House of Representatives
7 June 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session

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

Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P. C. Millar) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3085

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That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilize whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Garland, Mr Howe, Mr Jarman, Dr Jenkins and Mr Shipton.

Petitions received.

Pensions

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burns, Dr Klugman, Mr Martin and Mr Willis.

Petitions received.

Military Alliances

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

  1. Military arrangements with ASEAN countries involve the the maintenance of Australian Military forces in Singapore and Malaysia: training of servicemen, military aid and joint military manoeuvres with most ASEAN countries.
  2. Almost all ASEAN regimes are oppressive and undemocratic in character, three of them being military dictatorships.
  3. Throughout the region there are opposition tendencies, which are brutally suppressed, and widespread and growing liberation movements.
  4. In these circumstances Australia’s military arrangements with ASEAN countries are likely to involve us in direct military action in support of the unstable, unpopular regimes- in New Vietnams’.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Australian Government will undertake.

  1. 1 ) to express its strong opposition to arrangements involving maintenance of Australian military forces in other countries.
  2. to end military arrangements with ASEAN countries involving the maintenance of Australian military forces in Singapore and Malaysia, training of servicemen, military aid and joint military manoeuvres with most ASEAN countries.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bryant and Mr Willis.

Petitions received.

Taxation

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 many Australians are concerned with the inadequacy of Overseas Aid, both Government and Private as well as with support for local charities. Such Aid is saving precious lives, giving undernourished and homeless people encouragement and help, bringing malnourished children to health, education and a better life, giving people friendship and a new hope. A crusade of compassion highlights the hope of a brighter and kindlier world in the International Year of the Child- 1 979.

We therefore respectfully request that the Commonwealth Government provide some incentive to encourage such Aid by making the same tax concessions to approved voluntary overseas aid organisations, as are already provided for charities working within Australia.

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

Petition received.

Road Safety

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 traffic lights at the intersection of Lancaster and Newton and Monash Roads, Blacktown, are inadequate for the safety of our school children- ratepayers- and citizens. All living on the left side of Monash Road and right side of Lancaster Road from Blacktown, have NO walk lights- NO walk crossings. As there are no signs to indicate to the motorist there is a school in the area not only school children are at risk but all attempting to cross are in danger. We as concerned parents and citizens feel it is our duty to bring this to the attention of others to help save lives-limbs and property.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that funds be provided to State traffic authorities to enable them to upgrade pedestrian safety at major traffic intersections and in particular, to improve pedestrian traffic lights at the intersection of Lancaster, Newton and Monash Roads, Blacktown, New South Wales.

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

Petition received.

Closure of Post Office

To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that they are concerned with the recent announcement of the closure of the Post Office, North Ward, Townsville, and office which provides a very necessary service in a suburb which has a large population of flat dwellers, permanent residents and the Townsville General Hospital precinct. They consider that the closure of this office will be a retrograde step and one that will disadvantage all the residents of North Ward.

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Australian Government will reverse it’s decision to suspend operations at the North Ward Post Office.

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

Petition received.

Commonwealth Government Employees Compensation

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

The humble petition of electors of the State of New South Wales respectfully showeth:

That compensation benefits payable to injured Australian Government employees and Defence Forces personnel under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees)Act 1971 should be increased as a matter of urgency in view of the financial plight of recipients, particularly those suffering long term incapacity and because of the significant increase in the cost of living which has occurred since compensation payments were last adjusted; and

That statutory provision should be made for the automatic adjustment of compensation benefits.

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

Petition received.

Metric System

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

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

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

Petition received.

Pornographic Publications

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Education

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

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the subsidies to pre-schools be raised to 80 per cent of approved staff salaries at the current year award level, and indexed accordingly.

We are also desirous of advanced notification of the subsidy level.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the current rate of subsidisation be increased.

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

Petition 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 Porter.

Petition received.

Energy

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

The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth submits:

We condemn Mr Anthony’s response to the grave events at Harrisburg. His statements typify the government’s immoral priorities- mining and profits rather than health and safety.

We are demanding that:

Australia’s uranium exports cease, and that Uranium be left in the ground.

No New nuclear reactors be built in Australia, particularly at Lucas Heights and in Western Australia.

Government funding for uranium and nuclear development be rechanneled into urgently needed development of safe and renewable energy sources (solar, wind, etc.)

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Uren.

Petition received.

page 3087

URANIUM

Notice of Motion

Mr UREN:
Reid

-Mr Acting Speaker, I give notice that at the next day of sitting I will move:

That this House notes that-

1 ) the Government has failed to act on the assessment report of the Nabarlek uranium project prepared by the Department of Science and the Environment which revealed that radiation levels at the mine site are five to 10 times higher than Queensland Mines estimates and that workers in the mine would be exposed to lethal dosages of radiation should they work for more than 3 hours a day over the 29 week extraction period;

the Government has failed to demand that the company make changes to its extraction procedures and provide for the regular monitoring of radiation levels by independent health physicists located at the site in the interests of protecting the health of mine workers; and

3 ) the Government has failed to draw on the experience in the United States of America where several hundred uranium miners have died from lung cancer and pulmonary fibrosis as a result of exposure to radiation at the site.

page 3087

UNITED NATIONS

Notice of Motion

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

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

That this House-

1 ) notes that the organs of the United Nations, particularly the Security Council, charged with the responsibility of maintaining peace, have failed to fulfil that function and that one of the reasons for this is that the structure is representative of Governments and not people;

resolves to support moves to make the United Nations General Assembly more representative;

resolves to repeal the unanimity rule of the Security Council which allows a single nation to thwart the wishes of the rest of mankind and replace it with a more democratic procedure;

supports moves to review the charter of the United Nations to these ends;

notes moves in the Indian Parliament to achieve a similar objective, and

resolves to consult with other democratic nations in order to obtain their support for this objective.

page 3087

RAILWAY SERVICES

Notice of Motion

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

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

  1. 1 ) In the opinion of this House, and in the interests of Australia generally,

    1. In regard to the problems facing Australia as a result of our lack of future fossil fuel resources, it is essential that greater effective use be made of our railway services to maximise our existing resources;
    2. The present Government policies will result in the downgrading of railway services in the Federal Government instrumentality the Australian National Railways;
    3. Government initiated staff ceilings have already resulted in large reductions in services and staff in ANR;
    4. ) That the corporate plan drawn up by the ANR Commission at the behest of the Minister for Transport, if put into operation, will further downgrade railway services and result in a further reduction in staff by 25 percent;
    5. These Government actions will further lower the morale of ANR staff in the wages, clerical and professional sections in that system, and
    6. Implementation of the corporate plan will have a serious detrimental effect on traditional railway communities such as Port Augusta, Port Pirie, Peterborough and Port Lincoln, all within the Grey electorate, and

  2. ) In view of our present energy position the House calls on the Government to reverse its present policies in regard to railway services.

page 3087

RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

Notice of Motion

Mr CHAPMAN:
Kingston

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

That this House, in the International Year of the Child, noting that:

1) the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child states that the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth, and asserts that a child shall be entitled to grow and develop in health and to this end special care and attention should be provided both to the child and to the mother, including adequate prenatal and post-natal care, and

that the annual abortion rate in Australia of approximately 60,000 is believed to be one of the highest rates in a developed country, recommends that the Commonwealth and State Governments ensure that adequate funds are granted to Pregnancy Help, Pregnancy Support and Birthline organisations so that they may continue their assistance to mothers and babies in the pre-natal and post-natal stages particularly, and thereby alleviate or remove some of the pressures which force some women to resort to abortion.

page 3088

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 3088

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Mr Holding proceeding to address a question to the Minister for Primary Industry-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Melbourne Ports will resume his seat. He is directing a question to the Minister for Primary Industry for which he has no ministerial responsibility. Certain Standing Orders apply to the asking of questions without notice. The question is ruled out of order.

Mr Holding:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. Last night the Minister for Primary Industry came into the House and under Standing Orders voluntarily chose to make a statement which raised issues before the Parliament which clearly the honourable gentleman thought went to his credit as a Minister. As the Minister has brought forward those matters, there is nothing in this question which is not directly related to the Minister’s statement to the House. Standing Orders were suspended to allow him to make his statement. The matter was canvassed. The issue was raised by the Minister and the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) spoke on it. Debate took place. The effect of your ruling- with respect, it would create an unseemly precedent- is that a matter which is before the Parliament, having been raised by a Minister, and is the subject of debate in the House, where certain facts have been alleged and have become the property of the House, cannot now become the subject of a question in this Parliament.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member has made his point. He will resume his seat. The statement that the Minister for Primary Industry made in the House last night was made by leave under the provisions of Standing Order 64.

Mr Morris:

– It was not by leave.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-It was made by leave of the Chair under Standing Order 64.

Dr Klugman:

– It was by suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the honourable member for Prospect to order. My remarks relate to the introducton of the matter into the House last night. Standing Orders were subsequently suspended to alter the nature of its presentation, but that fact is not germane to the point that I am now putting.

Mr Ruddock:

- Mr Acting Speaker, on a point of order–

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I am ruling on a point of order. The honourable member for Dundas will resume his seat. Standing Order 142, which relates to questions to Ministers, states:

Questions may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs with which he is officially connected, to proceedings pending in the House, or to any matter of administration for which he is responsible.

The matter contained in the question of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports may be pursued through other avenues.

Mr Hayden:

– Such as?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-It may not be pursued through questions without notice but, if it were the intention of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports to pursue the matter on the basis that it reflected on the Minister for Primary Industry, by substantive motion he could do so. I have ruled that the question is out of order.

Mr Holding:

- Mr Acting Speaker, first of all, I do not see how you can say -

Government members- Sit down!

Mr Holding:

– I am not going to sit down.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind the honourable member for Melbourne Ports that I have ruled on the point of order.

Mr Holding:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I am raising a further point of order in respect of your ruling. First of all, Sir, as you have not heard the question, I cannot see how you could possibly say that it reflects on the Minister. My second point ishere I rely on your own statement in respect of the Standing Orders- that a question is in order if it is related to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected. This matter is a public affair because the Minister, by his statement in the House last night, made it a public affair. It became the property of the House by virtue of the suspension of Standing Orders and the Minister, having made it the property of the House by his own actions, can in no way say that he is not officially connected with it. That being so, under the Standing Orders will you please stand him up?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Melbourne Ports has made his point. He will resume his seat.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Acting Speaker -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member for Shortland wish to speak to the point of order?

Mr Holding:

– With great respect, Mr Acting Speaker, I point out that I have not finished addressing you, and unless you have some power of clairvoyance -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr Holding:

– On the basis that you do not want to hear me any more?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! That remark is offensive.

Mr Holding:

– It might be offensive, but it is true.

Honourable members interjecting;

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports raised a point of order on which I have ruled. The matter was not then open for debate. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports insisted on arguing the matter further on the basis that I had not heard his point of order in full. The Chair is not required to allow an honourable member to advance a question or a point of order beyond the stage where it becomes apparent that it is in contravention of the Standing Orders. It is not necessary that the member be allowed to speak at length.

Dr Klugman:

-I raise a point of order.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Prospect.

Dr Klugman:

– Let us be quite clear: If this had been a Liberal Minister he would have been stood down by now.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:
Dr Klugman:

– It is only because he is a National Country Party Minister.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:
Dr Klugman:

– My point of order -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Prospect will withdraw.

Dr Klugman:

– What will I withdraw- a criticism of the Prime Minister that he has not got the guts to suspend the Minister because he is a National Country Party Minister?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Prospect will withdraw the reflection on the Chair.

Dr Klugman:

– There is no reflection on the Chair. I withdraw any reflection on the Chair.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:
Dr Klugman:

-I withdraw any reflection on the Chair. My remark was not intended as a reflection on the Chair because the Chair is not involved in standing down Ministers. Let us be clear on that.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! That is a reflection on the Chair. The honourable member for Prospect will withdraw.

Dr Klugman:

-I have withdrawn any reflection on the Chair.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Prospect will withdraw.

Dr Klugman:

– My reflection is on this Government.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-There is no discrimination in the Standing Orders as far as the position of any member in this House is concerned.

Dr Klugman:

– My point of order is that surely the personal honesty and the honesty of a Minister in relation to the Taxation Office is relevant to the carrying out of his portfolio. If his personal honesty and honesty in relation to revenue gathering is not relevant to the carrying out of his portfolio, what is?

Mr Morris:

- Mr Acting Speaker -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Shortland on a point of order. I do not propose to accept points of order without end.

Mr Morris:

– There could not be a more serious matter before the Parliament than that which is being discussed now. I draw your attention to Standing Order 144, paragraph (a) of which says that questions should not ask Ministers for an expression of opinion. Paragraph (b) says that questions should not ask Ministers ‘to announce the Government’s policy, but may seek an explanation regarding the policy of the Government and its application and may ask the Prime Minister whether a Minister’s statement in the House represents Government Policy’. Last night the House suspended the Standing Orders of this Parliament to enable the Minister to make a statement. I put it to you, Mr Acting Speaker, that there is every right under that Standing Order for the question relating to the Minister’s statement to be directed to the Prime Minister and to the Minister.

Mr Ruddock:

– I raise a point of order. I direct your attention, Mr Acting Speaker, to Standing Order 144 and particularly the part which says that questions cannot refer to debates in the current session. I think it may be helpful if you refer to that point also in relation to this question and others that may be asked on the same subject as I submit that the matter has been debated in this session, and that is a lot more than happens in other parliaments around this country, particularly in New South Wales.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-There is no substance in the point of order. I shall accept a point of order from the Leader of the Opposition, and this will be the last point of order.

Mr Hayden:

– Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, under the heading ‘Misconduct of Members or Officers of Either House as such’ on deliberately misleading the House, says:

The House may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.

The interesting parallel to this case is quotedthe Profumo case. It reads:

In 1963 the House resolved that in making a personal statement which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, a former Member had been guilty of a grave contempt.

I put it to you, Mr Acting Speaker, that there is a succession of matters associated with the particular question which has been raised by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports concerning the Minister for Primary Industry which together very strongly suggest that the Minister for Primary Industry has probably been, and in fact has been, misleading this Parliament. This is a matter which should properly be tested in the Parliament and the evidence should be extracted. On that score, as the first point that I want to make, I believe that you should allow the question. It is, as one of my colleagues has pointed out, a matter of the gravest importance that at all times Ministers of the Crown should behave with complete propriety. No one has made a greater fetish of that principle in word, if not in deed, than the Prime Minister. Let me remind you, Mr Acting Speaker, of a ruling, which seems to be analogous, of the Speaker of this House given on 25 October when I raised a question in this House in relation to the Minister for Primary Industry and a report in the Bulletin weekly periodical about the investigation into his business activity and the possible breaches of company law. A point of order was taken by the Government Whip to the effect that the question was inadmissible because it did not have anything to do with the Prime Minister having to be responsible for such matters in this House. Mr Speaker said:

I have given my ruling; there is no point of order. I think that if the time ever arose when the private conduct of a Minister was not a concern of the Prime Minister, then the Parliament would indeed be in a curious position. I call the Leader of the Opposition.

We would be in a most curious position if the private conduct of a Minister which appears to have been sullied in some sort of serious way was not a matter of concern for this Parliament. It should not be a matter of concern just for the Prime Minister or one or two other people in the Parliament. Last night the Minister for Primary Industry in fact established beyond any doubt that this matter should be properly tested in this Parliament. He was flushed out by a daily newspaper.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I will rule on the question. Standing Order 153 clearly states:

Questions shall not be asked which reflect on or are critical of the character or conduct of those persons whose conduct may only be challenged on a substantive motion, and notice must be given of questions critical of the character or conduct of other persons.

