tax avoidance which it found itself incapable of implementing. I would suggest that the realities of this situation are very different indeed from the proposition put by the honourable member for Gellibrand. Let us recognise in the first place that the capacity for evasion of probate and gift duty has been monumental and that it is no more monumental now than it was under Labor’s three years in office. The capacity for evasion is so great because of the devices that can be used, that it does, in fact, make a mockery of the probate and gift duty requirements. As the honourable member for Gellibrand said, only 12 per cent of the States were assessable for probate duty. We were collecting only something like $80m in revenue, and not $ 100m, in the current year. Of course, that is out of the $2 8,000m of revenue that the Government is obliged to get, and is only 0.03 per cent. It is a minuscule amount. The reality is that only the rich could afford to avoid probate. Only the rich could afford to avoid gift duty. The proposition that the honourable member for Gellibrand is now insisting on is that the middle-income earner, the only person who is obliged to pay gift and probate duty, under his Government and in the past under ours, once again should be saddled with gift and probate duty. The Australian Labor Party has provided nothing to establish the methods by which it would now be able to prevent the rich from avoiding probate and gift duty, just as they could avoid it under its previous administration when it established clearly to the world that it was not only a Liberal government which found itself on the best of advice, unable to close these doors; a Labor Government also found itself unable- I would presume, because I cannot imagine it was unwilling- to close these doors. That, is the reality.

Let us hear no more of this cant and nonsense that the honourable member for Gellibrand has come out with alleging that there is something sinister about the present Government’s policy. Only $80m is collected in probate and gift duty. This is made out to be a matter of major significance that the Government has undertaken. In fact, what the Government is doing is getting rid of a disgraceful situation that existed under the previous Government. I quote the honourable member for Gellibrand. He said that as a result of our activities: ‘More tax is paid by those who cannot afford it’. I put to him with great vigour that the reason probate and gift duty are being removed is because the only people who were obliged to pay it were those who could not afford to pay it. I would suggest to him very strongly that there was a bitterly unfair incidence of gift and probate duty, particularly on small businessmen and on farmers- farmers in particular- who had what appeared to be worthwhile assets and no income. I am appalled to hear the Australian Labor Party once again getting onto the band wagon of kicking the guts out of the farming community in this nation by proposing to restore the situation which obtained before, where people had to suffer the burden of this unfair taxation system, which could be avoided by the rich while others escaped it. I find it unbelievable that the Labor Party should skirt around the situation.

I am also appalled at the lack of basic knowledge that the honourable member for

Gellibrand showed about company tax collections. On the one hand he said: ‘Company profits are up, but company tax collections are not’. Naturally they are not up. Company tax is paid in the following year after the profit is announced. It does not take place in that year. It is astounding that the Labor Party’s economic spokesman would fall into such an evident and rather silly trap. I would suggest to him that if he looked at the statistics he would see why the factors which he regarded as appalling have come about. He complains about provisional collections being down in real terms. The fact is that people who pay provisional tax are the very people against whom this Government has moved in its anti-tax-avoidance measures. It is this Government which has, for the first time- I stress this- since 1972 introduced legislation which prevents people in so many areas ripping off the rest of the community. There is something like $180m which we believe we will ultimately collect under these new laws that have been introduced. It is this $ 1 80m, I submit, which is one of the major reasons why the honourable member for Gellibrand can come up with these exciting figures about how provisional tax collections will be down. The fact is that because some of these people liable to provisional tax have objected to our assessment and have objected to the new laws, that money cannot be collected this financial year.

I assure the honourable member that this Government will be doing everything to make certain that that money is collected next year. It will be collected when the objections are overcome. We have to recognise that taxpayers have a right to object to an assessment. The effect of that is that its collection is deferred. I stress to the honourable member for Gellibrand that while their objection is being dealt with, their payment is only being deferred and we will collect it in the long run. Hopefully we will collect it pretty soon. It is nonsense for the honourable member for Gellibrand to attack this Government’s tax record when, as he can see from the figures, real income tax revenues are budgeted to be down in this year for the first time since the war. It is interesting to compare the 0.3 per cent decline in real terms in taxes on individuals collected this year with the 1 9.8 per cent increase in real terms.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In view of the fact that this debate is going to be gagged, Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

There is no reason for the honourable member to do other than draw attention to the state of the House. (Quorum formed).

Mr BAUME:

– I can recognise why the Labor Party is sensitive about its record on taxation being related to ours. I would seek to have incorporated in Hansard a table which states the matter very clearly. I did obtain approval from the Government front bench to do so.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr BAUME:

– It is also of great significance to note that the honourable member for Gellibrand complained that pay-as-you-earn taxpayers would be paying more tax this year in total. There is a very good reason for that. That reason itself must be embarrassing for the honourable member for Gellibrand; that is, that there are now 200,000 more people at work in Australia than there were under the Labor Government in a comparable month. As I am led to believe, people who work pay tax. It is natural, I would suggest to the honourable member, that there will be some increases in total pay-as-you-earn tax collections when in fact there are more people at work. In general, I want to stress that the objections that the honourable member for Gellibrand made are either misconceived or unfortunate in the sense that they reflect a curious change in attitude which is inexplicable compared with the attitudes maintained by the Labor Party when it was in government. I would stress very strongly that this Government has a record in its anti-tax-evasion procedures which is second to none.

Let me dramatise the situation for the benefit of the honourable member for Gellibrand. The facts are that tax evasion schemes that have been stopped in recent times under this Government bring about a total collection of something like $705m that would not have been available in tax revenue. The amount of $705m is much more serious than it seems because this simply reflects the amount of money that was at risk in those schemes. It does not include the amount of money that would have been taken out of revenue if these tax avoidance schemes had not been stopped. That is a record that we can put forward in the Parliament. We can show what this Government has done. An amount of $705m in tax has been saved. That represents $ 1,400m in tax deduction schemes. I suggest that it would be interesting to compare that amount of tax evasion which has been stopped with the amount of tax evasion stopped in the three years of the Labor Government. The amount of tax evasion stopped by the previous Government in its three years in office was nil. It did not introduce one piece of anti-tax-evasion legislation.

I point out, for example, that the cessation of Curran schemes alone will involve the collection of $470m in extra tax revenue. The abolition of trading stock schemes involves $148m. By closing off the section 67a loophole for expenses on discharging mortgage schemes, another $43 m of tax will be collected. The tightening of the prepaid interest scheme will lead to the collection of another $37m. Other arrangements such as gifts to charities which were not, in effect, real gifts, have been stopped leading to the collection of an extra $7m. That scheme was nipped in the bud very quickly. The amount of $705m represents runs on the board by this Government in preventing tax evasion to which the previous Government did not address itself at any stage. I find it extraordinary that honourable members opposite endeavour to make political capital out of the fact that some tax evasion schemes are still operating. There is no doubt that they are but the fact is that this Government is actively pursuing them to such a degree that some honourable members on this side of the House and some people in the community are concerned that normal proper business transactions might be limited because of the severity of the Government’s attack on tax evasion schemes. I find it extraordinary that there should be an attempt to make political capital out of this issue when the Government’s record is so good. I commend the Bill to the House. I recognise that some honourable members opposite will endeavour to find, I suggest improperly- (Quorum formed). The successful attack on tax evasion which will bring in $705m from the schemes already operating represents only the tip of the iceberg. I say that it is the tip of the iceberg because it is the money that we have prevented from being taken from revenue that had not yet come to the attention of the Commissioner of Taxation. These schemes are no longer available for tax evasion. There is no doubt that many other schemes will come forward but I am convinced that the Government will continue, as it has in recent times, to nip these schemes in the bud. Only $253m of the $705m to which I have referred relates to the current year’s tax. An amount of $452m will be collected in subsequent years. That is obviously why the Budget situation at present is worse than it should be. Unfortunately, the Labor Party does not recognise this, understand it or give credit for it. There have been deferments of tax payments by people who will ultimately have to pay tax because of the laws we have introduced. Had the Labor Party’s tax laws continued, these people would not have to pay $705m in tax. This is the message that the people of Australia should recognise when they listen to a speech such as that made by the honourable member for Gellibrand. It is also significant to recognise that next year, as a result of recoveries in company profits, there will be an improvement in tax collections. Companies pay tax next year on their profits this year. There is no doubt that the Government’s tax record is remarkable. I congratulate the Treasurer (Mr Howard) for his removing the double tax situation which existed on gift and probate duties. He recognises, of course, that the only people who had to pay these taxes in the past were those not rich enough to be able to go into one of the tax evasion schemes that the Labor Party was quite happy to see continue.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-One would anticipate and expect that the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) who, of course, has been tied up with the tax avoiders of this country -

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond)

The question before the Chair is: That the question be now put. Those of that opinion say ‘aye ‘, to the contrary ‘no’.I think the ayes have it.