Implicit in all the statements that have been made from my left this morning is an imputation against the character of the Minister for Primary Industry. Therefore I rule the question out of order. There is no substance to the point of order raised.

page 3090

DISSENT FROM RULING

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

-I move:

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The question is that the ruling be dissented from. Those of that opinion say aye -

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The motion will be put in writing.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I raise a point of order. It has two prongs of dissent. First I believe, Mr Acting Speaker, that you were wrong in proceeding to put the motion without a seconder and secondly you were wrong in proceeding to put the motion without allowing the mover to give his reasons why the motion should be carried.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The Chair freely acknowledges the point the honourable member for Hindmarsh has raised. It was a temporary aberration on the part of the Chair. It was not done with intent. The matter has been remedied. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports is in the process of writing out his motion. He may now speak to it.

Mr HOLDING:

– I have moved this motion with regret. I believe that it is the duty of the Chair to protect the prerogatives of the Parliament and the rights of individual members. Mr Acting Speaker, let me remind you of the events as they occurred last night in this House. On that occasion the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) indicated to the Parliament that he knew certain information was to be published in the Age, a Melbourne daily newspaper. He chose to come into the Parliament to make a lengthy and detailed personal statement to the House. Having made that statement, a series of procedures occurred which involved the suspension of Standing Orders so that the issue which the Minister for Primary Industry had raised could be the subject of consideration and debate in the Parliament. That is the process that occurred. Those procedures had the concurrence of all members of this House including Government members. The Minister for Primary Industry then chose to make his statement and some of the issues which were raised by him were then joined. A debate took place in respect of some of those issues.

The first point I make is that the actions of the Minister were related to his ministerial office. He felt so deeply about and so personally involved in the matter, that clearly the allegations he knew would appear in the Age forced him to make his personal statement to the Parliament. He was concerned to establish in this Parliament his credibility and his fitness to hold office as a Minister. That was the purpose of his statement. No one forced him to make the statement; he chose to act in that way. Now we are in an extraordinary situation where we have a Minister who says: ‘My credibility as a Minister is in issue. I will use the forms of the House to make a statement to the House. We will suspend Standing Orders so that the issues that I have raised can then be debated’. Sir, at that stage every statement made by the Minister became the property of the House. Every fact that is alleged becomes a matter of public knowledge and the property of the House. What an extraordinary ruling you have given, Mr Acting Speaker. What an extraordinary position for the Chair to take when it says: ‘All right, these issues have been joined. These facts have been asserted and are matters of public property and the property of the House; but what a terrible thing it would be if a member of the Opposition were to ask a question about any one of those facts ‘.

Let me remind you, Mr Acting Speaker- what I am bound to say unfortunately goes to the credibility of the Chair- it was not as if you had even listened to the question I put to the Minister. I had not got through the first sentence. I tried to inform you, sir, that every aspect of my question was directly related not to some newspaper article, not to something that I heard in gossip outside the Parliament, but to the statement made by the Minister in the House. What you are endeavouring to tell the Parliament, with great respect, Mr Acting Speaker, is that these facts which are alleged to the House, which are the property of the House, cannot now be the subject of a question which goes to the heart and to the detail of the facts alleged by the Minister in the Parliament. I am bound to say- I say it with regret- that that does not involve the protection of the rights of the members of this institution. I am bound to say, with concern, that if it were to go unchallenged there is only one conclusion that any honourable member on this side of the House could reach and that is that the Chair was being used for the purposes of protecting a Minister by not allowing any proper public examination of the issues which the Minister himself raised.

Sir, we all know that the Government has got the numbers, but we on this side of the House are entitled to look to the Chair to protect the rights of this Parliament because those rights concern the rights of the Australian people. We would be creating a unique precedent if, having raised this matter, sir, you then proceed to rule as you did. This ruling is then binding upon this Parliament. Occupants of the Chair, as a matter of practice and procedure, look to past rulings for a precedent. What an extraordinary ruling. If you look, sir, at Standing Order 142, it is perfectly clear. It states:

Questions may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs . . .

Is it suggested that defalcations running into three-quarters of a million dollars in which a Minister of the Crown, on any view of it- I do not put it any more highly than this- is involved are not a public -

Mr Birney:

– On a point of order, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports has misquoted Standing Order 142. I would submit that that was done deliberately. What he said was this:

Questions may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs . . .

That is not the Standing Order or the purport of the Standing Order at all. If one reads on, one sees that the Standing Order states:

Questions may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs with which he is officially connected -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Phillip is engaging in debate. That matter may be raised subsequently. There is no point of order.

Mr HOLDING:

– The point I am concerned to make is that it was open to the Minister, with all his knowledge, not to make any statement to the House until he had read what was in the newspaper. If he was asserting that this was entirely a private matter, a matter relating to family companies in which his credibility was not involved in any way at all, that it did not go either to the nature of the public office that he holds or his capacity to perform that function, then it was not necessary for him to make any statement at all to the Parliament. Having made the statement, I put it that the Minister is estopped from saying to anybody in the community that this is not now a matter of public concern, that it is not a public affair with which he is officially connected. The very nature of the statement made last night by the Minister was an endeavour to assert to the House that his personal credibility was not in issue in relation to what had occurred in respect of these private family companies which involved massive defalcation and matters of real concern to the Taxation Commissioner.

The Minister made the statement because he knew that if the information in the Age were allowed to go unanswered then his credibility would be involved. I put it to you, Mr Acting Speaker, that having chosen voluntarily to raise the matter in the way in which he did, he then made that matter a public affair, and a public affair with which he is, to use the terminology of the Standing Order, ‘officially connected’. To suggest otherwise is to place the Parliament in a completely impossible position. It would mean that the procedures and the rules of this House could be used by Ministers to make all sorts of statements and allegations and the Chair then could say: ‘But you cannot be asked questions about it’. If that ruling were allowed to stand it would bring disgrace and dishonour to this Parliament and disgrace and dishonour to the Chair.

I believe that the Minister, having chosen the course of action that he did, has placed his own credibility on the line, and that is fair enough. Further, it would be a matter of considerable injustice to the Minister, he having placed his credibility on the line, if we were to adopt some kind of sleazy procedure to say: ‘Well, having made that statement, he is not subject to any further questioning’. This Opposition will not be a party to those kinds of sleazy procedures. We will not be a party -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Melbourne Ports will withdraw the term he used. It is a reflection on the Chair.

Mr HOLDING:

– What particular aspect do you want me to withdraw?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Melbourne Ports must be aware of that. I refer to the type of procedure.

Mr HOLDING:

– I will put it in another way. It would not be just or appropriate for any Minister to find himself in a situation where the procedures that are adopted by the House are so unique, so novel, so without precedent, that any right thinking citizen could reach a conclusion only that the procedures of the House were being bent and abused for the purposes of protecting the Minister. I say that without meaning to give any offence to anyone at all. If this precedent is allowed to stand, this Parliament will become a mockery. We can forget the Westminster system. We can forget the institutions. The importance of the Chair to the Parliament is that ultimately it stands to protect the rights of the individual member and to see that the forms and processes of the House are not abused. If this ruling stands, those processes and those procedures will have been not merely abused, they will have been the subject of gross abuse. This Parliament will have adopted a procedure which will reflect grossly not only upon this institution but also upon the Minister concerned and upon the Government of the day. More importantly, it will lower and demean this Parliament as an institution in the eyes of the Australian people.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– I second the motion. The country is most unfortunate in having a Government with senior office-bearers afflicted by most unfortunate physical ailments. We have a Prime Minister who cannot remember, a Minister for National Development who cannot hear, and now we have an Acting Speaker who aberrates.

Mr Bourchier:

– I raise a point of order.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I will hear the honourable member for Bendigo on a point of order.

Mr Bourchier:

– The Leader of the Opposition is supposed to be speaking to a certain motion. His remarks in no way relate to the motion before the House. I would suggest that you keep him strictly to the subject at hand.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition is required to address himself to the motion before the House, that is, that the ruling be dissented from. Within those parameters, there is not latitude to reflect further upon the Chair. The question devolves upon whether the ruling is appropriate to the situation.

Mr HAYDEN:

- Mr Acting Speaker, we move this motion because we do not have confidence in your impartiality in the Chair. It is quite clear that there is a contrivance afoot between you and other members of the National Country Party, and indeed the Government, which is designed to subvert the proper conduct -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition is out of order.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Don’t talk nonsense. We are dissenting from your ruling.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition is out of order. He will resume his seat. The question simply is whether the ruling be dissented from -

Mr HAYDEN:

-We are telling you why it should be dissented from.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The Standing Orders determine the treatment of the matter presently before the House. The debate does not provide a stage on which further abuses may be perpetrated. It is not permissible within the confines of this debate on this question to reflect further on the Chair or any member in the House. The only manner in which that may be done is by substantive motion for which notice must be given. I will hear the Leader of the Opposition on the motion.

Mr Hayden:

– I raise a point of order. With respect, I would regard this as a substantive motion. Can I put this to you, Mr Acting Speaker, as a point of order? If we are moved to move disagreement with your ruling because we believe that your ruling is based on a prejudiced view, we must put that argument to you. For you to rule it out of order is again to display further evidence to compound the offensiveness to which we are objecting.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no. substance to the point of order. If members in the House are of the mind that confidence is lacking in the Chair, action can only be taken in that respect by substantive motion for which notice must be given.

Mr HAYDEN:

– What do you mean when you say there is no substance to it?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance to the point of order. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to refrain from personal reflections.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Let me narrow it down to try’ to fit within the parameters of prejudice which have now been defined. Standing Order 142 says:

Questions may be put to a Minister relating to public’ affairs with which he is officially connected . . .

It says ‘public affairs with which he is officially connected’. I would suggest to you, Mr Acting Speaker, with the greatest respect that you are interpreting this altogether too narrowly. In terms of our responsibilities to this Parliament and the nation we are all connected under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia is quite clear in relation to our eligibility to sit here. It says succinctly that a person who is convicted of a crime for which the penalty is imprisonment for 12 months or more is ineligible either to contest a seat for the Parliament or to sit in the Parliament. Now, that is clear and unambiguous. In the case of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) no one is suggesting that he has been convicted of such an offence: But what we are saying is that there is clear evidence that he is the subject of investigation for at least 12 breaches of the New South Wales Companies Act. That was reported in the Bulletin in October last year. The penalties for breaches of the various provisions of the Act–

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition is again moving outside the parameters -

Mr HAYDEN:

-Mr Acting Speaker, with respect, I am trying to explain to you how the Minister comes to be officially connected as a matter of public affair in terms of the question which has been raised. What I am saying to you is: Should it transpire that the Minister were to be charged and found guilty of any of these offences where the penalty exceeds 12 months imprisonment for a criminal indictment, he would be ineligible to sit here. What I am putting to you is that, therefore, it is entirely proper for members of the Opposition to raise questions on this matter. What we are putting to you is in terms of principles which have been enunciated by the Prime Minister. It is quite inappropriate, if the Prime Minister is to claim sincerity and to assert consistency in practice, for the Minister for Primary Industry to remain in this House while those investigations are under way. Furthermore, while he retains his position in this House, in spite of these investigations, the proceedings of this House will be regularly punctuated and disrupted by questions which will arise because of public comment in association with these investigations. That is exactly what has happened on this occasion. It has happened on earlier occasions. The debate on each occasion arose in this House because of public commentary. Quite properly, it is a matter of public comment and concern and it will continue to be so. The House should not be distracted in this way. The Prime Minister not only followed the principles he had been enunciating earlier but also followed those principles very firmly in practice late last year when he suspended the Minister for Finance.

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Acting Speaker, on a point of order, I again draw your attention to the matter that the Leader of the Opposition is raising now. It is not in any way relevant to the subject that is under debate. I ask you again to keep the Leader of the Opposition strictly within the confines of the Standing Orders.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-There is no particular substance to the point of order except that I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to confine his remarks to the question before the House and not to take advantage of the tolerance that the Chair is endeavouring to extend in order that the matter may be fairly treated.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Let me quickly conclude the point I want to make, which is that the Prime Minister last year recognised the circumstances -

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. I again say, with due respect, that the Prime Minister’s decisions are not the responsibility of the Chair. The decisions that he makes are his decisions and not yours.

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr Bourchier:

– Honourable members should be patient. Mr Acting Speaker, even honourable members on the other side of the House are well aware that your responsibility has no influence on the decisions of the Prime Minister. Therefore, the arguments being put are not relevant. I request that you exercise the role of the Chair and keep that man within the confines of the debate.

Dr Klugman:

– You are getting your riding instructions now.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Prospect will remain silent. If he persists in interjecting in an offensive manner, or in any manner at all, I will be required to deal with him. There is no substance to the point of order.

Mr HAYDEN:

– The honourable member for Bendigo behaves like a block gauleiter. Mr Acting Speaker, the point I am putting to you is that last year the Prime Minister suspended the Minister for Finance because of an inquiry which was then under way in relation to allegations that went to the heart of the propriety of conduct of Ministers in the Government. That was proper in our view. On this occasion that practice has not been followed. I put it to you squarely that, in fact, the evidence so far available suggests very strongly that the investigation affecting the Minister for Primary Industry is of a much more serious nature than the one to which I have referred and that the implications are much wider reaching than they were on that occasion.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition is rather testing the patience of the Chair in so much as his remarks are expanding into an area not encompassed by this question. It must be borne in mind that the question simply calls for a debate on whether the ruling of the Chair was right and proper under the circumstances relating to Questions without Notice. The matter to which the Leader of the Opposition is referring now would be much more appropriate to a substantive motion.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I shall quote again what Mr Speaker said on 25 October last year. He stated:

I think that if the time ever arose when the private conduct of a Minister was not a concern of the Prime Minister, then the Parliament would indeed be in a curious position.

He then allowed questions on this matter which we are raising today. It is quite clear that the private conduct of the Minister not only is a matter quite properly before the Parliament and for which the Minister should be answerable to the Parliament under his obligations which are defined and which cover all honourable members within the Constitution, but also it is a matter of great concern to the Prime Minister. Mr Acting Speaker, I suggest that it should be of concern to you too. It is because of that that there is this contrivance afoot today, designed to subvert the proper conduct of this House aimed at making the Minister accountable in a way which is quite proper. The Minister cannot seek to rig the numbers to suit himself. He cannot seek to stack the cards the way he did last night by coming into the House, peremptorily, making a statement and then withdrawing, and leaving the matter up in the air in the way in which he did. He has no understanding of how this House functions. He has no appreciation of the concern that is generated by this sort of activity outside the Parliament in the wider community. This Parliament cannot function unless there is proper conduct.

Mr Baume:

– Where were you last night?

Mr HAYDEN:

– I was helping to bring undone the Fraser Government, but it is not a big task these days, I find.

Government members interjecting-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Honourable members on my right will remain silent.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Perhaps I will get the honourable member to ghost write a prospectus for a mining company. Mr Acting Speaker, let me state very shortly the real nature of our objection: It is the clear bias and prejudice that you are displaying in the chair. There has been a consistent pattern of this. We saw an effort to protect the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) when quite clearly he had been misleading the Parliament. It was a ramp on the pan of the Ministry in which you were clearly involved.. Today we have a replication of this in an effort to protect your colleague from the National Country Party. There is no tougher gang of political cutpurses than the members of the National Country Party. They have demonstrated it today. We have moved dissent from your ruling, Mr Acting Speaker, and if necessary, we will move a vote of no confidence in you.