Mr Armitage:

– I raise a point of order -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is a division required?

Mr Armitage:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. You can hear a point of order at this point.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The question before the Chair is: That the question be now put.

Mr Armitage:

– I am taking a point of order. I have two documents, one dated 8 November 1978 and the other dated November 1979 which vitally incriminate the Prime Minister of this country as a tax avoider. This debate has been gagged deliberately to stop me exposing his activity.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr Armitage:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, you know there is. You know that this is the greatest cover-up of all time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I warn the honourable member for Chifley.

Mr Ruddock:

– I take a point of order. The honourable member for Chifley in his opening remarks made some scurrilous accusations in which there is no truth. They ought to be withdrawn. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to rule that the scurrilous accusations of the honourable member for Chifley be withdrawn. I do not think that they are fair to any member of the Parliament. I do not think that they ought to be countenanced.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair is not aware of the imputations with which the honourable member for Chifley was about to continue. If they have offended -

Mr Ruddock:

– I do not think that we should give them credit by repeating them but clearly these malevolent accusations suggested some impropriety on the part of the honourable member for Macarthur in which there is no-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Dundas has made his point of order. Obviously, the remarks made by the honourable member for Chifley have offended the honourable member for Dundas in a parliamentary sense.

Mr Armitage:

– At no time did I refer to the honourable member for Dundas.

Mr Baume:

– I raise a point of order. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to require the honourable member for Chifley to withdraw the scurrilous remarks he made about me along with the scurrilous remarks which I understand he made about the Prime Minister. I suggest that the technique used -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

-I understand the point of order raised by the honourable member for Macarthur. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Baume:

– But there is a further point that I wish to make.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– All right.

Honourable members interjecting-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Macarthur has the call.

Mr Baume:

- Sir, what I would put to you is that a technique is being used by the honourable member for Chifley, which is unfortunate, in that he spoke through your ruling in order to get into the record matter which I would ask you to have expunged from the record.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I understand the honourable member’s point of order.

Mr Armitage:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I take exception to the remarks made by the honourable member for Macarthur. They are insulting to me as a member of this House and I ask that they be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! It has been indicated by the honourable member for Dundas, and more particularly by the honourable member for Macarthur that the remarks of the honourable member for Chifley were unparliamentary and were deeply offensive to the honourable member for Macarthur. I ask the honourable member for Chifley to withdraw and then I will deal with the honourable member for Macarthur. But first I ask the honourable member for Chifley to withdraw his remarks.

Mr Armitage:

- Mr Deputy Speaker-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not require the honourable member for Chifley to enlarge upon his remarks.

Mr Armitage:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I am trying to help on this matter.

Mr Bourchier:

– You cannot do that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Bendigo will remain silent.

Mr Armitage:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, if the honourable member for Macarthur takes exception to my reference to his previous occupation, I will withdraw.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Thank you.

Mr Baume:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I did not object to any reference to my previous occupation. I was accused by the honourable member for Chifley of being associated with a particular kind of person. I ask him to withdraw. Mr Deputy Speaker, I very seriously put to you that the procedures of the House are being abused by the honourable member continually refusing to accept your instructions.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I believe that I have shown quite a deal of leniency to both honourable members in allowing them to follow this point through. I ask the honourable member for Macarthur now to withdraw the remarks he made in regard to the honourable member for Chifley.

Mr Baume:

– I am sorry, sir, but I genuinely do not know what I am supposed to withdraw.

Mr Armitage:

– The insulting remarks that you made about me.

Mr Baume:

– I withdraw, if I said something that offended the honourable member for Chifley. I am unaware of it.

Mr Neil:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Chair accepts the withdrawal of the honourable member for Macarthur. I do not wish this particular debate to continue unless the honourable member for St George has a genuine reason for disrupting the business of the House.

Mr Neil:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I require the honourable member for Chifley to withdraw the statement he made about the honourable member for Macarthur.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-He withdrew it.

Mr Neil:

– He did not do so.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-It is the understanding of the Chair that the honourable member for Chifley did withdraw the statement.

Mr Neil:

– No, Mr Deputy Speaker. He claimed to withdraw the imputation about the occupation of the honourable member for

Macarthur and he cunningly avoided withdrawing any imputation about the alleged activity in which he claimed the honourable member for Macarthur was involved. He very carefully avoided withdrawing that imputation, and the honourable member for Macarthur has confirmed that that is the case.

Mr Armitage:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I will try to help you out. I withdraw any imputation against the honourable member for Macarthur.

Question put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. H. Drummond )

AYES: 65

NOES: 27

Majority……. 38

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2945

ESTATE DUTY ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 24 May, on motion by Mr MacKellar:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2945

GIFT DUTY ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 24 May, on motion by Mr MacKellar:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2945

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 24 May, on motion by Mr MacKellar:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2945

PAY-ROLL TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 24 May, on motion by Mr MacKellar:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2945

PAY-ROLL TAX (TERRITORIES) ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 24 May, on motion by Mr MacKellar:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2945

JUDICIARY (DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– To the extent that this Bill proposes to rectify some possible deficiencies in the provision of the appointment of Justice Fox as Ambassador-at-large the Opposition has no objection. We will, of course, therefore not oppose the Bill on those grounds, but there are some matters which do concern us. The first thing I should say in relation to that is that the Opposition has considerable respect for the professional integrity and competence of Justice Fox. After all, it was the Australian Labor Party when in government which appointed Justice Fox to head the inquiry into uranium mining and export- generally the nuclear power industryand I believe his report was one of the more significant contributions towards the information of the public mind on this subject.

We on the Opposition side found, for instance, that we could quote many parts of the report with conviction in support of our opposition to the policy of the Government. We also noticed the utilitarian value of the report on a broader basis in that the Government found that it could quote many other parts of the report in support of its policy which is in total conflict with the policy of the Opposition. But there are three matters which do concern us and which we believe need more ventilation in this Parliament. The first concerns the duration of the appointment of Justice Fox. The second concerns the almost total dearth of information in relation to the cost associated with Justice Fox’s appointment and the discharge of his duty. The third relates to the effectiveness of what he is doing in terms of how much influence it has on government thinking and policy.

Concerning the first matter, that is, the duration of Justice Fox’s appointment, it is important to note that already his appointment has been extended on three occasions- from October 1978 to January 1979, from January 1979 to June 1979 and now it is being further extended. But the point that concerns us is that, although the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) has indicated that there is a clear cut-off date for the current extension of the appointment, in fact it is available to the Government to extend that appointment further without bringing the matter before the Parliament by the procedure of a Bill as applies now. In future there can be extensions ad infinitum, if that is the wish of the Government, according to regulation. We find that totally unacceptable. We find the proposition of the Attorney-General that the matter still comes before the Parliament in that regulations have to be endorsed by the Parliament as not reassuring at all. Given the nature of the procedures associated with regulations, this is a very deficient arrangement. We would prefer that any further extensions of the appointment of Justice Fox should be the subject matter of Bills before the Parliament as has been the practice in the past so that proper debate can take place in relation to this very important matter.

This takes me to the next topic that gives us concern, and that is the one of costs. How much does it cost to support Justice Fox, his supporting staff and, I believe, his spouse, as he moves around the world as Ambassador-at-large- the man, as some have said, with the gold-plated airline ticket?

Mr Hodgman:

– I take a point of order. Standing Order 75 states:

No member may use offensive words against either House of the Parliament or any Member thereof, against any member of the Judiciary, or against any statute . . .

My point of order is that to refer to a judge as the man with the gold-plated airline pass’ is offensive language and is clearly in breach of Standing Order 75.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Fancy the honourable member for Denison hectoring anyone in this Parliament on the standard of that member’s own personal conduct. If he were in Iran and behaved there the way he does here he would never be more than a stone’s throw away from the mullahs and the ayatollahs. Let me come back to the main point that I was making, and that very simply is that we do not know what the costs are. Parliament is entitled to detailed costing of what is incurred in any undertaking. The public pays for these things. As the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is quite generous in conceding, on the occasions when it suits him, anything the Government undertakes has to be paid for and it has to be paid for by taxpayers. He should go further and concede that not only does it have to be paid for by the taxpayers but also the taxpayers have a right to know how that money is being spent, what they are paying for, and whether they are getting value for money. We do not know that, just as we do not know what the Prime Minister spends on overseas travel or what the true costs of his VIP aircraft are, or the cost of all the other self-indulgences in which he likes to wallow. It is about time that the Parliament had a full accounting on these matters. Specifically, the Parliament is entitled to know but it is not being told. There is rampant suspicion that the costs of supporting Justice Fox as AmbassadoratLarge are extraordinarily high. To remove that suspicion, and in fairness to Justice Fox, the Parliament ought to be given a detailed costing of what is incurred in fiscally supporting Justice Fox in the discharge of his various duties. We deserve to know. We do not know. We have to be reassured that there is no extravagance, that there is no waste, and that taxpayers’ money is not being wasted. We do not know and I repeat that the Parliament ought to know.

Mr Ruddock:

– Why don’t you seek this information in the Senate Estimates committees?

Mr HAYDEN:

-We do not get it in the Estimates. That is as reassuring as the Prime Minister’s saying that the details of the costing of his overseas travel will be available in the Estimates, but when the Estimates are available there is a single line entry which tells us nothing. We ought to know where the extravagance is involved, if, in fact, there is any in this case, as indisputably there is consistently where the Prime Minister is involved.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– What has that got to do with it?

Mr HAYDEN:

– The honourable member for Fadden has to interject to let us know he is here. That takes me to the next matters I want to raise. What is the effectiveness of what Justice Fox is doing? My impression is that the Government, quite unfairly, has set up Justice Fox as a sort of jet-setting front man to reassure a trusting public.

Mr Hodgman:

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I believe that the honourable member for Denison is following in this debate. He will have an opportunity to speak then. I warn him against taking frivolous points of order.

Mr Hodgman:

– With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, you have not heard me on the point of order and you could not rule that it is frivolous.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I just warn the honourable member against taking a frivolous point of order.

Mr Hodgman:

– I am not taking a frivolous point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I again refer you to Standing Order 75, and I specifically draw your attention to the words ‘against any member of the judiciary’. This is the second occasion on which the Leader of the Opposition has made offensive remarks about a member of the judiciary. It is a valid point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I believe the honourable member for Denison is being over-sensitive in regard to what the Leader of the Opposition is saying. There is no substance in his point of order.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend you for your restraint. After all, the honourable member for Denison is the poor parliamentarian ‘s Toby Belch. The point I am making relates to the effectiveness of what Justice Fox is doing. On the basis of the evidence available, it does not seem that he is terribly effective in influencing the Government. Let me illustrate that. In November 1978 Justice Fox, in collaboration with a colleague, produced a working paper entitled ‘International Custody of Plutonium Stocks: A First Step Toward an International Regime for Sensitive Nuclear Energy Activities ‘. Essentially, the thrust of what Justice Fox was putting forward was that we ought to be working towards international regulation of the nuclear industry. Now, there are many challenging and, I thought, valuable propositions put forward in that paper, the sorts of propositions that deserve serious consideration by any concerned international community and any concerned constituent national state within the international community. Six months after Justice Fox’s paper, and bear in mind that Justice Fox is supposed to be the seminal influence on the Government on matters related to the nuclear energy industry and the nuclear fuel cycle -

Mr Viner:

– International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation. I have to give the Leader a bit of a helping hand along the way.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Well, the Minister has to be accurate somewhere. He is not in his forecasts on unemployment nor in his concern about the welfare of Aborigines. Six months later the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) was asked in this Parliament by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for KingsfordSmith (Mr Lionel Bowen), about the substance of what Justice Fox had put forward in that paper. It was quite clear that if the Minister for Foreign Affairs was even faintly aware of that report he certainly had not been influenced by it. The implication of that is that the Government had not been influenced by it. In addition, this occurred at about the time the Government was in the process of negotiating a quite unsatisfactory bilateral agreement with South Korea on the supply of uranium.

So on three substantial grounds the Opposition is concerned about the conditions of appointment and operation of Justice Fox. First let me restate that we have a great deal of respect for the man’s professional integrity and ability. After all, we did appoint him to a specific task. However, we would not have allowed his present role to continue in the unquestioned way in which apparently it does continue. The three matters that concern us are these: Firstly, the duration of his appointment and the fact that it now has moved into a sphere which effectively is open-ended, or into a situation where it is available to the Government to renew his appointment in circumstances pretty much circumventing a full exploration of that appointment by the

Parliament. Secondly, the costs involved in supporting Justice Fox, his staff and his spouse as they fulfil their functions and move around the world in a style which, I would suggest, is far from austere and much more sufficient in the creature comforts provided than are available generally to the community. What are the costs of supporting this man with the gold-plated airline ticket? Finally, is it correct, as we and a great many people in the community believe, that the Government has unfairly set up Justice Fox as a sort of jet-setting front man to reassure a trusting public while the Government ignores the fundamental propositions he brings forward?

Justice Fox’s paper on international involvement in the regulation of the nuclear fuel cycle and the nuclear energy industry is, in my view, a seminal work. That does not necessarily mean that one agrees with everything or anything that is in it, but it is a stimulating and constructive paper. However, the evidence available is that the Government has totally ignored what Justice Fox has been doing and has encouraged him to move about fulfilling functions which it has defined but in which it is not the least bit interested. The Government has sought to do this to deceive and gull a trusting public, and that is objectionable. Those are the matters which do concern us. On that first ground, the matter of the duration of the appointment of Justice Fox, we will be moving appropriate amendments in the Committee stage.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-The schizophrenic paranoia of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) was well revealed in that speech, and I might say in passing that he must be the only man in the Parliament who can look over both shoulders at once. Despite the fact that he started by praising His Honour Mr Justice Fox, who was appointed to the bench by the Government of which the Leader of the Opposition was a member and a senior Minister, he then referred to Mr Justice Fox as the man with the gold-plated airline ticket, the jet-setting front man. Those denigratory remarks can be regarded only as an attack upon Mr Justice Fox and an endeavour to reduce the influence and authority of Mr Justice Fox when he represents this country around the world. When Hansard is read by people in other parts of the world, as no doubt it will be, I hope they will put out of their minds the ravings tonight of the Leader of the Opposition and the fact that he saw fit to describe a man who was appointed to the bench by the Government of which he was a senior Minister as having a gold-plated airline ticket. Of course, the second thing the Leader of the Opposition did, and we are used to this sort of thing, was to speak about everything except the precise provisions of the Bill. In fact, he knows so little about what is going on in this Parliament that he appeared to be completely unaware that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, (Senator Button) has a question on the Question Paper relating to the cost of Mr Justice Fox’s operations. This question is a detailed one and a reply is about to be presented by the Government in response to it. But I should draw to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition that his own Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate only asked a question on 28 May. So, if the Opposition was so concerned about it -

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– When did he ask it?

Mr Hodgman:

– Only on 28 May this year.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– A week ago.