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) and the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) have endeavoured this morning, in contrast to the approach that was adopted last night, to protest outrage and concern about the forms of the House. They have tried to demonstrate that what is involved is a high matter of parliamentary principle. I would like to say at the very outset that there is one thing that this debate is not about. It is not about the unwillingness of the Leader of the House ( Mr Sinclair) to respond to debate about the subject of investigations into a number of companies of which he happens to be the director. I remind you, Mr Acting Speaker, and all members of the Opposition, that last night the Leader of the House quite properly sought leave and was given leave under Standing Order 64 to make a statement. It was only as a result of a suspension of Standing Orders being moved by the Opposition and a willingness on the part of the Leader of the House to allow the Opposition to respond to his statement that the provisions of Standing Order 64 were not availed of.

This debate is simply about whether a ruling which was made by you, Mr Acting Speaker, under a combination of Standing Orders 142, 144 and 153 should be upheld. The principle involved in that ruling is a very simple one, that is, whether or not a matter which can only be the subject of a substantive motion in respect of an individual can be the subject of a question at Question Time. It is not about anything else. It is certainly not about the unwillingness of my right honourable friend to respond to the matters that the Opposition has raised. If there is one thing that has characterised the proceedings of the last few months as to the investigation into a number of companies with which my right honourable friend is connected, it is the way in which he has been the subject of an absolutely shameful trial by leak, innuendo and smear. That is really -

Mr Howe:

– You are all the same.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. I warn the honourable member for Batman. The Chair extended greater latitude to the Leader of the Opposition in his remarks than on judgment he was properly entitled to so that the case might be advanced to the satisfaction of the House. I suggest that the least honourable members may offer in return is silence so that the Treasurer’s remarks may be heard without interruption.

Mr HOWARD:

-I repeat that this matter is about a very simple parliamentary principle. If a specific charge is made against a member of this House a substantive motion is moved and he is given particulars of that charge. We have cries from Opposition members in the name of decency, a fair go and doing the right thing. What do they do? They try to invoke the Standing Orders. They abuse the forms of the House, as they did last night, to prevent the reply of my right honourable friend to newspaper stories that everybody in this House knew would appear. They delayed the proceedings of this House so that the editions of some of the newspapers would have already gone to bed. Everybody in the Parliament and in the Press Gallery knows that that is why the honourable member for Fremantle -

Dr Jenkins:

– I take a point of order. Mr Acting Speaker, I draw your attention to the relevance of the remarks of the Treasurer to the question before the House. He is debating an issue which is not relevant and he is abusing the forms of the House.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-I uphold the point of order. I require the Treasurer to confine his remarks to the question before the House.

Dr Klugman:

-I take a point of order. Is it not highly inappropriate for the Treasurer to defend a person who has misappropriated $115,000 from the Taxation Office -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Prospect will resume his seat.

Mr HOWARD:

-One of a number of matters that has emerged from this whole episode has been the openness and willingness of the Leader of the House to have these matters investigated.

Dr Klugman:

– He has lied every time he has come in here.

Mr HOWARD:

– The noise makers of the Opposition are anxious to prevent legitimate debate. Mr Acting Speaker, I remind you of what occurred last night. In deference to your ruling on relevance I will not go into detail. I say again that this debate is -

Mr Ruddock:

– I take a point of order. Mr Acting Speaker, I ask that you give the Treasurer the widest possible scope to answer the remarks that have been put on the record by the Opposition by points of order that are frivolous, improper and scurrilous.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. I require the Treasurer to address himself to the question.

Mr HOWARD:

-I repeat that this motion is not about the unwillingness of the Government, the Leader of the House, myself or any other member of the Government to have these matters debated. It is about the upholding of a very important parliamentary principle. The more that the honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe), the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) or the other noise makers of the Opposition try to stop me speaking, the more apparent it becomes that members of the Opposition do not want an honest debate about the conduct of the Leader of the House. All they want to do is abuse the forms of the House which, according to the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Melbourne

Ports, they are trying to uphold. As I said earlier, the whole affair has subjected my right honourable friend to a trial by innuendo, smear and false accusation. The forms of the House are designed to protect honourable members. They are also designed to enable a proper debate on matters bearing upon the public affairs of this country. I say to the Opposition that we have no objection to its moving a substantive motion. We will debate it quite willingly and openly, just as the Leader of the House was prepared to have debated the statement that he made last night. We will not allow members of the Opposition to rape the Standing Orders of this House. Mr Acting Speaker, I draw your attention to page 328 of May’s Parliamentary Practice. On the subject of personal reflections May said:

It is not in order in a question to reflect on the character or conduct of those persons whose conduct may only be challenged on a substantive motion.

That, in a nutshell, is what this ruling is all about. It is not about anything else. It is not about whether anybody is biased. It is not about the matters involved in the investigation of the companies of which the Leader of the House is a director. It is simply about that very important parliamentary principle. It is there for a combination of reasons. It is there to stop people being subjected to a form of parliamentary trial without being given particulars of charges. It is also put there to enable a proper process whereby members on either side of the House may bring forward substantive motions.

Mr Acting Speaker, I draw your attention to page 3333 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 23 November 1 978 on which there is a ruling by Mr Speaker in respect of a motion of dissent which had been moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). The principles involved then were not dissimilar to the principles involved here, and this is very relevant to the point. Mr Speaker said this:

I remind the House that Standing Orders and long established practices regulate the manner of debate on these matters. 1 will state them clearly to the House so that there can be no doubt about their meaning and intent. First, Standing Order 1 42 provides that a question may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs with which he is officially connected or to any matter of adminstration for which he is responsible. May’s Parliamentary Practice, page 331, which this House uses as a guide, further amplifies this rule by stating that a question may not be asked which deals with the action of a Minister for which he is not responsible to Parliament.

Mr Speaker then goes on to explain exactly what I have just put to you, sir, and that is, that where a question is asked of a person in respect of whom a criticism or a challenge can be made only by way of substantive motion, that question is not in order, and it has nothing whatever to do with the question of whether a substantive motion can be used. It is not put there to allow Ministers to escape public scrutiny for matters on which there ought to be some public scrutiny.

Mr Innes:

– What about taxation? Has it not something to do with that?

Mr HOWARD:

– If the honourable member has any complaints about taxation or the administration of the taxation law or any claims whatever to make about my right honourable friend, he can make them and we will be quite happy to have them investigated. So this is simply about a very important parliamentary principle, a principle that is designed to enable proper parliamentary scrutiny of Ministers, but at the same time to give to Ministers, in the words that members of the Opposition have used in this debate, ‘ a fair go ‘. ‘ A fair go ‘ means that if members of the Opposition have a complaint against the Leader of the House or against any other member of the Government front bench, they should move a substantive motion and have the courage to give particulars of their charge.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Acting Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Howard) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr Morris:

– Where is the discussion now? Where is the opportunity to speak now?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The question is: ‘That the question be now put’. The honourable member for Shortland will resume his seat.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Acting Speaker, this is an important matter. The Government said that it was going to provide an opportunity for debate.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will resume his seat. The question is:

That the question be now put.

Mr Morris:

– The question is that we have an opportunity to discuss this matter because lies are being stated in this Parliament by the Government.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr Morris:

– The Treasurer has lied to the Parliament.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Ruddock:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. I very much regret having to raise this point of order but there have been a number of remarks made during this debate and recently in which words that are quite unparliamentary were uttered by members opposite. Part of the reason for their being uttered is to get them into the record, whether or not they are unparliamentary. I ask you, Mr Acting Speaker, not only to have that unparliamentary language withdrawn but also to have it expunged from the record of these proceedings so that there is no enticement to honourable members opposite to ignore your rulings on points of procedure and to proceed in a way which does this institution a great deal of harm.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. Are you aware that currently in the Senate exactly the same questions are being asked in the same terms and are being answered without any difficulties?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-That is a matter for the Senate. The question is:

That the question be now put.

Dr Klugman:

– Is the President of the Senate in the National Country Party?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I warn the honourable member for Prospect.

Mr Uren:

– Why are you such a stooge for the National Country Party?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Reid.

Question put-

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 66

NOES: 28

Majority……. 38

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

A division having been called for and the bells being rung-

Question put-

That the ruling be dissented from.

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

AYES: 28

NOES: 66

Majority……. 38

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 3098

MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRY AND PRIME MINISTER

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I move:

We heard from the Treasurer (Mr Howard) earlier today that the Government would be prepared to allow this subject to be debated. I am now seeking the suspension of Standing Orders. I note that honourable members opposite are indicating that they do not oppose the motion. In that case I will not proceed further with it.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Is the motion seconded.

Mr West:

– I second the motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion of Censure

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I move:

  1. 1 ) That this House censures the Minister for Primary Industry because of-

    1. his contradictory and misleading statements in relation to his family financial affairs, the latest statements about which disclose misappropriations between $500,000 and $ 1 ,000,000;
    2. his reluctance to report to the Parliament fully and promptly, with delays covering nearly three and a half years and the latest statement being forced by the publication of a newspaper article;
    3. his failure to show that he has not benefited personally from the misappropriations;
    4. his lack of candour in his most recent statement in neglecting to admit his own responsibility as a director of some of the companies concerned; and
    5. his responsibility for the loss of Government revenue due to the avoidance of tax liabilities resulting from claims for misappropriations; and

  2. ) That this House censures the Prime Minister for failing previously to suspend the Minister for Primary Industry and now to dismiss him.

The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) deserves the grave censure of this House for all of the reasons that I have listed in the motion and more which I hope I shall have time to outline. Firstly, on 12 August 1977, the Minister issued a Press release to the Press Gallery which I will quote in full. It stated:

It has been reported that shareholders of a North Shore Funeral Company, including myself, met today.

Such a meeting was held.

I am not a shareholder. I attended as a Director of the Company and as proxy for a family company.

It has also been reported that there is a deficiency of more than $250,000 in Company funds.

There are no amounts outstanding which have not been accounted for within the Company or between the shareholders.

So ends that Press release. In the light of what was divulged last night after over 4 1 months of waiting for such a statement, incomplete though it is, could there by anything more misleading than that Press release which went into the Press gallery? Clearly, the Minister was playing with the truth and clearly he was trying to cover up. That was not all.

Let us now turn to the Mike Willesee interview of 15 August 1977. Mr Willesee mentioned the deficiency in funds of $250,000. He was not as up to date as we are now. The Minister’s first words after the Mike Willesee introduction were:

Well, you ‘ve certainly blown up the story Mike.

Then there was the attempted confusion of seeking to show that he was not a shareholder of the troubled companies. But Sinclair Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd was a shareholder, and guess who benefited from that? Later on in this interview are some more gems which the Minister gave as answers. First of all let me quote the Willesee question. It states:

But you say the term misappropriation is being misread by people like me, even though it is in the order of $250,000 you say.

Mr Sinclair answered:

Yes but you haven’t looked at how much money has been lent to the companies Mike and you don ‘t know what the net sum is. You see, this is what it is all about. You ‘ve blown up a sum of $250,000. If you look at the other side of the ledger you will see that there are equally sums, in fact there is more than that, that has been borrowed from the company.

The Minister is once again misleading the public and misleading this Parliament by suggesting that there were not misappropriations at all. I could also quote him on other occasions, not only from that interview but from elsewhereexamples of the great cover up. He answered questions from me in this Parliament and from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), from the member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) and from Mr Whitlam, the former Leader of the Opposition. Every time one looks at the text of these answers one sees more evidence of the Minister seeking to mislead the people about the true nature of this charge that hangs over him at the present time.

Let me now turn to the second part of my censure motion, which concerns the Minister’s reluctance to report to the Parliament fully and promptly. The delays cover three and a half years, or just short of that, 4 1 months. The Opposition has waited and waited. The people have waited and waited for answers. We have been patient; the people have been patient. The last occasion on which this subject was raised in this Parliament was over six months ago when I moved the following censure motion in this House:

That this House censures the Minister for Primary Industry because, among other reasons, he has failed:

1 ) to provide the Parliament with a satisfactory explanation in rebuttal of serious public charges made against him in relation to his financial affairs, and

to justify, in particular, taxation claims for misappropriations made by companies with which he is associated amounting to over one quarter of a million dollars which deductions cost the public purse over $115,000.

We did not know the full facts at that time. Once again we get the bland reply from the Minister in that debate. There was nothing to worry about, he told us. It was all a private matter. A full explanation would be made in time. What time? How long did we have to wait? In his statement last night the Minister admitted that he had been flushed out by being tipped off that a newspaper story on the scandal was about to appear in the Melbourne Age this morning. He admitted to this. He said in the statement:

  1. . in view of information which has come to me about the reported purchase by the Melbourne Age newspaper of confidential documents relating to the investigation and which, I understand, are to be published in tomorrow ‘sAge I seek to make this statement tonight.

In other words he was not going to come clean with this Parliament or the public in other circumstances. All this vital information was available, but there was no way we were going to learn about it. It was only because of this threat of the Age article that it comes out. Does he not think that what he had to say to this House last night is not of public concern? Of course it is. Essential information about the affairs of a Minister of the Crown of the nature that we learnt last night is a public affair and is of great concern. Of course, he should have volunteered the information, incomplete though it is, rather than have it flushed from him in the ignominious way that it has come out. He knows- and we all knowthat he was seeking to buy a few more months. The reason he was seeking to buy a few more months was the grave nature of the charge. He knew that the parliamentary recess was coming up. He knew he could possibly buy those few more months. He had only another day of this parliamentary session to withstand. He wanted to borrow some more time. His reputation suffers further because of the way this had been flushed out from him.

The third point in my resolution concerns the matter of who benefited from this amount of $542, 125, which is the present known amount of misappropriation. I put it in that way because last night’s statement itself does not make clear whether a further $292,000.31, also identified as losses by misappropriations, is included in the $542,000. Perhaps if we had been allowed questions in this House, as indeed senators were allowed questions in the Senate to get vital information from this debate, I need not have raised these questions now. They should have been answered publicly by this Minister. We gave him the opportunity to do so. I will not canvass the reasons why that has not come before us.

Another thing of concern is that the figures do not add up. If we add together the $250,093 as shown in the group accounts of Reliance Investments Pty Ltd as a loan to the Sinclair Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd, with the further misappropriation, we do not get the same figure as that total of $542, 125. 1 can only think that the statement was got together in such a way that it is not accurate. Also, there is another inaccuracy in the statement. At one place we are told the Minister received a loan of $2,000. In another place we are told the amount is $4,000. There is no relationship between the two. What we do know is that there is an amount of something over half a million and something under one million still unaccounted for and to be explained. We do not know who benefited from it. Is it any wonder that we seek far more explanations than we are receiving. Is it any wonder that we felt that we in the Opposition were wronged in not being allowed to question this Minister on a matter of such grave public concern in Question Time today? Who were the beneficiaries? Let me quote from a report in the Australian Financial Review of 10 November 1978. It states:

Primary Industry Minister, Mr Sinclair, told Parliament in a personal explanation yesterday that one of his family companies, the Sinclair Pastoral Company, owned 10 houses in Sydney and had a mortgage on another, although rent was only paid on three houses.

Mr Sinclair was responding to Labor backbencher, John Armitage, who claimed that a house owned by the company at 3 1 View Street, Woollahra, was tenanted but on a no-cost basis.