Mr HODGMAN:

-Only one week ago. So, if the Opposition is so concerned about Mr Justice Fox and if what the Leader of the Opposition has said tonight has any truth and substance in it, why was it that it was not raised until one week ago and then not in this House but in another place? This reveals the absolute cant, hypocrisy and shallowness of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition tonight. I have just been handed the proposed new clause which is to be moved by the Opposition; it has now been circulated. Whilst I cannot speak to the details on it, I can at least point out that if this amendment were to be agreed to, it would have the effect of fettering the continuing operations of His Honour, Mr Justice Fox, as Australia’s Ambassador-at-Large.

There was so little substance in the Leader of the Opposition’s speech. I repeat that he is the only man in the Parliament who is able to look over both shoulders at once, looking over one shoulder for Bob Hawke and over the other shoulder for Ken Wriedt. He will not see either. It would be a waste of the time of the Parliament and an absolute insult to the intelligence of the people listening to this broadcast to give any further dignity to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. It was one of his most disgraceful speeches. It is only in keeping with the standard that we have come to expect from the Leader of the Opposition who, of course, has become known in Canberra as ‘ Mr Eighty Cents ‘ because of his plan to tax the taxpayers of Australia at the rate of 80c in the dollar.

The amendment foreshadowed by the Opposition has no substance in it. The man with the windmill arm over there- we never know whether he is Tom Thumb or Tom Uren- is swinging his arm around and is obviously out for a night on the punch. The Leader of the Opposition did no credit to himself or his Party by making a snide and behind-the-back attack on Australia’s Ambassador-at-Large, a judge appointed by the Whitlam Government. He made this attack when the man was out of the country and could not defend himself. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition should be censured and condemned for the despicable act which he performed tonight.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

-The object of this Bill is to ratify the appointment of Mr Justice Fox as AmbassadoratLarge on nuclear matters.

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

The House will now resolve itself into Committee.

Mr Holding:

– I could have spoken for another five minutes while the Government was deciding whether to go into Committee.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Holding:

– On a point of order, can I continue my speech in view of the fact that the Government cannot provide a Chairman of Committees? If the Government Whip is so inefficient, it seems to me that I ought to be able to continue. So I will continue making the speech that I was so concerned to make because -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Holding:

-. . . this Government cannot run the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Holding:

– I am not going to sit here doing nothing.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Melbourne Ports will resume his seat.

Mr Holding:

– No. I am being paid a lot of money. I am going to make my speech unless the Government can provide a Chairman of Committees and you can please yourself.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Holding:

– Then I draw your attention to the state of the House. It is a disgrace and you know it is a disgrace. (Quorum formed)

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The House will now resolve itself into Committee.

In Committee

The Bill.

Proposed new clause 4.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– I move:

While the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) has indicated that the Opposition has no objection in principle to the appointment of Mr Justice Fox as Ambassador-at-Large, on the very important question of an examination of the processes of nuclear industry, we do not believe that the question of the extension of his appointment ought just simply to be an exercise to be taken by the Executive. We believe that any extension of that appointment ought to come back to the Parliament so that the Parliament itself will have an opportunity to review the work, the activities and the achievements of Mr Justice Fox.

I, for one, am an admirer of his achievements. But I say this: At a time when this Government is talking about cutbacks, and talking about economic stringencies, and is calling upon other sections of the Australian community to make sacrifices, it is not good enough for the Government to say that it will simply give a mandate to Mr Justice Fox, whatever his excellence and whatever his capacity, to operate at large and that the question of his reappointment for an indeterminate term will be a matter solely and exclusively for the Executive and not for the Parliament.

I believe that one of the failures in the appointment of Mr Justice Fox- and I do not believe it is his failure but the Government’s failure- relates to the real benefits of his work, his real achievements and the importance of having him operating as Ambassador-at-Large. After all, what does he do? It is time, perhaps, that we examined what his functions are. His functions are to examine the range of arguments, the range of developments and the complexities of the problems which confront mainly those nations of Western society which seem to have been committed to nuclear industry and to inform, not merely the Government of Australia on the range of those matters -

Consideration interrupted.

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

Progress reported.

page 2950

ADJOURNMENT

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Viner:

– I require the question be put forthwith without debate.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2950

JUDICIARY (DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Mr HOLDING:

– The Government endeavours to work on the basis, both in this Parliament and in the community at large, that the issues related to the future of the nuclear industry have been resolved. As far as the Government is concerned there are no problems in terms of nuclear proliferation; there are no problems in relation to waste disposal. The fact of the matter is that all those areas in which Mr Justice Fox has been involved, and continues to be involved, are very much the subject of continuing debate. The problem is, whatever the nature of the report that comes from Mr Justice Fox, that it tends to stay within the ambit of the executive. It is not a report to the Parliament. I would have thought that if we are spending the amount of money that it costs to have Mr Justice Fox operate as an ambassador-at-large, then the information that he gleans as an ambassador-at-large ought not to be available just simply to the executive of the day but also ought to be available to the Parliament and through the Parliament, it ought to be available to the people of Australia.

What is the range of issues which Mr Justice Fox has pointed out in the past? First, it involves the ambiguity and uncertainties surrounding the attempts of President Carter to implement his non-proliferation policy. The Government would regard that issue as resolved. I wish to quote from a confidential document which, with the approval of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner), I am happy to table and have incorporated in Hansard. I seek the approval of the Minister for that.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Is leave granted?

Mr Viner:

– No.

Mr HOLDING:

– I find it sad and extraordinary that the Government and the Minister say that this Parliament will spend large sums of money sending Ambassador Fox overseas. There is nothing very secretive about the document. I propose to deal with the points it raises in the time available to me. Ambassador Fox says in this document that there is ambiguity and uncertainty surrounding the attempts of President Carter to implement his non-proliferation policy. He points out the competitiveness of the nuclear industry and how such competition presently erodes and diminishes the concept of non-proliferation.

Mr Uren:

– Who says this?

Mr HOLDING:

- Mr Justice Fox. He points out in the document- which the Minister will not have tabled- the inability of the International Atomic Energy Agency to administer safeguards satisfactorily. He points out the continuing difficulties in preventing the development of nuclear technology spreading to encompass military purposes. I find it extraordinary that we can have an ambassador-at-large who is entitled to brief sections of the Public Service and who is entitled to say ‘that is the range and the dimension of problems that face Australia ‘. It is all very well to have Mr Justice Fox operating as a public relations arm of this Government so that he will prove or substantiate its view. Is it suggested that because he is the ambassador, the Government will support whatever recommendations he makes? The reality, of course, is that most of Mr Justice Fox’s recommendations are honoured more in the breach than in their observance.

Mr Martyr:

– He ought to be sacked.

Mr HOLDING:

– I take the interjection made by a Government supporter. I draw it to the attention of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). As far as one of his colleagues is concerned, Mr Justice Fox ought to be sacked.

Mr Martyr:

– The sooner the better.

Mr HOLDING:

– Let me repeat that: The sooner the better. That is not the position the Opposition takes. It is the attitude which represents the viewpoint of those extreme right wing sections of the Liberal Party. The honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr) shows their real attitude to Mr Justice Fox.

Mr Martyr:

– He has cost us thousands of millions of dollars.

Mr HOLDING:

– Let me quote the honourable member for Swan who will not make his own speech: ‘He costs us thousands of millions of dollars. He ought to be sacked. The sooner the better’. That is the view of the honourable member for Swan expressed by way of interjection. That reflects the real attitude of the Government. I will say this for the honourable member for Swan: There is an essential honesty in his position because in essence that is the real position of this Government. The Government believes that so long as it can keep Mr Justice Fox as ambassador-at-large wandering around the world he can produce as many memoranda as he likes, he can tell the Government of the problems and the threats that are posed to the people of Australia by nuclear profliferation, he can tell the people of Australia and the Government that we have not solved the problems of nuclear waste disposal, he can point out all these problems, but they will stay within the confines of the Cabinet.

The real attitude of the Government is of course the attitude reflected by the honourable member for Swan. Therefore, I commend this amendment to the House because what it says is that the Parliament ultimately will accept responsibility for the extension of the appointment or any further appointment of Mr Justice Fox. It will not continue to be some exercise in cosy complicity on behalf of the executive arm of Government. I commend the amendment to the House because I believe it gives the Parliament some say in the future of Mr Justice Fox. I only hope that the recommendations he has made, which the Minister would not allow to be tabled because they highlight the essential dishonesty of this Government’s policy on the nuclear industry, will continue to be made, not merely to the executive arm of Government but also to the Parliament and, through the Parliament, to the people of Australia.

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

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

-The Government is not prepared to accept this amendment. I point out to honourable members what was said by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) in the Senate, that the work in which Mr Justice Fox is engaged is expected to conclude towards the end of 1980 and, therefore, he has been appointed by the Government until 31 December 1980. His actual appointment was not made by legislation and it is not being extended by this amending Bill. His appointment was an executive act. This legislation is designed simply to preserve his rights as a judge during the period of his appointment.

I would have thought that to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) and the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding), the latter being a lawyer, the position as explained by the Attorney-General would have been quite clear. Therefore, it is also abundantly clear that the amendment put forward by the Opposition is quite misconceived.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2951

ADJOURNMENT

Atomic Reactor: Security-Welfare Disbursement- Fund Raising by Political Parties- Government Policy: Influence on Society

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-There is a contention abroad to the effect that the atomic reactor in my electorate is under threat. I have here a circular or a minute paper which is signed by the manager of the HIFAR operations section of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission Research Establishment. The minute is dated 25 May 1979, the reference is GAC:FRB and the subject matter is: ‘Security Arrangements- HIFAR. ‘ It states:

Because of the escalation of security arrangements in the HIFAR area many of your staff may wonder why the indecent haste, when, for many years, there was virtually no local security.

I think it is worthwhile letting your staff know that:

1 ) the latest moves (24 hr police coverage + locking of the APR) have been instigated as there is evidence of a higher threat at the moment as Japanese anti-nuclear activists arc alleged to be in the country to train local activists in some of the finer (and perhaps not so fine) points of being anti-nuclear activists.

The institution of better security arrangements had been proposed for some time prior to their recent implementation. I don’t think its likely we’ll sec a relaxation in security as time goes on, but it may change in method. To a large degree this rests with the Director of Commission Security.

That is the end of that minute which is signed by the manager of the HIFAR operations section. I believe that this is a matter of concern. I do not want to overdramatise it. It is an official paper and I think that it is very important to draw it to the attention of the House. If, in fact, there had been such a serious threat to the well-being of 1,200 employees at that research establishment and, indeed, to many of my constituents who live in close proximity to that establishment, this Parliament should be entitled to know something about the extent of security arrangements being instituted.

I would like to know whether the circular is upheld by the Government and whether the Government is prepared to join with this contention about the threat of Japanese anti-nuclear activists who are supposed to be here or who could be here. The paper states that: ‘activists are alleged to be in the country to train local activists in some of the finer (and perhaps not so fine) points of being anti-nuclear activists’. There are many anti-nuclear activists in my area in my Party. I regard all of them as decent people who are concerned with the environment. They are people who are very loyal to this country. I believe that it is a very serious reflection on them for anyone to contend that they would be capable of being subjected to any manipulation by such Japanese anti-nuclear activists. Perhaps this is an excuse for telephone tapping. Perhaps it is an excuse for the infringement of civil liberties. I do not know what it is, but I think it is important to say that if this nuclear reactor is under threat this Parliament, the constituents in my electorate and the workers in that plant are entitled to know what is being done to protect their well-being.

It is interesting to note that in recent times there has been a concurrent contention that machinery has been stolen from that reactor. It is alleged that a lathe, a drill-press and a bench grinder which were to go to building 42 workshop disappeared from the isotope workshop. Inquiries have been conducted into the disappearance of that equipment. It would take a crane to move it. If that has occurred there is something very seriously wrong with the security in the atomic reactor. If a possibility exists of Japanese anti-nuclear activists being in the country there is a reason for this Government to come clean and to tell us precisely what is the position. I regard this matter with the utmost alarm and I am prepared to table the paper for the benefit of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) who represents the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) who I have not had the time to contact. I ask him to report to the Parliament with the greatest expedition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

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

Mr McLEAN:
Perth

-There has recently been both parliamentary and public comment on the principles of welfare disbursement. I want to put my views on this matter. I believe that it is possible to urge a needs approach to welfare, both in the interests of the needy and in the interests, of responsible budgetary management. It is my view that if the ability to pay is the criterion for raising income taxes, the criterion of need should be the principle used in disbursing those funds. This view basically acknowledges the fact that both the taxation and income support systems are two sides of the same coin, with taxation withdrawing income and income support programs naturally adding to it. Both sides of the coin may well be involved in any equitable change to existing programs. This kind of emphasis helps governments to alleviate the incidence and improve the equity of the tax system, while at the same time improving the possibility of directing more adequate assistance to those in need.

Since I have been in this Parliament I have been, and will continue to be, a strong advocate for the disadvantaged in our society. From the time I made my maiden speech in this place 1 have constantly said that we go about this objective in the wrong way- in a way which is against the best interests of the disadvantaged- by moving increasingly towards universal welfare. In my view this is not a radical approach. After all, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Treasurer (Mr Howard) and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) have advocated this in their rhetoric.

The Opposition has moved towards this position by removing from its policy the promise to abolish the means test on age pensions. The Opposition should not claim that this has merely given way to proposals for a national superannuation scheme. After all, needs based income maintenance benefits are also used in a number of countries where it has been found that the benefits provided under either universal or contributory schemes are often insufficient for those who rely totally on such schemes for their income support. This tendency towards universal welfare is rather new. In referring to this problem,

Mr T. H. Kewley, the then senior lecturer in government at the University of Sydney said in the Australian Quarterly of 1972:

Countries that earlier chose to follow the approach of Bismarck in Germany are in the process of having second thoughts about the wisdom of that decision, especially where their schemes have become practically universal in coverage, and are looking with some envy at the selective approach followed in Australia.

At this time both England and Canada were also stressing greater emphasis on anti-poverty measures. The only point I want to make is that the existence of universal income support programs inevitably means that those in greatest need do not receive the level of assistance that could otherwise be given to them.

I say that for a number of reasons. Firstly, the universal method of disbursing welfare funds leads to Budget inflexibility. Where several departments dominate the outlays side of the Budget I think it is reasonable to assume that those departments are restricted from entering into new programs to meet newly emerging areas of need. Secondly, selectivity permits a greater concentration of welfare resources on the needy and may allow those resources to be paid at a higher level and also to be protected from inflation, neither of which can be achieved with universally paid benefits because it is too costly. In other words, the application of universal benefits generally means bleeding the poor to pay the rich.

Thirdly, needs based welfare would certainly mean that society could be permitted to lower taxation levels, thereby helping to create employment and further increase overall living standards. As I said last week in this place, in this context one could almost say that a rich person’s benefit is another person’s job. I want to emphasise that we do not require a simple adjustment to welfare principles. We need to acknowledge that at the present time both our systems of taxation and income support are anomalous and fail to meet the objectives of equitable and just resource distribution. The Government should seek internally consistent packages whenever amendments to either system are contemplated, in order to provide greater justice, both for those who receive assistance and for those who currently provide it.

Mr Kewley mentioned in the Australian Quarterly that in his opinion the adoption of a selective approach in Australia was the reason that Professor Henderson was able to claim in 1971 that the incidence of poverty in Australia is lower than in any country in the world with the possible exception of New Zealand and the Scandinavian countries. I also think it is quite interesting to note that those who speak out strongly against handouts, high government expenditure and high taxes are so often the same people who receive welfare assistance from the Government without being in the kinds of circumstances which make such assistance imperative.