Mr Armitage said acquisition of the property represented a considerable investment for a medium-sized non-listed company, especially when its main interests were in rural production.

An asset, valued at more than $80,000, was incurring the company costs rather than revenue, at the expense of shareholders.

Mr Sinclair said the company had invested in houses so that he could divest himself of shareholdings.

Shareholdings could be said to affect my holding of a public office, ‘ he said.

I’ll say shareholdings could affect his holding of a public office. That is what this debate is all about. His shareholdings do affect his holding of a public office. Indeed, he should not hold public office because of what has been divulged already. Of course this House needs a full and clear explanation about these property holdings and how the funds were found for the investments. There has been an abject failure to explain how the Minister himself has not benefited from the misappropriations. The next part of my censure motion deals with the lack of candour in last night ‘s statement and on other occasions.

Mr Anthony:

– Did you say ‘ Canada ‘?

Mr HURFORD:

-Candour. You ought to listen. This section of the motion deals with the lack of candour in explaining the Minister’s responsibilities as a director of some of those erring companies. He has a serious responsibility as a director and as a Minister of the Crown. He should be giving an example of propriety in discharging those responsibilities. Instead, he has evaded the issues. I need only draw the attention of the House to the Bulletin article of 3 1 October 1978 where, indeed, some of the questions being put by the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commissioner, Mr Finnane, the investigator into these affairs, are fully canvassed and show how this matter is a public responsibility. I wish to quote from just one part of the article in The Bulletin in which a letter from Mr Finnane to Mr Sinclair is quoted. It states:

I have formed the tentative view on the basis of evidence before me and of other material in my possession that you should give specific attention to certain matters to enable me to reach a conclusion as to whether certain offences may have occurred contrary to the provisions of the Companies Act 1961.

We have this matter of public duty overhanging the Minister’s head as well. The article continues:

I wish to make it plain -

Said Mr Finnane in this letter- that the matters which I propose to forward do not comprehend all possible breaches of the Act and at a later time I may well formulate some additional questions.

The rest of that article shows the public responsibility of this Minister in the matter of his directorship of companies and of the way that he discharged his responsibilities in that regard. The next point in the motion relates to the tax claims. If the full amount of $542,125 was not taxedthe tax rate during this period was 46c in the dollar- then the public purse has lost, due to this misappropriation, $249,377. If indeed we include only the amount which is described as misappropriation- we do not know enough from the statement; we have not been told enough yet- namely, $292,000, the loss to revenue from the tax claim amounts to $134,320. But this is only the tip of the iceberg, as I said last night. We need far more information. But we know this is the minimum amount.

The last point in my motion directs itself to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). What is already known is more than enough to censure this Minister. I have outlined point after point which shows that he deserves that censure. Of course, the Minister for Primary Industry should be dismissed now because of the statement he made last night. But what was known earlier was more than enough for this Minister to be suspended. Why did we have a suspension in the case of the Lynch affair, a suspension in the case of the Garland affair, a suspension in the case of the Robinson affair and a dismissal in the case of the Withers affair? Yet, graver charges are made against this Minister and there is not one indication from the Prime Minister that he will be dismissed -

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– What charges?

Mr HURFORD:

-The charges are quite clearly set out in this censure motion. I have detailed them and I will go on detailing them. There is only one reason why this Minister has not been suspended or will not be dismissed. It is because he belongs to the National Country Party. This grazier from Wannon will not offend his grazier friends. It is up to the sycophants in the Liberal Party to look at this situation and to note that their own Ministers in the Liberal Party are being suspended and dismissed but there is not one bit of evidence that anything will happen to this Minister. The grazier from Wannon sits there and allows all this to take place around him. Some people say ‘fair go for this Minister’. Some suggest there are no charges hanging over his head -

Mr Bourchier:

– I raise a point of order. I know that it is not an insult but a compliment to be called a grazier. But the Prime Minister should be addressed as the Prime Minister in this House. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to draw that to the attention of the honourable member.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I will certainly draw the honourable member’s attention to that fact.

Mr HURFORD:

– We all know to whom I was referring. Apparently he is known by his own staff as the Ayatollah of Nareen. Perhaps I can substitute -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will withdraw that personal imputation against a member of this House.

Mr HURFORD:

– I will withdraw the remark, so that I have time to say that some people are talking about a fair go for this Minister. Even the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) tendered his resignation to the Prime Minister because his wife advertised some sheets. Of course a resignation should have been tendered to this Prime Minister and it should have been accepted because of the grave charges that are listed in this censure motion. A fair go for this Minister is sought by honourable members opposite. What we want on this side is a fair go for the people of Australia. The Opposition wants a fair go to see that the Government of this country is in the hands of people we can trust. We want a fair go for the people of Australia so that we can end the sort of reprehensible conduct which is contained in this detailed statement from the Minister for Primary Industry and the reprehensible conduct we have had in all of those other suspensions and resignations that have taken place to date.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

-Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion. I am reminded of the pledge that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), who now sits at the table, made to the people of this nation when he was victorious in the 1975 Federal election. I remember seeing him on a television program. He was asked what were his aims in government. He said:

My prime aim will be to provide honesty and integrity in government Tor the Australian people.

I put it to the House that his Government has degenerated into a government led by tax avoiders, land dealers and company spivs. That is not to say that there are not some men of integrity on the Government front bench.

Mr Howard:

– I take a point of order. In a debate of this nature it is only to be expected that a certain amount of latitude should be allowed to both sides of the House and that there will be certain exaggerations. But it is totally improper, totally untrue and totally offensive to the forms of this House for the honourable member for Cunningham to be allowed to get away with the sort of statement he has just made.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-The Chair faces a difficulty. The motion is a pretty allembracing one. Within the realms of the proper use of parliamentary language, I see nothing to object to so far.

Mr WEST:

-Thank you for that fair ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. This Government is on an escalator of degeneration. It is going down all the way and the bottom is not yet in sight. It has failed in policy and in integrity in government, despite what the Prime Minister pledged in 1 975. When the New South Wales State Government set out to investigate this matter some two years ago, it was thought that some $267,000 may have been misappropriated from the six companies under discussion. We found out from the Minister for Primary Industry last night that the figure is more than double that, namely, $542,000. The Age reports this morning that $377,000 of that has been misdirected to the Sinclair Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd. That company is a family company. Its directors are the Minister for Primary Industry and his family. He is a life governing director of that family Sinclair Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd. In addition, the Minister is a director of all the companies from which the $547,000 has been misappropriated. I draw the attention of the House to the relevant Acts and forms of parliament that might be relevant in this matter now and in the future, especially after August of this year. Section 174 of the Crimes Act provides for 14 years gaol for known embezzlement from companies. Section 350 provides for five years gaol for being an accessory after the fact. It provides also for a $500,000 fine. Anyone concealing the identity of persons -

Mr Howard:

– I take a point of order. The point of order is that it is irrelevant to the motion now before the House for the member of Cunningham to be citing to us sections of the Crimes Act. No criminal charges have been made. No suggestion of criminal conduct has been made except from the prejudiced mouths of the Opposition. I believe the honourable member should be ruled out of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Treasurer has some substance in his point of order. I would ask the honourable member for Cunningham to proceed along the logical lines of his party’s motion. Other issues can be ruled irrelevant.

Mr WEST:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope I am not speaking in contradiction to your ruling, but I am now drawing your attention not to the Crimes Act, but to the section 375 of the New South Wales Companies Act which provides that company officers making false or misleading statements are liable to three years imprisonment, or a $5,000 fine, or both.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I would now require the honourable member to debate the substance of the motion and not try to draw inferences that can be taken as a distinct reflection on any honourable member.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I raise a point of order. I understand what happens to someone in the chair when the heavies on the Government side constantly take points of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will withdraw that imputation.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Of course I withdraw it, but I know how you feel just the same. I think this is an occasion for great strength and if it is shown in the way that I feel you are capable of showing it, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will have no trouble with winning your preselection. The honourable member for Cunningham is telling the House that under the Companies Act it is a very serious offence for a director to sign documents which are false and to be party to practices which are illegal. This motion concerns the alleged activities of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). If it is subsequently proven, and if in this debate the Opposition can satisfy the Parliament that there is enough substance in what has been alleged against the Minister, then the Minister is indeed guilty of the offences to which the honourable member is now alluding. It is, therefore, relevant for him to deal with the offences and the penalties for such offences under the Companies Act because that is what the motion is all about.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-In answer to the honourable member for Hindmarsh, the motion does not include matters of that nature. I would ask the honourable member for Cunningham, and all other honourable members, to stick to the substance of the motion. The Chair, rightly or wrongly, will have to rule accordingly.

Mr WEST:

-I wish to draw to the attention of the House the serious nature of these matters. I want also to prove to the House that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) took a very cavalier approach to this matter right from the start. When questioned by Mike Willesee on the Willesee show on 15 August 1977, the Minister said:

These are personal accounts I might add and they haven ‘t been filed with anybody. It’s a private company.

On 4 October 1977 in this place he said:

Although the company is a proprietary company, although the circumstances are such that the term misappropriation has been explained in public . . . this affair is exclusively the business of the shareholders of the companies -

I agree with that; the shareholders should be concerned- not of the Leader of the Opposition, not of the people of Australia.

Even as late as 1 8 October last year the Minister was asked in an interview with the Melbourne Age whether he was aware of allegations that half a million dollars had been misappropriated from his family companies. He replied:

Certainly 1 haven’t seen that sum. There are problems in terms of funds that seem to have been misappropriated and that is why I instigated the investigation.

He then went on to say: . . No, well, technical breaches. But I am sure that just about every director of every private company in Australia doesn’t have formal directors’ meetings, doesn’t necessarily enter every time that he meets members of that private company . . . he doesn’t enter those affairs in the minute book of the company.

Anyone would think that we were talking about a misappropriation of $10 from the petty cash. We are talking about half a million dollars. There is a long history of personal involvement here. Between 1972 and 1976 he signed a number of company returns stating them to be factual. So he is either dishonest or incompetent. In either case he is not fit to be a Minister of this Parliament. Two years ago he amended those returns and stated in them that $246,000 had been misappropriated. Last night he had another go. For the third time he amended the figures for misappropriation. We find that $260,000 has been misappropriated from Allan Walsh Pty Ltd and another $283,000 from Allan Walsh (Hornsby) Pty Ltd, which is a total of $489,000 from two companies, out of a total of $543,000 of which $377,000 went directly into the Sinclair Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd, his own family company. We have it on very good authority that this might not be the end of it. Will there be a fourth time? Come August, will the final figure turn out to be something like three-quarters of a million dollars?

I want to conclude my remarks by saying that we in this place have a direct responsibility in this regard because of the tax connotations. It is a fair measure of the hide of these people that they were not content to misappropriate over half a million dollars, but part of those moneys was claimed as company tax deductions.

Mr Howard:

– I take a point of order. The honourable member for Cunningham said- I quote him directly- ‘ the hide of these people . . they were not content to misappropriate’ the moneys. The clear indication is that he has accused my right honourable friend of misappropriation. That is a complete and deliberate falsehood and I ask for it to be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I am finding this most difficult. The motion does include the word ‘misappropriation’. I would like the honourable member for Cunningham to listen if he would. If an objection is taken I think it would be the decent thing for him to withdraw it and proceed with his speech.

Mr WEST:

– I withdraw it and I say that part of those moneys was claimed as tax deductions. As a matter of fact Allan Walsh Pty Ltd got $91,366 in a tax rebate from these misappropriations and Allan Walsh (Hornsby) Pty Ltd received $33,886; a total of $125,222. Now here is the rub. The Minister is the sole beneficiary and executor of his father’s will. His father died in January 1976. Probate was not applied for until 1 November 1978. It was then granted within two days; a miraculously speedy granting of the probate. The probate number was 867,260. In the will of the late G. M. Sinclair-I will skip over all the details- a net sum of $106,985 was left to the sole beneficiary, the Minister.for Primary Industry. I would like to ask the Minister and the House: Where is the money now? It is clearly owed, as was indicated by the Minister in his speech last night, which implicated his father, either to the companies or to the tax department.

Mr Martyr:

– It is scurrilous.

Mr WEST:

-That is the fact of the matter. Last night the Minister said that his father had misappropriated $540,000. Yet that same father left him $106,000 as the sole beneficiary in the will. Now is that not all very convenient? Last night in this place he said that he would pay the money back. He thinks that that smoothes the matter over and that is the end of it. How convenient. It seems incredible to me that half a million dollars could have been systematically embezzled from six companies into a family company over a period of five years, without the Minister knowing what was going on. He is either dishonest or incompetent. It is very convenient for him in this place to blame the whole affair on poor old dear departed daddy and expect us to forget about it. We will not forget about it.

Honourable members:

Honourable members interjecting

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The House will come to order. There are some comments that deserve their own reaction. Nevertheless, I call the House to order and ask the honourable member for Cunningham to continue his speech.

Mr WEST:

– I conclude on this note. It is not I, or the Opposition who have made the allegations against the departed person. It is the Minister who has done that, last night and it is an easy way out. Perhaps we will only find out the real truth of the matter come August. I for one would not like to be in the shoes of the Minister when we know the full results of the Finnane inquiry.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Before I call the Prime Minister, I remind visitors in the gallery that reading newspapers is out of order.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– As I shall demonstrate, since my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) became executor of the estate, he has conducted his affairs with great responsibility indeed. He found that a situation needed redress and he has taken every action within his power to do just that. I think it is well worth noting that when the former member for Cunningham resigned, under the gravest possible charges in this Parliament, he gave no explanation or reason for resigning. Of course, he could not give an explanation or a reason without seriously incriminating the Prime Minister of the day. The present honourable member for Cunningham ( Mr West ) should have a proper understanding of that and should know quite well that it was for that reason that no explanation of those events was given. The arguments put forward by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) are hardly worth answering. They were so muddled and difficult to understand that there was no thrust to them.

Again, I think that if one looks at the record of the Minister for Primary Industry since he became executor of his father’s estate, it will be perfectly plain that he has taken every action within his power to right whatever irregularities existed. The Minister initiated his own inquiries when he found that there were matters that needed to be put right, and he did that a considerable time ago. The matters were referred to the Taxation Commissioner and to the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission. Again, he was making quite sure that public authorities with an interest and concern in these matters had all the information available to them to make the decisions and judgments that were necessary. It is important to point out that it was the Minister himself who initiated these inquiries. It was the Minister himself who referred the matters to the Taxation Commissioner and to the Corporate Affairs Commission long before they were matters of public disputation and argument. It is worth noting that to this time there have been no allegations, other than the political allegations of the Australian Labor Party, and there have been no charges. Mr Finnane is on record as saying that it is not the Minister who is under examination, it is the affairs of companies prior to the time when the Minister himself became executor in relation to those companies. Since the Minister has been executor, he has taken every action that he possibly could to put the matters right.

I think it is worth noting that in part, as a result of information that came to me from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), which could well have come from the inquiry in New South Wales or from New South Wales Government agencies, I wrote to the Commissioner of Taxation. Again, I would like to have my letter, the response from the Commissioner of Taxation and an extract from the letter from the Leader of the Opposition, incorporated in Hansard. But I wish to read to the House one part of the letter from the Commissioner of Taxation. It states:

As you know, the Minister had taken these matters up with my office. They are not all yet finally resolved and how they will be resolved is a matter between the companies and myself. I therefore agree with the views you have expressed in your letter. If it is necessary to say it, I add that the Minister has not sought to use his personal position to influence official decisions. These have been, and will be, made according to the law as applicable to the established facts.