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

-In the last couple of days I have asked questions of the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) about his involvement in fund raising for the Liberal Party, particularly amongst oil companies and more suspiciously amongst overseas owned and controlled oil companies. The Minister, who has become known as the Minister for convenient hearing defects, has refused to answer the questions positively. In the first instance, the Minister’s involvement in these activities was revealed in the Laurie Oakes Report of 23 May. It revealed that there had been a meeting in Perth at which the Liberal Party in Western Australia had been keen to involve the Minister for National Development in fund raising exercises, particularly amongst the oil companies. The Laurie Oakes Report states:

According to Liberal sources, the party is particularly anxious to get financial support from foreign-owned oil companies. In the light of controversies such as that raging at present -

And a controversy was raging at that time- over the issue of oil drilling in the Barrier Reef area, the Liberal fund raisers could be said to be taking a large risk with Mr Newman ‘s credibility .

Indeed, they are not the only people taking a risk with the Minister’s credibility. What we know is that after the last few days the Minister’s credibility is in absolute tatters. Having told the Parliament a few days ago the truth and the real reason for the delay in the declaration of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, he later had to change his answer in support of the lies which had been told in another place by another Minister.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr DAWKINS:

– I withdraw the remark.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will resume his seat. First of all, the honourable member may not reflect on another member of this House unless he does so by way of a substantive motion. Secondly, he was out of order in using the word that he has now withdrawn.

Mr DAWKINS:

– Given the incredible track record of the Minister for National Development, it is not unreasonable to press with greater vigour the questions which I have posed to him. The point is that the Liberal Party members in Western Australia were apprised of the fact that a few heavies were to be in Western Australia at the time of the meeting of the Liberal Party Federal Conference, and they decided to wheel out a few of those heavies in the interests of fund raising in Western Australia. Not only was this Minister involved, but the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) and the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) were also involved in fund raising ventures of one kind or another while they were in Western Australia. That is not an unexceptional activity. However, what is exceptional is the involvement of the Minister for National Development, who is in such a strategic and key position, being the Minister responsible for setting the price of oil in this country and being the Minister who has the largest say in issuing oil exploration permits in this country. It is important for us to know what exactly he is up to when he is holding secret lunches and talking to representatives of foreign owned oil companies while he is involved in raising finance for the Liberal Party.

What is the pay-off for the people from whom he is trying to raise money? The point is that the Minister has refused even to acknowledge that he attended the lunch. The question I asked a couple of days ago was in two parts. I asked whether he was at the lunch and I asked whether he was apprised of the fact that the prime purpose of the meeting was to raise money. He did not answer the first point, even though we know he was at that lunch and who else was at it. He said no to the second part of the question. I give the Minister notice that I know who was at that lunch. I know that he was apprised beforehand that the purpose of the meeting was to raise funds on behalf of the Liberal Party. I know who informed him of the real nature of the lunch. At this stage I am not prepared to reveal the name of that person. I say to the Minister that I give him one more chance. Tomorrow I will ask him again to do what he said he would do today- to check his correspondence and to use whatever other means he has at his disposal to answer unequivocally whether he knew that the purpose of the meeting at the Parmelia was to raise funds.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

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

Mr SAINSBURY:
Monaro · Eden

-I have been told by a friend of mine who was working in Europe some months ago that the playwrights of Europe are saying, through their plays, that the people are becoming greatly disillusioned with the state. Of course this experience is not new in history or in location. The people of ancient Rome had the same experience but perhaps realised it too late. President Carter, in the 1 979 State of the Union Address, said:

We have begun for one of the few times in history actually to dismantle a major federal bureaucracy . . . It is not enough to have created a lot of government programs. Now we must make the good more effective, improve or weed out those which are wasteful and unnecessary.

In our own context here in Australia there is ample evidence that governments, having been given a massive chance in the past 10 years or so, have fluffed it. I believe that there is an increasing awareness amongst our people that this is so. I should point out most emphatically that there are some areas of government revenue raising and spending where I would always want the Government to be involved. There is a very firm obligation on us to be prepared to pay taxes so that the most necessary reallocations of income can be effected. I refer of course to support for the underprivileged, the disadvantaged and the handicapped; to the frail aged and to the genuinely unemployed. I stress that there are some other areas of government involvement where only governments can do the job- in areas of diplomacy, defence, the basic maintenance of our roads, to name a few. Governments will have to be involved and hopefully involved in as cost efficient manner as is possible.

Having pointed out those most obvious areas, I would now say that governments in Australia are at present taking too much from us to support other aims of government which are best carried out by individuals or groups of individuals within our communities. Further, the Government is getting too much involved in areas of socalled redistribution of income which are counterproductive and which have in many cases very little effect at all.

In any formulation of a code of aims within our system I believe we must recognise that industrial capitalism has proved itself the most efficient means of increasing the wealth and hence potentially the welfare of our people. The tremendous gains across the whole spectrum of Western society that have occurred in the past 200 years are very much due to that system of industrial capitalism which almost all Australians recognise by their own behaviour as being part of our way of life. What we often forget is that that system requires as much of the means of production being left in the hands of individuals and companies as is possible. As a corollary, it requires that as little as possible be put in the hands of the bureaucracy.

In almost every attempt artificially to alter our society for the better governments, when they have acted alone, have failed. The grand designs of the Whitlam era were magnificent but inevitably were not achievable because the very means of achieving those aims through our capitalist system were being eroded. Galloping taxation took away the very fuel within the system which was needed to achieve expanded social aims. Unless individuals are to be left with enough capital and incentive to produce more goods and invest more the extra goods required will not efficiently be available to allow for more humanitarian material achievements.

Sometimes governments believe also that they should raise taxes from us because they believe they can run enterprises more efficiently than people in free enterprise do. In my very electorate we have the disastrous effects of such a move in that $5 or $6m of taxpayers’ funds have been ploughed into a government owned brickworks in Canberra. Not only has it created chaos through its artificial price cutting activities but also in the process it has lost money, which one way or another must come out of the pockets of taxpayers in the future.

We must also question several of the actions of governments in the social security area. Taxing the rich to pay family allowances to the rich seems absurd. At present the Government uses vast quantities of our money by way of borrowings to support programs which cannot be covered in the normal Budget revenue raising. Might it not be more efficient for that money to be used by us through normal lending channels so that more young couples can build houses at a lower rate of interest on their borrowings? Might it not be better to have that money not being sucked out of the system so that interest rates can be lowered, thus providing greater incentive for individuals and companies to build more factories and to create more jobs? Given that our society, through its governments, is forced to provide a good basis for the underprivileged, the disadvantaged and the handicapped and given that there are some other programs that cannot be covered by any agency other than governments, I ask really whether governments can be trusted with our money to provide a better society than we, as individuals and as communities, can provide? The debate on this tremendously important subject needs to be stirred up in Australia now, before we drift into the economic and ultimately social morass that the ancient Romans found themselves in.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order The honourable member’s time has expired. It being 1 1 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

page 2955

NOTICES

The following notices were given:

Mr Howard to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911.

Mr Hunt to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Quarantine Act 1 908.

Mr Ellicott to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act 1962.

Mr Ellicott to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Ombudsman Act 1 976.

Mr Ellicott to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1 973.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 2956

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Work Force (Question No. 3447)

Mr Willis:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 21 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Are there any occupations in Australia for which the supply of personnel is expected to be inadequate if the rate of economic growth increases to a more normal trend level; if so, what are they.
  2. What action does the Government intend to take to eliminate these shortfalls and when will the shortfalls be eliminated.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Taking into account present supply rates and reasonable growth projections for skilled occupations, inadequate supplies seem rather more likely in trade areas than in professional areas and particularly in three large trade groups. These are metal machining trades, repairman/mechanic trades of all kinds, and non-electrical construction trades.
  2. ) The most direct action which the Government can take to increase the supply of tradesmen in general is to encourage employers to train more apprentices. Under the CRAFT Scheme, employers are paid a subsidy for each day an apprentice is away at school during paid working hours. Yearly intake figures since the introduction of CRAFT in January 1977 have indicated that there has been an increase in the general level of national apprentice intakes.

Tradesmen shortages in specific trade groups and locations have been the subject of a proposal by the National

Training Council to introduce trade training programs complementary to apprenticeship. These programs would be directed at eligible unemployed young persons in the 18-22 year age group and would be based on established or forecast tradesmen deficiencies. I fully support these programs and have given approval for my Department to have discussions with employers, unions and State authorities on the introduction of pilot programs for metal trades in those localities where they are most needed.

Industrial Research and Development Grants Board (Question No. 3505)

Mr Hurford:

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

  1. 1 ) What has been the budget allocation to the Industrial Research and Development Grants Board in real terms since its inception.
  2. What part of the $24m allocated to the Board in the 1978-79 Budget will be used to fund (a) existing commitments and (b) new grants.
  3. What has been the proportion of industrial research and development expenditure to gross domestic product since the inception of the Board.
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Budget allocation for industrial research and development grants, since the inception of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Grants Board on 1 July 1967, is expressed in real terms in the following table:
  1. Of the $24m allocated for industrial research and development grants in the 1978-79 Budget, it was intended that (a) some $6.5 m would be used to discharge grant commitments entered into prior to I July 1978; (b) some $ 15m would be used to fund new grant commitments entered into subsequent to 1 July 1 978; and (c) that the remainder of the allocation would be used for the support of public interest industrial research projects and for the undertaking of pilot programs in the areas of technology transfer and the commercial exploitation of invention.
  2. Commonwealth expenditure on industrial research and development grants, since the inception of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Grants Board on I July 1967, is expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product in the above table.

Australian Passports (Question No. 3650)

Mr James:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) non-Members of Parliament, (b) Government employees, both (i) State and (ii) Federal and (c) members of Government Parties being non-Ministers, have been issued with diplomatic passports during the period 1 975 to date.
  2. Which persons were issued with diplomatic passports during this period, and for what reasons were they issued.
  3. How many are still current.
  4. Are Governors-General and ex Governors-General and their wives entitled to diplomatic passports.
Mr Peacock:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. and (2) Diplomatic passport issues are recorded on’ cards held by the Passports Office in Canberra. These cards are in alphabetical order and are not kept in a manner which would make identification of categories or yearly issues possible without an examination of each individual card. My Department does not have the resources to extract and compile this information. The great majority of diplomatic passport issues are made to Australian officials in the context of their accreditation to Australian missions in foreign countries. My answer to Question No. 975 (Hansard, 31 May 1978, page 2892 ) is also relevant to the honourable member’s question.
  2. Diplomatic passports are issued for varying lengths of time not exceeding 5 years to enable the bearer to carry out a particular mission and it is therefore very difficult to determine the number currently valid. I can say, however, that approximately 940 were issued in 1975, approximately 810 in 1976, 780 in 1977 and 750 in 1978. A large number of these are passports re-issued to eligible officials.
  3. Governors-General and their wives are entitled to diplomatic passports. Ex Governors-General and their wives who require travel documents also receive diplomatic passports as a matter of courtesy.

Taiwan (Question No. 3692)

Mr James:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to proposed United States of America legislation in which the United States Administration is preparing to open a quasi-governmental agency in Taiwan.
  2. If so, is it a fact that this agency would continue to carry out unofficially the functions of an embassy in that country.
  3. Is it also a fact that the proposed legislation proposes to keep in force more than 50 treaties and agreements between the United States and Taiwan.
  4. What subjects do these treaties and agreements cover.
  5. Does Australia intend to follow the proposed lead taken by the United States Administration in regard to a trade, consular or information office; if so, when might an announcement be made; if not, why not.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The United States has passed legislation to establish a commercial corporation known as the American Institute in Taiwan to maintain commercial and other nongovernmental contacts with Taiwan, including the administration of procedures for the entry of Taiwanese visitors to the United States and the continued operation of commercial and other agreements. In this respect it will carry out some functions which formerly would have been carried out by the United States Embassy in Taiwan.
  3. Yes.
  4. The United States/Taiwan Mutual Defence Treaty will be allowed to lapse at the end of this year. Other agreements, which will remain in force, cover such subjects as commerce, including agreements restricting access to the United States market for certain Taiwanese products; agriculture; peaceful use of atomic energy; civil aviation; claims; navigation; customs; and economic and technical co-operation.
  5. The circumstances under which the United States conducts its relations with Taiwan are quite different from those relating to Australia. The arrangements applying in the case of the United States result from specific agreements and understandings reached between the United States and Chinese Governments when they entered into full diplomatic relations. The Chinese Government has not agreed to similar arrangements by any other country except Japan.

Australian Passports (Question No. 3726)

Mr James:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) With reference to the current trial in Bangkok in which 3 Australian citizens have been charged with possession of heroin is he able to state one of the accused had in his possession 3 passports under 3 different names when arrested.
  2. ) Were these passports Australian.
  3. If so, (a) at what office were they issued, (b) under what names and (c) what was the issuing date.
  4. What methods did the accused employ to obtain these passports.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Warren Edward Fellows was found to be in possession of three passports on his arrest in Bangkok.
  2. Yes.
  3. (a) All were issued at Sydney, (b) Warren Edward Fellows, William Curwen Errington and Gregory Hastings Barker, (c) 15 August 1974, 17 February 1978 and 27 June 1978.
  4. Until Commonwealth Police have completed their investigations into the matter I cannot give definite details on the method used to obtain the passports.

Department of Health: Polls and Surveys (Question No. 3762)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many opinion polls or surveys have been commissioned or carried out by his Department in each year from 1 975 to date and how many have not been completed.
  2. For each of the opinion polls or surveys, (a) which companies or private individuals were commissioned, (b) what was the subject matter and purpose and (c) what was the cost.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (l)and(2) 1975-Nil. 1 976- One surveyHealth insurance changes: Completed in 1976, for which the Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd was paid $ 1 ,500. The purpose of the survey was to determine public awareness of forthcoming health insurance changes and to decide if further paid advertising was necessary. 1 977- Two surveys-

Pharmacy earnings: A survey carried out in respect of the year 1977-78 by the Department, for the Joint Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Arrangements, to gather information on the cost of dispensing pharmaceutical benefit prescriptions. No companies or private individuals were commissioned.

Stratified sample survey of Sydney: Completed but a report is not yet available; carried out by the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine to investigate value orientation and self-perceived morbidity of Sydneydwellers. No companies or private individuals were commissioned, although medical students at Sydney University acted as interviewers as pan of their training. 1 978- Six surveysPublications readership (two surveys): Both completed in 1978; to seek readers’ views of Animal Quarantine magazine and Health Journal, and suggestions for improvement. No companies or private individuals were involved.

National nursing manpower: Completed in 1978, although the final report is anticipated late 1979. Two companies were commissioned for very minor components of the survey- Automail, Sydney, sorted envelopes and was paid $18,773 and Crightons, Canberra, was paid $20,420 for punching data. The survey involved a questionnaire to nursing personnel to identify supply, distribution, utilisation and future requirements.

Drug use in ACT: Completed in 1978; to determine use of drugs in the ACT, to establish a baseline and assist in the development of drug education programs. The Australian National University Survey Research Centre was paid $5,680 to carry out the survey.

Australian Prescriber- Value of publication: Completed in 1978, for which the Department of Community Medicine at Sydney University was paid $3,000. The purpose of the survey was to establish the position of Australian Prescriber in relation to other journals general practitioners receive.

Limb reduction deformities: An ongoing survey carried out by the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine; to estimate frequency of deformities in NSW, and identify causation factors. No companies or private individuals are involved. 1979- One surveyDrug use in ACT: A current survey similar to that carried out in 1978; to establish trends in drug use and assist with drug education programs. The Australian National University Survey Research Centre is being paid $4,840 to carry out the task.

Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Lucas Heights (Question No. 3780)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) When are the surveys on the environment and work related health hazards of both current and former employees of the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Lucas Heights, NSW to commence.
  2. In particular, when are the reports referred to in answer to question No. 3192 (Hansard, 4 April 1979, page 1551) to commence.
  3. What is the ambit of each of the reports.
  4. Who is to prepare the reports
  5. What sums have been allocated for each of the studies and when are the studies expected to be completed.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The surveys of both current and former employees of the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Lucas Heights have commenced.
  2. The second report, referred to in the answer to question No. 3192, has been completed and was handed to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission for printing on 2 April 1979. The third report will take the form of a series of research papers on particular problems revealed by analysis of the survey data. The work for these papers has already commenced and papers will be published from dme to time as each aspect is completed.
  3. The second report, entitled ‘Interpretation of Hazard and Recommendations’, analyses health indices such as sickness absence, workers’ compensation, and premature retirement and death, together with an analysis of the work environment. It will also recommend toxicological and radiological health procedures for adoption by the Commission.

A third report will deal with more detailed analyses of the occupational variation in biological variables shown in the first report. It will constitute the beginning of the continuing research program proposed in the second report.

  1. The second report was compiled largely by the Head, Depanment of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, aided by his Senior Physicist, Senior Chemist and secretariat. All computing work was carried out by the Commission. A Survey Advisory Committee, comprising three top level people in the field, was also consulted. Preparation of the third report which will take the form of a series of research papers in follow-up of some findings in the first report, will also be the responsibility of the Head of the Depanment of Environmental and Occupational Health. The second report contained a recommendation concerning employment of a research officer to assist the School in completing the papers that will constitute the third report and to conduct ongoing research.

    1. It is not possible to estimate the amount of Federal funds involved in the completion of the study. During the medical interview phase, a medical officer, a nurse and a clerical assistant were provided full-rime by the Commission. The cost of their employment was approximately $72,000 and in addition about $20,500 was paid for pathology and other services associated with the medical interviews. No special funds have been allocated since the completion of the medical interviews. On-going analysis and report preparation have involved, as part of their normal work, some officers of my Department and of the Commission. It is not possible to apportion these costs nor the costs involved in travel, literature reviews and other back-up work.

Mailing of Australian Passports (Question No. 3936)

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Is it a fact that Australian passports which are posted to recipients are sent by ordinary mail and not registered mail; if so, has the Government any intention of changing this procedure.

Mr Peacock:
LP

– The answer to the first part of the question asked by the honourable member is yes; the answer to the second part of the question is no.

Human Rights Detainee in Soviet Union: Mr I. Ogurtsov (Question No. 3940)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Is he able to state whether a Mr Igor Ogurtsov was sentenced by the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to 15 years imprisonment and 5 years of exile about 1 1 years ago.
  2. ) If so, is Mr Ogurtsov at present a prisoner in the concentration camp at Perm and seriously ill.
  3. What were the charges of which Mr Ogurtsov was found guilty; were they related to his religious beliefs.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am advised that a Soviet citizen, Mr Igor Vyacheslavovich Ogurtsov, a co-founder and leader of an organisation known as the All Russian Social Christian Union for the Liberation of the People, was sentenced in 1 968 to 1 5 years’ imprisonment, to be followed by periods in a labour camp and internal exile.
  2. Mr Ogurtsov is reported to be detained at prison camp Perm 36, Institution VS-389/36, Kuchino Settlement, Chusovoi District, 618263 Perm Region, USSR. I am aware of reports that Mr Ogurtsov is in poor health, but have no information to hand which would confirm or deny these reports.
  3. 3 ) Mr Ogurtsov along with a number of other Soviet citizens connected with the All Russian Christian Union were the subject of court proceedings in the USSR in 1968. Mr Ogurtsov was reportedly charged under Articles 64 (a), 70, and 72 of the USSR Criminal Code.

These articles deal respectively with (a) the betrayal of the fatherland, (b) anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda, and ( c) the creation of an anti-Soviet organisation. Information is not available to me to indicate under which of these articles Mr Ogurtsov was convicted. I am not in a position to state it as a fact, but it does appear that Mr Ogurtsov ‘s religious beliefs and activities were a significant factor in his detention, trial and conviction. I should add that representations have been received expressing concern over Mr Ogurtsov ‘s continued detention and calling on the Government to intervene with the Soviet authorities on behalf of Mr Ogurtsov. These representations have been conveyed to the Soviet government.

Issue of Official Passport (Question No. 3957)

Mr James:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 May 1 979:

Has the Government issued Sir John Pagan, a former Federal President of the Liberal Party, an official government passport for overseas travel.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

This Government has not issued an official passport to Sir John Pagan.

Shooting of Man at Sydney International Airport (Question No. 3970)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 23 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Was Domenico Speranza fatally shot by police at Sydney International Airport on 4 April 1979.
  2. Were the police aware that Mr Speranza was mentally ill.
  3. Was there any risk to human life (apart from the victims ‘s own ) when Mr Speranza was shot.
  4. What was his attitude to the police action at the time, and what is his attitude in retrospect.
Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2), (3) and (4) A coroner’s inquest into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr Speranza will be held in Sydney in July. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the matters you have raised in these circumstances.

Unemployment Benefit: Tertiary Graduates (Question No. 4034)

Mr Humphreys:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 29 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that part-time students who are about to graduate from tertiary institutions in Queensland have not been allowed to apply for unemployment benefit at Commonwealth Employment Service offices.
  2. If so, was the reason given by CES officers for refusal of application that the applicant is likely to give up a job once he or she has graduated.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

Commonwealth Employment Service staff are under instructions not to refuse any claims for unemployment benefit as the determination of such claims is a matter for the Department of Social Security.

My Department has no knowledge of these instructions being breached in Queensland or anywhere else. However, if details of specific cases can be supplied they will be investigated.

Social Security: Vietnamese Refugees (Question No. 4059)

Mr Kerin:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 30 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) What social security benefits are given to Vietnamese refugees on entry into Australia.
  2. At what time(s) are Vietnamese refugees entitled to the full range of social security benefits normally available to Australian citizens.
  3. What provisions normally applying to Australian citizens are waived with respect to the provision of benefits to Vietnamese refugees.
  4. Is any positive discrimination practised regarding the eligibility for unemployment benefits of Vietnamese refugees.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Special benefit. This benefit is granted at the same rate as and subject to the same income test as unemployment benefit. Cases are reviewed after 4 weeks residence in Australia. Steps are then taken to terminate special benefit or, if the refugee can meet the normal conditions of eligibility, special benefit may be continued or a more appropriate benefit granted.
  2. ) This would vary according to the circumstances of particular cases and the different eligibility conditions which apply for the various benefits. As indicated above, after 4 weeks residence in Australia refugees are required to satisfy the conditions of eligibility which apply to members of the community generally.
  3. A 7 day waiting period is not applied for payment of special benefit and during the first 4 weeks after arrival in Australia the work test is not applied.
  4. No.

Australia Council: Grants (Question No. 3149)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1 979:

What sums were granted by the Australia Council to (a) individuals and (b) organisations in each electoral division in (i) 1976-77, (ii) 1977-78 and (iii) I July 1978 to date.

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

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

The Australia Council has provided information on the number and total amount of grants paid in each Federal electorate for the 1977-78 financial year and for the period from 1 July 1978 to 15 May 1979.

This information has been retrieved from the Australia Council’s computer. The computer, however, does not hold data for the 1 976-77 financial year and is not programmed to show grants paid to individuals and organisations within each electorate.

The Australia Council has estimated that to provide manually the information on grants paid in the 1976-77 financial year and to distinguish between grants made to individuals and those made to organisations, as requested by the honourable member, would require an extensive research exercise. I am not prepared to request the Australia Council to release scarce staff resources for this task. However, if the honourable member has a question relating to a specific grant or a small number of grants, I would be prepared to arrange for the Australia Council to provide this information. The Australia Council also has advised that:

it is often difficult to classify grants on an electoral basis precisely, and a small error rate is unavoidable;

b ) grants paid to individuals and organisations in a particular electorate do not necessarily benefit that electorate alone.

The list is as follows:

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 5 June 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1979/19790605_reps_31_hor114/>.