I think it is worth having my letter and the letter of the Leader of the Opposition incorporated in Hansard so that that record may stand. Again, it is proof that the Minister himself was making quite plain that the companies were in touch with the appropriate authorities to see that any irregularities of the past were put right. That is a matter for praise and not for blame.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-I interrupt the Prime Minister to ask whether he is seeking leave to incorporate the letters in Hansard.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Yes, I ask for leave to have the letters incorporated in Hansard.

Mr Hayden:

– The usual practice is to allow the Opposition to note the papers. It being the Prime Minister who is doing this, I would like to make absolutely sure that I recognise the letter that I sent to him.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I draw the conclusion from that statement that leave is refused?

Mr Hayden:

– Until I see the documents, it is refused. It is the usual practice as a courtesy in this House, and I think we have to indemnify ourselves doubly these days.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The Leader of the Opposition reveals himself for what he is in this Parliament. The cogent part of the letter has been read. It will be made available for anyone who wants it, as will the letter of the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, the great question to ask about the Leader of the Opposition’s letter is this: How did the information contained in it come to the Leader of the Opposition? Did it come directly from the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission or directly from a politically motivated inquiry? Is that the conclusion we are to reach? Quite plainly, the Opposition has sought time and time again to try the Minister in this Parliament. The Opposition has sought to use evidence alleged to have been given before the New South Wales inquiry and to introduce it piece by piece, part heard, into this Parliament in order to launch motions of censure or questions against the Minister himself. Quite clearly, the purposes of this Parliament have been gravely misused and abused, particularly by the Leader of the Opposition, in relation to this matter. There is circumstantial evidence that that has been encompassed in concert with the agents of the Labor Party in New South Wales.

Other questions about this inquiry certainly need asking. In the middle of 1976 the matter was referred to the Corporate Affairs Commission but it was not until two years later, in about May last year, that the Finnane inquiry was launched. On many occasions we have heard that the report would be available by a certain date, but the report is never available. It is always postponed until ‘a later period. How much longer will this report be? What is the cause for the delay? Is it designed to be launched out, piece by piece, through the Opposition in this Parliament? Is it a matter that is sought to be used either by the New South Wales or the Federal Branch of the Australian Labor Party for nothing more than political purposes? The activities of the Australian Labor Party in this Parliament must certainly have created the climate and whatever is in this report will need to be considered very carefully and very seriously indeed because of the political circumstances which the Leader of the Opposition and those who sit behind him have created by their constant introduction of this matter into the Parliament. It is worth noting that on some occasions Mr Walker has said that he resents very gravely indeed the efforts of the Leader of the Opposition to have the matter debated in this Parliament. I suppose one could read that statement, at face value, for what it is. I suppose one could also read it with the possibility in mind that he is merely trying to hide the fact that there could be a liaison between the agents of the New South Wales Government and the officer of the Leader of the Opposition.

This whole affair has raised matters that go very seriously to the way this Parliament is used and to the rules and procedures of his Parliament. If the matters which are the affairs of the Corporate Affairs Commission and the special inquiry under Mr Finnane had been conducted by a court in the traditional sense, no Speaker of this House, I believe, would have dared to allow debate on those matters within this Parliament. The rule of sub judice which applies to this Parliament, to the House of Commons and to other parliaments was established in earlier times when courts of law in the traditional sense were the only tribunals which could make or break the reputations of individuals. Therefore, the rule of sub judice was applied to make sure that the ultimate findings of a court could not be prejudiced by earlier debate, or by innuendo and smear, as we have seen in this Parliament over a considerable time in relation to this matter.

At an earlier point Mr Speaker ruled that the proceedings of quasi judicial hearings and of administrative tribunals should not be covered by the general rule of sub judice. Therefore, debate was allowed and on earlier occasions some questions were allowed also. In all seriousness, not merely for the protection of members of

Parliament- perhaps most importantly not even for that- but also for the protection of the wider Australian public, this Parliament will need to examine its own procedures in relation to the nature of the debate, the nature of questions which are allowed during the processes of quasi judicial hearings and administrative tribunals, which governments have put to modern use. Reference to proceedings before or inquiries undertaken by such bodies can just as easily, clearly and as certainly as a full court of law destroy the reputation of individuals within this Parliament or outside of this Parliament. Any responsible member of this Parliament would recognise that fact and recognise that evidence being given to such a tribunal or inquiry should not be introduced into this Parliament in a way which is designed to prejudice the circumstances of the inquiry and in a way that is clearly designed, and deliberately so, to prejudice the general circumstances and public attitudes to the final report when ultimately it comes down.

As we understand it, the timing of the presentation of that report will be motivated by the political interests of the New South Wales Government and nothing else. There is grave cause to doubt the delay that has gone on for a very considerable time. Mr Finnane, the New South Wales Government, the Leader of the Opposition and his party must have their actions in these matters looked at with a great deal of concern. One thing that does shine through is this: As I indicated earlier, the Minister conducted proceedings into those matters. He referred the matters to be inquired into by independent accountants and solicitors, the Corporate Affairs Commission and the Commissioner of Taxation. What more could this Minister have done when he became executor to see that whatever irregularities had occurred were put right. He did it all. The New South Wales Government waited about two years before it decided to have a special inquiry. The New South Wales Government appointed a special inquiry which will report in a month or two, and a month or two more, but it never does.

What is the cause for the delay? I believe that the New South Wales Government has a heavy responsibility to answer those matters. The links between what is happening in New South Wales, the Australian Labor Party in this Parliament and the Leader of the Opposition, and the way in which the Australian Labor Party generally has sought to prejudice the ultimate findings of the report of Mr Finnane make it perfectly plan that we will have to look at the ultimate findings when they come down with a very great deal of care indeed because the Leader of the Opposition has sought to prejudice the circumstances and the public mind in relation to those matters. The only other point that I make on a part of the censure motion referring to myself is that there is an enormous difference between a royal commission established by this Government and the kind of inquiry that has been promoted by the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

-The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has once again scaled the heights of humbug. He does it much more adeptly than the way in which he is able to protect the promises that he so easily makes and breaks. He inquired about the source of our information and documentation. I will come clean. I will tell him. It was a son of Mr Williams, a well known truck driver around Canberra and, just as his father devotedly served a former Opposition, the son carries on the family tradition today.

The matter is raised, not because the Opposition initiated the debate, but because the most respected daily newspaper in this country, the Melbourne Age, raised the matter in a way which could not be ignored. Look at the headline: Sinclair firm got “milked” funds’. What sort of reaction do honourable members think will arise in the community when- the average man and woman read that sort of headline showing that a senior Minister of the Government of Australia is part of a family company organisation about which a respected conservative newspaper writes as its main headline on page 1: ‘Sinclair firm got “milked” funds’? It then goes on to say:

A company of which the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Ian Sinclair, is the life governing director and majority shareholder has received misappropriated funds totalling $377,000, according to accountants retained by Mr Sinclair.

What sort of confidence do honourable members think there is going to be in a government when a Minister receives that sort of publicity? The issue that we are raising is simply this: In the circumstances of this blaze of publicity- it is not an unusual incident; there has been a regular succession of such incidents- the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has no course, if he is going to behave properly and responsibly to this Parliament, but to stand to one side at least as the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) had to do when he was subjected to an inquiry.

We are not raising this matter in the Parliament as some sort of impulsive action to bring the Minister for Primary Industry to account. We are responding to a very significant report in a significant daily newspaper. If that is not good enough, let us recall the last time when this matter was raised. Again it was raised firstly in a rather conservative journal, the Bulletin, which is a sort of Bible for the coalition parties, although it certainly has no influence on the Australian Labor Party. One is consistently sympathetic in the general thrust of what the article has to say to the conservative coalition political parties of this country.

The article was published under the headline: What the Special Investigator wrote to Ian Sinclair’. It is a rather teasing headline. It goes through details of a letter that Mr Finnane sent to Mr Sinclair. That was the first we knew about the situation and the first that Australia knew about it. The article raised a number of matters of considerable significance, matters that could not be ignored in this Parliament and matters for which the Minister for Primary Industry should be made responsible and on which he should provide answers. For God’s sake- or I should say ‘for gosh sake’- no-one is going to suggest that we in this Parliament should ignore such important suggestions or allegations as have come forward in a report like this. Whatever one might think of the political bias of the Bulletin, one must at least respect its integrity. When such an article is published in the Bulletin, we are compelled as loyal members of the Opposition to raise questions on behalf of the concerned people of Australia. It is sheer humbug for the Prime Minister to say that there be no allegations made against the Minister for Primary Industry -

Dr Klugman:

– Only against the Government.

Mr HAYDEN:

– There have been serious allegations levelled against the Minister for Primary Industry. Let me quote a couple of points in the letter from Mr Finnane to the Minister for Primary Industry which is quoted in the Bulletin of 3 1 October. The challenging proposition put to the Minister for Primary Industry is to answer whether he is not in breach of Section 162A (9) in that:

  1. on 14th March, 1977, a director of the company, ie Mr Ian Sinclair, received a benefit, ie a loan of $5,000, by reason of a contract made by him with the company and that fact was by virtue of the publication of the above statement, not reported.

    1. Why should I not also conclude if I find facts as in ( I ) hereof that:
    1. Mr Ian Sinclair has committed a breach of Section 163 (1)or(3) ofthe Act
    2. that Mr Ian Sinclair has committed a breach of Section 375 (2) of the Act and/or Section 375a of the Act.

And on and on it goes. There are at least 12 breaches of the New South Wales Company Act enumerated here as possible offences committed by the Minister for Primary Industry.

Mr Hodgman:

– I rise on a point of order. Consistent with your previous ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is out of order for the Leader of the Opposition to allege that any breaches of any Act have been committed by the Minister for Primary Industry for the simple reason that the motion does not assert that proposition. If it did, it would be in order, but it is not. I submit that it is totally out of order for the Leader of the Opposition to raise matters that are not specifically referred to in the motion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-What I did on the previous occasion was to ask another Opposition member to stick as strictly as he could to the motion. I repeat the offer. I am not ruling on paragraph ( 1 ) (c) of the motion.

Mr HAYDEN:

– The honourable member needs a film projector operator does he not?

Mr Hodgman:

– You need a better psychiatrist, that’s for sure.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Whither goes Andrew Peacock these days?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Denison will withdraw that remark.

Mr Hodgman:

- His present psychiatrist is not doing a very good job on him. I withdraw.

Mr HAYDEN:

– The problem with the honourable member for Denison is that he puts his jaw into full speed ahead gear and his mind into neutral.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition is coming very close to my asking him to withdraw that remark. I ask him to watch his language.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I will come very close to withdrawing it. Paragraph ( 1 ) (c) of the motion covers what I am saying, but let me move on to the heights of humbug scaled by the Prime Minister today in criticising the Opposition for raising this matter in the Parliament. The Minister for Primary Industry raised it last night. He set the scene for today’s proceedings. He is the man who took the initiative on this matter. What is the Prime Minister suggesting? Is he suggesting that we ought to sit mute like a group of dummies? I know that he would love that. That is the sort of Opposition he wants. He wants an opposition that will not question him. Then he can moralise and posture in those fragile attitudes which he likes to adopt and which convince no one now, as the opinion polls clearly show. On every occasion when this matter has been brought up in the Parliament it has been in response to the glare of publicity from the media or, most recently, last night, the initiative taken by the Minister for Primary Industry and the Age newspaper.

The Prime Minister says that there are no allegations against the Minister for Primary Industry. Like heck there are not! I ask honourable members to listen to the transcript of the interview with Mr Creighton Walsh, a former colleague and friend of the Minister for Primary Industry, a collaborator, at one stage and a business associate. I refer to what Mr Finnane said in the course of discussion with Mr Walsh, the former friend of the Minister for Primary Industry, the former business associate in, among other things, the undertaking businesses of the Minister for Primary Industry. The way that the Minister and his colleagues are treating the economy of this country, those businesses seems to give him singularly appropriate equipment to continue the policies of the Government. Mr Finnane said:

It appears to me perfectly obvious that members of your family have been persuaded by being given large cheques and by being given this interest to agree that it would be in the best interest if they all agreed that they somehow knew about all this and in some way or other had given some vague general authority for him to do all this . . .

That is a devastating allegation. It is not an assertion. It is established beyond any doubt. It is a serious allegation and an indication of the thrust of evidence coming before the man carrying out the inquiry. Mr Finnane added:

Well I don’t know whether it’s bribery . . .

Mr Simon:

– How do you know that?

Mr HAYDEN:

-I repeat that my source is the son of Mr Williams. His father was welcome in the ranks of the present Government. Why should we not accept the presence of his son?

Mr Hodgman:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I repeat that the Leader of the Opposition apparently has not even read the censure motion. He makes an assertion of bribery. There is no such allegation in the censure motion. It is a motion of no confidence. Particulars have been supplied; they must be complied with. Therefore, the Leader of the Opposition is once again flouting the very clear ruling that you gave earlier in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-The Leader of the Opposition is quoting extensively from a document. The Chair has no way of knowing whether it is an authentic document. I must take it for granted that the honourable member is quoting accurately from a transcript of evidence.

Mr Hodgman:

– It is irrelevant to the motion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I do not know that it is. I will take it that that is the official point of order. I do not think that I can rule that it is irrelevant.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Let me restate that quote. Mr Finnane said:

Well I don’t know whether it’s bribery but I find it very hard to accept that anybody in your family knew anything at all about this before the 12th June, 1978.

It would appear that the generously large cheques referred to were not enough. We understand that as a sort of double indemnity the Minister for Primary Industry has now bought out the other parties to the family companies. I quote again from the transcript of evidence of the inquiry of the man carrying out the investigation. Mr Finnane said:

Well you see I want to come to these particular transactions with you in some detail but I find it very hard to see -

Honourable members should listen to this; it is very important–

Mr Hunt:
Mr HAYDEN:

-I know that the honourable member for Gwydir who does not understand hospitals too well would understand all about legal matters.

Mr Hunt:

– I didn’t make as big a mess of the system as you did. Nobody could. You did a good job! We have been paying excessively ever since. You and your ruddy Medibank! Medibank Bill!

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will address his remarks through the Chair. The Minister for Health will contain himself.

Mr HAYDEN:

-I defer to the creator of Medimuddle. Mr Finnane said:

  1. . I find it very hard to see that there’s been any great break in the way-

Government members interjecting-

Mr HAYDEN:

-They do not want to listen to this. It hurts them. It is too close to the heart of everything that counts. I will repeat what I was saying. I will keep saying it until it gets on the record clearly and the people of Australia hear it. Mr Finnane said:

I find it very hard to see that there’s been any great break in the way in which these companies have been run since George Sinclair’s death. They seem to have been run in precisely the same fashion before and after his death and for the benefit of the same person really.

I make no judgment on that except that I am alarmed at the attitude of the man carrying out the investigation. His attitude reflects the evidence that has become available to him. Why should we not be concerned about these matters? The Minister for Primary Industry cannot sit in this House and expect to have the confidence and courtesy of the whole Parliament and the respect of the nation while these matters are hanging over his head. The Parliament cannot function properly in a responsible way if it is to be continually distracted by questions on this matter as a consequence of the media’s properly raising the latest episode in the developments of the Sinclair family company affairs.

There is no doubt that the Minister has sought to draw a veil of confusion and deception over this matter. He equivocates on every occasion when the matter has come forward. In 1 977 on the Willesee program he said: ‘There was no misappropriation’. In October 1978 the Age newspaper interviewed him. When asked whether there had been any breaches of the Companies Act he said: ‘Yes.’ Then he said: No.’ Then he said: ‘Well, technical breaches.’ That is a little like the chap being interviewed by the detective sergeant from the safebreaking squad and being asked whether he had broken the eight safes that the police were interested in. He said ‘Yes. Well, no. Well, technical breakings. There were only eight of them. After all, they were very good friends of mine so it is not a public matter.’ It is on all fours with that sort of defence for the Minister to say: ‘They were technical breaches. What is $500,000 between friends. The tax man will subsidise some of it anyhow. ‘ The Minister has argued that it is a private company and none, of the business of the Parliament. It is centrally the business of the Parliament. The conduct and the propriety of Ministers is an essential factor for consideration by the Parliament. Unless the Prime Minister is a humbug he should also be concerned about this. I remind the people of Australia what the Prime Minister said in 1978. He said:

One of my Government’s first promises when we were elected just over two years ago was to restore the integrity and honesty of Government.

Of course, that promise had the same fate as most of his promises have had. The Prime Minister continued:

Without integrity- without the appearance and reality of integrity- no Government can hope to have the confidence of the people, or the trust of the people.

He is right. He has proved that by his performance. The Prime Minister continued:

My Government has demonstrated again and again our fundamental commitment to restoring integrity to public administration in Australia. Our record in this regard is without parallel in our history.

That is right. We are embarrassed about it. We regret it on behalf of our fellow Australians.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry and Leader of the House · New England · NCP/NP

– This matter arose before the House because an innuendo and an inference appeared in the course of yesterday -

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! Would the Minister resume his seat for a moment. I am going to insist on silence during this speech. I think that is only fair. We are dealing with the death of the right honourable member’s father and all sorts of other matters. I ask for the co-operation of all honourable members. I ask them to show some decency, in view of the situation.

Mr Uren:

– The point I want to make is that if the Government Ministers -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Reid has not been called by me.

Mr Uren:

– I have a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member still has not been called by me.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, might I proceed. I believe it is absolutely essential that there be an opportunity for me to respond to charges laid against me in this Parliament.

Mr Uren:

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

Mr SINCLAIR:

– It seems that the Opposition is not even prepared to grant that common decency.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the honourable member for Reid on a point of order.

Mr Uren:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, the point of order I am trying to make is: Where are the Government supporters?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. The honourable member should behave with some responsibility. I call the Minister.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– This matter arose last night because there was a concern in my mind that there could have been a publication this morning, as I was advised, of some information that had been purchased by the Age newspaper. I did not know the content of that reported release, but I was apprehensive because of the successive releases that have come out from the very beginning of this affair and which, I believe have made an inquiry which has been conducted, quite independently I would hope, by an officer appointed by the New South Wales AttorneyGeneral almost impossible to be handled impartially and to be completed with integrity. My concern is that I am now in a position where I am still subject to that inquiry. The inquiry is not of me; it is of a number of companies of which I am a director. That I am a beneficiary of some of the moneys is quite obviously apparent from the statement I made last night and from the indication I have given on a successive number of occasions in this chamber. But in circumstances where there is the successive publication of information; where there are statements being made in this House; where there are purported charges, for there are no real charges against me at this stage in any event; I find it extraordinarily difficult to lay down facts other than in accordance with those that are available to me and which yet cannot relate to the inquiry itself. In other words, even here today in this House I am in a position where I cannot respond to things that are separately being inquired into by the investigator appointed by the New South Wales Parliament. I cannot get up in this place and in response to questions that have been asked of me tell honourable members the details which it is true, in the asking, have been published in the Bulletin, but not my responses.

So let me return to the series of matters raised by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford ), but with the qualification of the ‘Catch 22 ‘ position in which I find myself. First, let me turn to the final part of the honourable member’s censure motion, that is, the part censuring the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) for his actions. Let me say to this House and to the people of Australia that from the moment these irregularities first appeared, I reported them to the Prime Minister and to my own leader. I told them of the nature and the manner in which I hoped to resolve them. I have continued that reporting. Indeed, my statement last night was another part of that reporting, to the public as well as to this Parliament, in addition to my reporting to those to whom I am responsible. Therefore I do not believe that in any way at this stage there is any basis on which this House should censure the Prime Minister. Indeed, if anybody is to be censured, it is me, and for the reasons that I am about to explain, I do not think that those allegations are valid either.

The censure motion against me relates to a series of particular charges. First, there is a suggestion that I have misled this House. It is true that as events have progressively revealed, the amounts concerned have increased, and I have revealed them. That was the purport of the statement last night. The difficulty that I had last night and which I mentioned in the statement was that at this stage the accounts have not yet been cleared by the directors and they have not been presented to the adjourned annual general meetings of the respective companies. In other words, whilst I have received the detail from the accountants, it has not been ratified by the persons to whom the accounts are presented and whose accounts, of course, they ultimately are. The next thing that I should say is that I have revealed in full detail the amounts as reported to me and to other directors by the investigating accountant. They were set out in the statement that I made to the House last night.

The second part of the censure motion suggests that in some way I have been reluctant to report to the Parliament fully and promptly.

Mr Hurford:

– Forty-one months.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-I rather thought that the contrary was the case. On each occasion that 1 have had information available, I have reported to this place. The honourable gentleman mentioned a time today. I point out to the honourable member that the accountants- three firms, not one are involved- have been working without records, many of which are not available, and I guess that even the honourable member might destroy some of his records once they are more than 10 years old. Many of these records are not available. What the accountants have been forced to act on in most instances is supposition and inference. They have had to try to check with other records, with other parties and other people. I think it is remarkable that without those records it has been possible for the accountants to bring together as complete a record as they have.

During the course of the statement last night honourable members might note that I referred to deemed losses as well as to losses by misappropriation. What I have done is accept those deemed losses as well as the ascertained losses because it has not been possible to check whether or not payments, which on the face of it seem completely valid, are in fact valid. In order to ensure that there is complete equity, I have accepted them as losses by misappropriation.

I turn now to the next part of the censure motion which reads: his failure to show that he has not benefited personally from the misappropriations:

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) referred to the headlines in the Age. I have mentioned on other occasions, as indeed the Prime Minister has mentioned today, that this business of being tried by Press, tried by this Parliament and tried without being given an opportunity to respond, is completely repugnant, and this is particularly so in circumstances where I cannot answer because of the constraints imposed upon me by the administrative procedures now under way under the auspices of Mr Finnane. On the contrary, in answer to part 3 of the motion, not only have I shown that I have personally benefited, but at every stage I have said that the Sinclair Pastoral Co. and my family have been involved. I have not in any way failed to reveal those figures; indeed, in the statement last night I referred specifically to the accountants’ identification of the amount deposited to the bank account of the Sinclair Pastoral Co. and to other amounts that were paid, at that time unbeknown to me, to my own account. I do not believe that there is any other way in which I can respond other than to demonstrate that these figures are available.

The next part of the censure motion deals with my alleged lack of candour. I do not know how one performs unless one reveals facts, and if one reveals facts, is that lack of candour? I rather thought that the reverse was the case. Having presented the facts to this House as I have successively as they have become available, I thought that I was meeting the obligation of candour, rather than not doing so. Then the motion deals with the question of tax. What I wanted to do very briefly was refer to the four areas of charges as made by the Opposition. AsI understand them, they include to what degree I benefited and to what degree in the time before my father’s death I was aware of these misappropriations? I was not aware before my father’s death of any of these funds being paid or their source; nor was I actively involved with any of those companies except the Sinclair Pastoral Co. As to the degree to which I have benefited, I have revealed that in accordance with the accountants’ report. Those figures are exactly there and when the Finnane inquiry is completed, I might well be able to answer in greater detail questions in relation to the compilation of them.

With respect to matters after my father’s death, there is the question of tax benefit and tax liability. Both of those matters, of course, have to be put in the hands of professional advisers. Because of my own actions, I have ensured that there is an identification of the correct tax liability. I even referred to it in my statement last night. With respect to the tax benefits, legal advice was taken. As I am a director of the company, I have a responsibility to the shareholders and it was their decision, not mine, as to what course of action had to be followed. In fact, one of the reasons for an identification of $250,000 odd now being shown as a loan to the Sinclair Pastoral Co. was in order to establish liability and to ensure that those tax benefits did not continue.

I believe that the whole of the circumstances of this case are completely regrettable, and I said so in my statement to the House last night. I believe that there is no way, other than when this inquiry is completed, in which I can answer all the questions put in this House. I might add that I am quite happy to respond to questions; however, it is not my ruling, but Mr Speaker’s, that prevents me from doing so. Incidentally, I am told that the Standing Orders of the Senate are different from the Standing Orders of this House. Therefore, there is no way by which in this place I can do other than to make a statement, as I have now done. I completely resent and oppose the suggestions made in this debate by the honourable member for Adelaide and the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that 1 had no course other than to do as I have done.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Acting Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Howard) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 64

NOES: 29

Majority……. 35

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr G. O ‘H. Giles)

AYES: 29

NOES: 64

Majority……. 35

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Sitting suspended from 1.15 to 2.15 p.m.

page 3112

AUSTRALIAN TOBACCO BOARD

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

– Pursuant to section 26 of the Tobacco Marketing Board Act 1 965I present the annual report of the Australian Tobacco Board for the year ended 31 December 1978.

page 3112

AUSTRALIAN WOOL CORPORATION

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

– Pursuant to section 90 of the Wool Industry Act 1972 I present the final annual report of the Australian Wool Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1978. An interim report for that year was presented to the Parliament on 19 October 1978 with unaudited financial statements. The final report is similar in text but contains audited financial statements and the Auditor-General ‘s certificate.

page 3112

EMPLOYMENT. PROSPECTS

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a report entitled: Employment Prospects by Industry and Occupation- A Labour Market Analysis’.

page 3112

IMMIGRATION

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · Warringah · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a paper entitled ‘Multiculturalism and its Implications for Immigration Policy’ prepared jointly by the

Australian Population and Immigration Council and the Australian Ethnic Affairs Council together with a text of a statement relating to the paper.

page 3113

MARALINGA: RESIDUAL RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · Bass · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the edited version of the Australian Weapons Research Establishment Report No. 0-16/68 of January 1968 on residual radioactive contamination at Maralinga, South Australia.

page 3113

AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · Bass · LP

– I present the official report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Romania, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Hungary.

page 3113

AUSTRALIAN ASSISTANCE PLAN

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

For the information of honourable members I present three reports which complete the second stage of the evaluation of the Australian Assistance Plan. The reports are: ‘From Vague Ideas to Unfeasible Roles’, by Dr L. J. Tierney, Department of Social Studies, University of Melbourne; ‘Australian Assistance Plan Evaluation Report No. 2 by Dr A. Graycar, School of Social Sciences, the Flinders University of South Australia; and ‘Australian Assistance Plan in Tasmania: Report of the Second Evaluation’, by Mr J. W. Ife, Department of Social Work, Tasmanian College of Advanced Education. The reports cover specific aspects of the implementation of the Australian Assistance Plan in Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia as well as the general issues of interest to people and groups involved in community development and social welfare programs.

page 3113

ACCIDENT AT ESSENDON AIRPORT

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the investigation report of the Department of Transport Air Safety Branch on the accident to a Portenovia aircraft operated by Speedair Pty Ltd near Essendon Airport on 10 July 1978. I present this report in accordance with an undertaking given by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) last year, but I should indicate that only a limited number of copies are available and that they have been placed in the

Parliamentary Library for the information of honourable members. The Department of Transport will be sending individual copies to all members within the next two weeks.

page 3113

ROAD SAFETY

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

– I also present for the information of honourable members a document entitled Collisions with Utility Poles- Summary Report’ prepared under contract by Fox, Good and Joubert of the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Melbourne University, for the Office of Road Safety within the Department of Transport.

page 3113

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES (REDEPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT) BILL

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

– Yesterday I was asked a question by the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson). I answered by saying that I would obtain information and provide it to him. Mr Deputy Speaker, may I crave your indulgence to provide that information to the House?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-You have my indulgence.

Mr VINER:

– The information I provide to the House relates to the preparation of regulations under clause 7 (1) (b) (iii) of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill. I am advised by the Public Service Board that it issued instructions for the drafting of regulations to the Attorney-General ‘s Department on 10 May 1979. Included in those instructions was a request to begin drafting a statutory rule to prescribe reasons for identification for redeployment under clause 7 (1) (b) (iii) of the Bill. This request was made in order that the draft regulations would be available as a basis for discussions with peak councils of employee organisations in the course of consultation between the Board and those organisations as required by clause 7 (2) of the Bill. I am advised by the Board that it is its intention that the consultations required by clause 7 (2) will be frank and comprehensive. It is with this aim in mind that the Board has sought to have a form of words for the regulations available for discussion.

page 3114

THIRTY-THIRD SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Australian delegation to the thirty-third session of the United Nations General Assembly 1 978.

Mr SHIPTON:
Higgins

-by leave-As one of the two parliamentary advisers to this delegation to the United Nations General Assembly I feel it appropriate to say a few words in the Parliament today. Attached to the report is an addendum signed by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) and me as parliamentary advisers to the delegation. It is one in which we are unanimous, something that the media might take note of particularly on this day. The most important part of the report for the Parliament is that the initiative taken by the delegates in forming a United Nations parliamentary group. This group had approximately six official meetings during the General Assembly period and was attended in all by 19 countries. As we say in the report, it was probably in many respects the most widely represented group in the broader sense of the word at the United Nations. We talk, in our report, of the weaknesses of the General Assembly meetings in that we feel that it comprises interests based on ideological and perhaps geographical groupings.

As we say in the report, the General Assembly is perhaps the ‘world’s annual general meeting’. Apart from set speeches by Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers most of the General Assembly debates are carried on by public servants, officials representing governments and not people’s representatives in the broader sense. I am not saying that politicians would do any better, but I would like to think that the initiative taken by us as parliamentary advisers to the delegation would be the beginning of some reform of the United Nations- as we say in our report, the vehicle for some change in the organisation. We are pleased that the Secretary-General congratulated us on our initiative. In fact, our meetings were notified in the journal which is the equivalent of the Notice Paper in this place. We feel it is important that liaison be established with other international parliamentary organisations and, as can be seen from our recommendations which are referred to in the report, we hope that other parliamentary organisations such as the International Parliamentary Union, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Parliament of Europe will take an interest in this initiative.

Representatives of other countries involved welcomed our initiative. It made us realise at the United Nations forum when mixing with delegates from countries all over the world that Australia, Australians and members of the Australian Parliament have an important part to play in international affairs. We were respected for forming this group and for having no vested interest. People said to us: ‘If some other countries had formed the group it would have been suspect, but as Australians have done so and as we know you have no vested interests we congratulate you’. I think that as a nation we tend to undersell ourselves a little. We ought to take more initiatives such as this in the field of international relations. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-by leave-I take firstly the point made by my colleague the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) relating to the role of parliamentarians at the United Nations. We have to see this as a very big organisation indeed. I suppose that on any day when the United Nations is in full session with all the committees, the six standing committees and the special political committee meeting, and perhaps the Security Council and the General Assembly in pleniary session, there would be approximately 2,000 people meeting. There is a significant exchange of international ideas. That is not always expressed in the debates because the speeches are likely to be rather stereotyped. But the fact is that it is a very big meeting and as my colleague said, I think we underrate the role parliamentarians can play in that organisation.

The United Nations General Assembly meeting is a very long-running exercise. We arrived there in the middle of September, the last session I attended was late in January, and it was still going to meet later on. So we are committing somebody to three or four months at least to attend the United Nations. On the question of the parliamentary group, of course we took the initiative. I was made chairman of the group and my friend the honourable member for Higgins the rapporteur. In the course of that visit one came into close contact with many parliamentary people from around the world, but the real drive amongst people such as ourselves was to try to establish a wider-ranging contact amongst the democratic forces of the world.

The United Nations is like any other gathering of human beings. It is broken up into factions. There is the ideological group- the Eastern bloc and perhaps even the western Europeans. Then there is the religious group, which is developing rapidly. The Islamic group extends from the

Atlas Mountains to the borders of Papua New Guinea, I suppose, now that Indonesia is included and is co-operating. There is the geographical group,” in which we find the African countries setting themselves up in some sort of caucus- quite a lot of the time. When we add all the African countries together as well as some of the Arab nations, they have almost 50 per cent of the voting strength of” the United Nations. Then, of course, there are the economic groupings, including the group of 77 calling themselves the developing nations. How countries such as Argentina and Uruguay can call themselves developing nations I do not know. I told them that I thought this was modesty beyond belief. We have to start -

Mr Hayden:

– That is a quality you would recognise easily.

Mr BRYANT:

-That is right, yes. This morning I placed on the Notice Paper a General Business item to examine the general structure of the United Nations. I agree that as Australians we ought to take steps to initiate this. We underrate the role that Australia can play. We ought now to start to examine very closely the factors that make the United Nations a stereotyped nonactive organisation in the cause of world peace. It is easy to write down the United Nations. In such things as cultural co-operation and administrative co-operation it achieves great things. Smallpox has been practically obliterated from this planet by the work of this organisation. That is a major human achievement. However, when we come to the Security Council, that is no longer a functional body for peace. I sat in on a Security Council meeting at which it was discussing the invasion of Kampuchea by Vietnam. The vote was 13 to two- 13 to condemn Vietnam, two against. The vote was lost. One would think almost that this arrangement was drawn up by the Country Party. The two countries that voted against the condemnation, of course, were Czechoslovakia and Russia, Russia had the veto, which meant the vote could not be carried. The Security Council cannot operate in this way.

If one looks at the Notice Paper and at those matters we are going to take off the record this afternoon, the House willing, one will notice several items about peace-keeping forces. These cannot get off the ground while one of the five permanent members of the Security Council resists it. If we consider the situation in southern Africa, the Security Council members who are principally charged with the responsibility of producing and protecting and expanding world peace are the countries that are the biggest arms sellers. We have to change that. We have to take a look at the structure of the United Nations. As I have said, Africa, with perhaps 10 per cent of the world’s population and 0.1 per cent of the world ‘s gross domestic product and producing a very small percentage of the funds to run the United Nations, has nearly 30 per cent of the votes.

It is 30 years since the United Nations was established in 1945 with 45 member nations, lt cannot work any longer in this way. It simply needs to be changed, like all human institutions. It is going to be a long haul. It might take 1 0 or 1 5 years, but the longer the journey the sooner we ought to start. I am grateful for the opportunity of attending the United Nations.

Mr Cohen:

– You should be our ambassador.

Mr BRYANT:

– It is one of the more useful exercises in which one is able to indulge by having membership of this place. There are many things that members such as ourselves could do at the United Nations. I think we ought to adopt the same attitude we adopt to Inter-Parliamentary Union conferences. There should be some sort of continuum of membership from year to year, although nobody would want to be at the United Nations for two years and four months in succession. Some European countries as was pointed out in the report, send four or five people to the United Nations and change them around over the period. I do not know whether the Leader of the House, who is at the table, is trying to wind me up, but if that is the case I will keep going. We do not often have the opportunity to discuss these matters. I hope that I am talking about something that is of vital interest to humanity and mankind. I suggest that honourable members read the report carefully, and especially the section that has on it the signatures of the honourable member for Higgins and myself.

page 3115

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr BAUME:

– Yes. As reported in yesterday’s Hansard, the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) said that I had just misled this Parliament. He said:

He said that he is opposed to the freezing of pensions.

This honourable member voted on 12 October for the freezing of pensions. A division took place at that time. The man is a humbug.’

Sir, unfortunately I did not hear the expression the man is a humbug’ because at that stage the Deputy Speaker had called the honourable member to order. The words were said through the calls for order, and unfortunately have been recorded in Hansard. Otherwise, I would have asked for withdrawal of that unparliamentary language.

More important is the fact that the allegation is totally untrue, and it may well have been an accident by the honourable member for Newcastle. Pages 1774 and 1775 of the Hansard of 11-12 October 1978 show that I did not vote for the second reading of the Social Services Amendment Bill which reduced automatic in-‘ dexation of pensions from a six-monthly to an annual basis. In fact, I was joined by three of my colleagues. On page 1823 of Hansard of 12 October 1978, during the Committee stage clauses 5 and 6 relating to the indexation of pensions were put to a vote and I abstained from voting in that division, along with four of my colleagues. The allegation is untrue. It may well have been that the honourable member for Newcastle accidentally looked at the next column, which was the division on the gag, and I did vote in that division. I stress that the honourable member for Newcastle claimed that I voted for the freezing of pensions. That is totally untrue, and I ask that by some measure he be asked to withdraw the unparliamentary and unacceptable expression that I am a humbug. The facts show clearly that I am not.

page 3116

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

Atomic Energy Amendment Bill 1979.

Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1979.

Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill 1979.

Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1979.

Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill 1 979.

Wool Industry Amendment Bill (No. 2 ) 1 979.

Excise Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979.

Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1979.

page 3116

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) agreed to:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 21 August next at 2.15 p.m., unless Mr Speaker shall fix an alternative day or hour of meeting or, in the incapacity or absence from Australia of Mr Speaker, the Chairman of Committees may fix an alternative day or hour, such alternative day or hour of meeting to be notified by telegram or letter addressed to each member of the House.

page 3116

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) agreed to:

That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.

page 3116

ZIMBABWE RHODESIA COMMON ROLL ELECTIONS

Report of Australian Parliamentary Observer Group

Mr SHIPTON:
Higgins

-by leave-I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Observer Group on the Zimbabwe Rhodesia Common Roll Elections. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

Mr SHIPTON:

-The Australian Parliamentary Observer Group was made up of myself, the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) and the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant). It was an all parliamentary group. In the interests of time, I understand that the honourable member for Cook will not be speaking on the tabling of the report today but he, as a member of the group and as a signatory to it, as we all are, endorses the report. Whilst we are all members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, as the report sets out, we went as individual members of parliament and not as representatives of a committee or of the Government. However, our fares and expenses were met by the Government. It was my view that our group was really the only genuine parliamentary team present to observe those elections. As I said earlier today in the debate on the United Nations General Assembly report, as a Second World power, Australia has a part to play in international problems of this nature. I refer briefly to some of the conclusions in this report which were reached by all members of the observer group. The report states:

We are satisfied that the common roll elections were held in a free and fair manner, openly and in accord with usual democratic practices, particularly considering that they were the first universal franchise elections to be conducted in Zimbabwe Rhodesia.

It continues:

We consider that voters had a genuine choice between candidates from differing political parties. All parties were free to register and to nominate candidates.

The report further concludes:

A large proportion of voters appeared to see the elections not so much in terms of a choice between parties but as a means of achieving black majority rule and, hopefully, an end to the guerilla war. Many voters asked why they were voting replied for peace, an end to the war, for majority rule or to bring ‘ the boys ‘ home from the bush.

This was a theme which I heard from nearly everyone to whom I spoke. The people were just voting for peace. The report continues:

We were most impressed by the fact that some 64 per cent of the estimated voting population turned out to vote. This is a high proportion when compared with most other voluntary voting democracies. We do not believe that such a large number of voters could have been forced to go to the polls against their will.

The report continues:

The Constitution is more flexible than we had been led to believe and offers full opportunity for effective majority government.

It is my personal belief that the Constitution gives proper and legitimate majority rule. If one looks at the Constitution, one sees that there is a black majority in the Parliament. It has general power over appropriation of revenues to both the police forces and armed forces and the government has power to issue general policy directions to both the police and the Army.

We conclude by urging the Government of Zimbabwe Rhodesia to make an earnest attempt at rapprochement with the minority parties within the Parliament, and with the Patriotic Front parties, so that the peace which has for so long proved so elusive is achieved. I note that since we wrote that conclusion there has been an offer of amnesty. Perhaps that makes our final conclusion more relevant. That is:

We believe also that there is a responsibility on the part of the minority parties and the Patriotic Front parties to play their part in achieving a lasting and peaceful solution to the problems in that country.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-by leave-I hope that the report speaks for itself. I will mention some of the points that are in it so honourable members may delve into it for themselves. The honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie), who supports the report, worked hard on the delegation. I found that, despite his grievous political errors, he is actually a good person when it comes to working as far from home as possible. I suppose I am speaking on behalf of the three members in this matter.

We should get firmly in our minds the point that Australia was, as far as one can use ‘official’ about our delegation, the only one of the 151 nations of the United Nations which had people there who speak to and for and from and with and directly to government and are part and effect of that. I think that is a plus for us although there are some people I think who say that we ought to be ashamed of that fact. On the other hand, I think that the rest of the world ought to be ashamed.

I belong to a party which believes in the spirit of free inquiry- to go, to look and to find out for oneself where possible. Zimbabwe Rhodesia is under seige. This country of six million people, about half the size of New South Wales, is very much on its own. I think I speak for my two colleagues in making the point that we did not come home starry-eyed about the government or about the future. We are more optimistic than pessimistic about its future. I think that, in the run-up to the election, there was the opportunity for free campaigning, as far as one could determine. One cannot give an absolute clean bill of health on that because there is no way of checking on some of the things that may have been done by police forces and security forces in the last few months. The election, as my friend from Higgins said, was technically as clean as an election could be. The Government, I think, is going to be a parliamentary government in control of the situation, given the normal run of human affairs. I think it was much closer to being a democratic election than an election in Queensland. It is a list system in which people put their crosses against the party for which they wish to vote. The names of candidates are on the ballot paper. There are symbols on the ballot paper which make it easier for them to vote.

A new environment has developed there and the world will now have to face African people across the table. So far as we could determine, the social situation has changed completely in the last two years. I refer to the military situation. There are people who believe that the Patriotic Front is the legitimate government in Zimbabwe Rhodesia, that it ought to take it over and that it will. My guess is that the military situation is on the side of the Government. It is not good guerrilla country. It is similar to the country to the west of Canberra or in western New South Wales. It is not an easy country for patrols to roam in without being winkled out. These patrols face a very efficient military force indeed. I hope that honourable members will take the opportunity to study Zimbabwe Rhodesia at first hand. In the near future, a parliamentary delegation will go to Africa to visit Zimbabwe Rhodesia. In view of the Zaire conference if it is indiscreet in the present situation for that delegation to go there in total, perhaps individual members could go. However, the parliamentary delegation ought to include Botswana in its tour as it is perhaps the other democratically elected country in Africa.

So that members may be able to study the documents at first hand, I will put my copy of the Constitution, plus some documents including the party policies, into the Parliamentary Library. Kindly remember that they belong to the honourable member for Wills.

Mr DOBIE:
Cook

-by leave-As honourable members have heard, it was not my intention to speak. I shall be very brief because I agree with what has been said by the two previous speakers, particularly the comments by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) about myself. The elections were fair, efficiently run and, in my opinion, they were honest. I think that is perhaps the most we can expect from any election anywhere in the world. We went as three individual members of this Parliament without the endorsement- as the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) has said- of committees, parties or any group in this building. We therefore went as hard nosed, experienced politicians, looking for mistakes and errors, which we did not find.

Mr Sinclair:

– Hard nosed?

Mr DOBIE:

– Hard nosed, but charming, nonetheless. We went and saw these elections and came back impressed. As I said the other night, we hope that the new government of Bishop Muzorewa- this is my own personal hope- will in fact gain endorsement in whatever form that may take. But more importantly, despite the struggle that this country has had for a long time, one can only hope from the efficiency with which their election was run- observed not only by ourselves but also by other observersthat the Muzorewa Government will receive encouragement, which is what it badly needs from now on. I was very proud to be a member of the delegation and to have represented this Parliament on a bipartisan basis at such an important function on the African continent. I thank the House for its indulgence.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– by leave- Members of the delegation are able to bring before the Parliament a first-hand assessment of how the elections have been conducted. Their conclusions seem to be in accord with the fairly large body of opinion that the elections in a relative sense were conducted freely and openly. They are reporting on a significant development. However, I would not like honourable members and the community generally to feel that the solution to all the problems of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia has been achieved. That certainly is not the intention of the report of the delegation as I understand it in the brief time that I have had to look through it. If the test were to be applied as to how successful the elections are in terms of resolving the problems of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, I would expect that the quote in paragraph 5 of the conclusions of the delegation is the relative measure. The last sentence reads:

Many voters asked why they were voting replied ‘for peace’; ‘an end to the war’; ‘for majority rule’ or ‘to bring the boys home from the bush’.

That clearly seems to be the sentiment of the people of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia who voted in that election and who had been approached by other sources who reported on their findings. In weighing up the general situation in southern Africa and the problems of ZimbabweRhodesia, I would not have thought that all those objectives would have been achieved by the results of the election. In that sense I think what we have to say in a qualified way is that the elections are significant, and one would hope that they are a step in the direction towards achieving the objectives enumerated by those many voters who were asked why they were voting. There are two areas that we should look at. One is the internal approach and the other is the external approach in southern Africa. At this point it is hard to accept that peace will have been achieved as a result of this election. The dissident group from the Patriotic Front have made it clear that they find the election processes, and the result, unacceptable. Very simply that means that unfortunately we can expect a continuation of guerilla activity.

Accordingly, to exaggerate in some unfortunate sense the results which have been achieved will be to lift people’s expectations excessively in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, and therefore it would lead to massive disenchantment and disillusionment later. That would be most unfortunate. It would mean that the moment of rapture would be very brief indeed; that the problems would be as great and probably worse in the near future. I mention in passing the nature of some of the problems. For instance, the censorship which applied for several months before the election must be seen as some sort of restraint to how free and open the conduct of the election could be. Secondly, there are the constitutional provisions which make it quite clear that there is minority white control over the affairs of the Government of that country, in the public service, in the police force, in the defence services, in the cabinet and so on.

Therein lie the seeds for some considerable level of discontent now and in the future. It is in this area that objections are being raised externally in Africa and especially in southern Africa. It is true that commercially and politically our relations with Southern Africa are crucial to this country. Certainly strategically they would not loom as high as our relations with many other areas of the world, especially in our region. We do have an interest which is related to a need to maintain stability in the world and a common concern about humanitarian matters like the welfare of people and the wish to avoid war and turmoil as much as we can. I would expect that unless further progress can be made towards what is really a majority rule in ZimbabweRhodesia, one which embraces all of the elements of political activity, internally, and those which are now external but belong internally -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)Order! The House will come to order. The level of conversation is far too high.

Mr HAYDEN:

– The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) likes to give me counter harmony to keep me in metre. Unless that situation can be achieved there will be problems. Let me quickly outline the serious nature of those problems. For instance, I find it inconceivable that Julius Nyerere of Tanzania would be able to live comfortably if a decision were made to recognise the election processes which have taken place in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and to eliminate the sanctions, and to do this quickly and completely. It would be seen by the people of Tanzania as a sell-out by the West. I am putting to honourable members that whether or not one agrees with this assessment the hard reality is that we have to face how people in that area see it, how they will respond to it, and what consequences will flow from it. I am trying to put it on a quite balanced level, on a non-partisan level. If that happens then we could expect the administration of Julius Nyerere- if he does not do it, some other group which will replace him- to swing very sharply and radically away from the West. I could not see him comfortably accommodating such a change. The degree and the intensity of feeling throughout Africa- especially southern Africa- on this matter is such that it would be completely unreasonable and totally unreal to impose that upon Julius Nyerere and his government, and similarly President Kaunda of Zambia would be put in an intolerable position. He is already facing enormous difficulties because of the guerrilla activity conducted by the Patriotic Front from within his own territory moving across into Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, and the reprisals which have taken place from regular units of the Rhodesian armed forces in his territory. Quite clearly President Kaunda is finding that those reprisals are lifting to such a level that they are generating political tension.

If this sort of settlement were to be accepted by the West, in some sort of uncritical way, as the finality of what can be achieved, I am afraid there would be rather grave disturbances to the balance and the general security of the nations of

Southern Africa. I come to the next point and that is that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) of Australia will be going to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference in Lusaka in August and it would seem that he would have an excellent opportunity to exercise influence towards some sort of settlement- I would expect an African type settlement- which could conceivably and hopefully advance the cause of stability in this area. We are in the position where there has been a change of government recently in both Canada and Britain. Accordingly, the African heads of government in the former Commonwealth countries would find rapport with those leaders, something yet to be established. It does seem that we have some advantages in our relationship with the former Commonwealth countries, especially the African ones, over our near neighbours, our very good friends in New Zealand. The Prime Minister is going to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference in Lusaka. Honourable members will bear in mind from comments that I have made in this place in the past that I am far from being a glowing approbater of the concept of the Commonwealth of Nations and Commonwealth heads of government these days. However, this occasion seems to offer an opportunity for a positive and helpful contribution to be made towards a settlement of this problem. Therefore, the Prime Minister goes with my good wishes. To the extent that he tries to achieve a settlement of this problem, he goes with my support and with the support of the Opposition.

In summary, I state that this report must be seen as a very interesting one. It is a beneficial report because it gives the views of people who were eye-witnesses to the electoral processes. It must also be seen as covering an event which is no more than a step towards an objective which is still far removed from the grasp of the world. I say ‘the world’ because the settlement internally impinges not only on peace in ZimbabweRhodesia but also on the stability of Southern Africa and perhaps Africa generally. That is something that ought to concern of us all.

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

– by leave- I promised the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) that I would not delay the House for long. I will keep that promise. But I feel that I would like to comment on the report that has been presented because of my close and long association with Zimbabwe-Rhodesia which goes back to 1941.I congratulate my colleagues. I think that this report is an excellent effort. The Parliament of Australia has been represented, and I think that we ought to emphasise that fact. As such, this report is an illustration of the fact that there is unity within this place for progress and development to take place in some areas and for all honourable members to obtain a knowledge and understanding of what happens in other countries. I think that the three honourable members are to be congratulated on the report that they have presented and for the work they have done.

I do not think there is any doubt that Prime Minister Muzorewa has done a great deal in that country. On numerous occasions he has tried to come to an agreement with the Patriotic Front. I think that that should be realised. I do not want to go into the political aspects of the matter. But I have found at the conferences that I have attended and at the meetings of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, that when we are discussing matters in African countries and with other member countries of the Commonwealth, if we are honest and if we put forward our point of view without hesitation and in a way which shows that we desire to work with the cooperation of the Commonwealth, those African countries respect us. I do not think that they respect us when we try to cover up and run away from a situation or a problem. I conclude by saying that the report contains a great deal of food for thought. It is a well thought out and well presented report. Again I congratulate my three colleagues in its compilation and on the work that they have done.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:

-As it is now past 12.45 p.m. the time allotted precedence of General Business has expired.

page 3120

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I would like to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I do.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may proceed.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-On page 2994 of Hansard of 6 June, I made a statement to the effect that the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) had voted to terminate half-yearly adjustments of pensions. I was incorrect. However, that still does not take away from what I said, which was that the man is a humbug. So too are the other five honourable members who abstained from voting on that occasion. If they had been fair dinkum they would have come over to this side of the House to vote with the Opposition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member from Newcastle will withdraw the word ‘humbug’.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-What is unparliamentary about the word ‘humbug’?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-It has been indicated in the statement by the honourable member for Macarthur that he found the word offensive.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-He found it offensive? I do not find it offensive. When people do what these honourable members did they must be humbugs.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Newcastle will not debate the issue. I have asked him to withdraw.

Mr Baume:

– He was wrong. He has not apologised and he was wrong.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I have asked the honourable member to withdraw.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I am thinking up a word to substitute for the word ‘humbug’.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-While the honourable member is thinking, I suggest that he withdraw the word.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I withdraw the word humbug’ and say that the honourable members concerned are political shysters.

page 3120

THE GOVERNMENT’S BUDGETARY AND MONETARY POLICIES

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:

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

The failure of the Government’s budgetary and monetary policies.

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

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

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the Business of the Day be called on.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The question is: That the motion be agreed to. All those of that opinion say ‘ aye ‘ to the contrary ‘ no ‘. I think that the ayes have it.

Opposition members- The noes have it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The House will divide.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I did not raise this matter at the time because a division had been called. I question whether an adequate number of honourable members rose to support the matter of public importance or whether one honourable member sat down.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I am never sure whether honourable members are reclining or standing. There were eight honourable members supporting the honourable member for Gellibrand. Because of the point of order raised by the Leader of the House, there has been some confusion. Therefore, I have ordered the sand to be run through so that the division bells can be rung for the normal period.

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 27

Majority……. 34

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 3121

OIL SPILLS

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave- On 24 February 1977 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation decided to conduct an inquiry into and report on: ‘The adequacy of arrangements to prevent and deal with oil spills in Australian waters’. The thrust of this inquiry was directed at oil pollution from ships, off-shore operations and shore based oil installations. The main government submissions were provided by the Department of Transport and what is now the Department of Science and the Environment. The major government initiative for dealing with the control, prevention and abatement of oil spills was the establishment of the national plan to combat pollution of the sea by oil. The plan had been operating since 1973, being administered by the Department of Transport in co-operation with the States and the oil industry, and funded by a levy on the shipping industry. The Committee recognised the value of the plan in its report and recommendations. The Committee tabled its findings on 26 October 1 978.

The inquiry was the first independent look at Australia ‘s capability to deal with oil pollution. In preparing the report the Committee drew not only on evidence from Commonwealth departments and authorities but sought and received information from responsible State authorities, the oil and shipping industries and interested private organisations and individuals. The result is a balanced view of the situation as it now exists. It is clear to me however that the Committee had a difficult task in combining the different interpretations of the oil pollution situation. On the operational side, both government and private witnesses expressed the view that, although the possibility exists of large scale pollution from shipping, off-shore operations or land installations, experience has shown that the risk factors are extremely low. This is due to the low density of shipping around Australia and to the operating procedures followed on off-shore platforms and at shore installations. Those responsible for environmental matters on the other hand stressed that the possibility of oil spills from these various sources is nevertheless always present.

The report acknowledges that the national plan to combat pollution of the sea by oil is an effective program at a realistic level which can, when required, deal with pollution incidents from other sources. The report in its recommendations called for action by a number of departments. These are set out in a paper which I will table with this statement. These recommendations have been carefully considered by the Government and I would like to outline briefly for the House the results which have been agreed. At the time when the report was tabled, the Department of Transport and the Departments of Education and Science and the Environment had already put into action eight of the recommendations. These are the ones dealing with tanker safety training; reporting of suspect shipping; official register of suspect shipping; encouragement to States to bring their legislation up to date; national plan equipment; involvement of environmental officers in incidents; register of oil cargo and spill information; and monitoring of international developments. Another five recommendations have since been adopted by the Government and are being implemented. These deal with: The provision of navigation aids; national plan involvement in incidents flowing from off-shore or shore based activities; reports on usage and success of dispersants; review of priorities regarding marine science research; and examination of the need for increased marine source research.

The Government has also agreed on the desirability of the following recommendations but any decision as to their implementation would depend on further discussion and investigation either locally or overseas or in some instances on availability of funds, such as: Ratification of the International Convention on Training, Certification and Watch Keeping for Seafarers; use of satellites; ratification of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1 969; equitable basis for contribution by offshore and land based installations; research program for monitoring pollution; compulsory pilotage; restricted areas around off-shore platforms; widening of recommended tracks on navigation charts; increased funds for hydrography work; and extension of national plan to other hazardous substances. The recommendation dealing with ratification of the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1971 has a number of constitutional and financial aspects which need yet to be resolved. The recommendation on cargo tagging is still under consideration.

The recommendation proposing the establishment of a more equitable formula for the levy on ships cannot be implemented at this time. This recommendation suggests that a more equitable formula should be devised for imposing the levy on the shipping industry and in particular that tanker operators should pay a larger share. This view is not accepted by the Department of Transport or by the shipping industry. Statistics indicate that in Australian waters tankers are no more frequently the source of marine pollution than other vessels. The recommendation dealing with research in toxicity of dispersant and oildispersant mixtures will also not be proceeded with for the time being but will be kept under consideration pending developments. The Department of Transport has called tenders for bioassay testing of the toxicity of dispersants and oil dispersant mixtures in 1978 but did not proceed with the project. This decision was reached after detailed discussion between an expert member of the Maritime Services Advisory Committee- National Plan- and scientificauthorities in West Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. The Government wishes to express its appreciation of the work done by the Committee and in particular for the value of the recommendations.

I now table this statement to which is attached the recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation on oil spills. I present the following paper.

Oil Spills-Ministerial Statement, 7 June 1979.

Motion (by Mr Groom) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-The response from the Government to the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation on the prevention and control of oil pollution in the marine environment has taken some nine months. Most of the recommendations have received the attention of the Government to the extent that they have been acted upon, they are being implemented or they are being considered. I assume from the remarks of the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) that the response is made not only on behalf of the Department of Transport but also on behalf of the Department of Defence, the Department of Science and the Environment and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The dangers that tankers pose for the Australian coastline are more serious, I believe, than one would think from a reading of the Minister’s statement. In general, the statement tends to gloss over the serious nature of some of the things that could occur in the event of a tanker accident off the coast of Australia.

I refer briefly to the recommendation that the Commonwealth Government increase the funds available for hydrography work in Australian coastal waters to hasten the upgrading of navigation charts. We are told that the Government is considering that recommendation. Because of the references to the faulty navigation charts which the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation found, I impress upon the Government that adequate funds should be made available for that purpose. Another recommendation under consideration relates to cargo tagging. Whilst cargo tagging is a simplistic term, it is best described in a reference in the report of the Committee. Paragarph 94 of the report refers to the various methods of individually fingerprinting oil cargoes that have been considered. It states:

Sweden has introduced a trial system of coded plastic pellets which are put into unladen or ballasted tankers. Tank washings from these vessels can then be easily traced.

Oil slicks off the Australian coast are a fairly frequent occurrence, and the authorities are unable to identify the sources of those slicks. It is also a regular practice for vessels visiting Australia to take the opportunity in the course of the voyage to wash out their tanks so that they do not have to pause. They wash the tanks while the vessel is travelling instead of doing it in an authorised area. It is essential, if we are to protect our own marine environment, that there be some sort of efficient means of identifying the source of the pollution.

The early part of the Minister’s statement referred to the recommendation that the Department of Transport investigate and report to the Minister on possible ways of reporting suspect shipping. I relate that recommendation to the policy of the Government in respect of flag of convenience vessels. In recent years, during the world wide economic trough, particularly in relation to international shipping rates, this country has been exploiting the benefits of the cheapest international freight rates for many years. However, one always gets what one pays for and, along with those cheap freight rates, we have had a large incidence of flag of convenience vessels travelling the Australian coast. 1 refer the House to the statement in the report relating to evidence by a representative of the Queensland Coast and Torres Strait Pilot Service. I mentioned this to my colleague, the shadow Minister for the environment, in respect of the Great Barrier Reef. On page 26 of the report it is stated: . . Approximately 40 per cent of the ships he pilots have substandard equipment. He went on to say, ‘a very large percentage of ships afloat today under flags of convenience have absolutely appalling standards both in trained navigating personnel and in equipment.

It is not generally recognised in the Australian community that on these vessels the crews are paid virtually slave labour rates. Depending upon the country of registry, only one qualified person may be on board that vessel. One could best and most kindly describe the rest of the crew as sea-going labourers. It has been brought to my notice by members of the maritime industry that there are occasions when pilots have gone on board vessels traversing the Great Barrier Reef area at night to find nobody on the bridge. In effect, nobody was qualified. The one qualified officer on board was asleep below. That is the kind of risk that is entailed. Naturally, one would have thought that the Government would have been alert to it.

On 4 April this year I asked the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) about the large percentage of ships flying under flags of convenience and frequenting the Torres Strait area and the quality of their personnel. Surprisingly, and I think irresponsibly, the Minister for Transport said that as the statement in the report to which I have referred did not include particulars of the identity or nationality of the ships in question, no meaningful answer could be given to the question. We are asked to believe that the Department of Transport does not know who are the flag of convenience operators through the Torres Strait and around the Australian coastline. Obviously the Department could not care less, from the tone of the answer I received. The Minister also said that the items of equipment referred to were the gyro compasses, radar and sounding machines. Surely, they are the most essential pieces of equipment in the navigation of a vessel and the negotiation of difficult sea passages in rock strewn areas?

On 2 1 February this year I asked the Minister about the nature and number of deficiencies discovered during tanker inspections. The Minister referred to tanker inspections that had been established as a supervisory safety process and gave the impression that everything in the garden was lovely in relation to those inspections in Australia. On 15 January the Minister issued a Press statement in which he said that as a result of tanker inspections carried out over the period from August 1977 to December 1978 a number of deficiencies had been found. He did not establish the nature of the deficiencies. On 21 February, in a question on notice, I asked the Minister what was the number of deficiencies. The number of deficiencies referred to by the Minister for Transport so blandly, and obviously with an intent to delude the Australian public, was 480. There were 480 deficiencies revealed during inspections of vessels visiting the Australian coastline over a period of 16 months. I refer to some of those deficiencies. Ten overseas vessels had leakages from joints, hoses and glands pumps. Six vessels had electrical equipment in a hazardous zone which was not intrinsically safe. In six Australian vessels and six overseas vessels fire appliances were not ready for immediate use. In 25 vessels doors to accommodation and other doors and windows overlooking a hazardous zone were open. In 12 cases warning notices were defective or missing or safe smoking areas were not designated. In 31 cases tanker safety publications were not on board. Sixteen overseas vessels had faulty navigation equipment and insufficient or uncorrected charts and publications. Those are only a few of the deficiencies referred to in the Minister’s answer. I will terminate my remarks to give my colleague a chance to respond. Whilst the statement from the Minister is welcome and goes a substantial way towards improving the position in Australia, a lot remains to be done. I hope that the Government acts with a sense of responsibility on this issue.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

-This is a very important statement made by the Government because it comes at a time when there is considerable debate in the Parliament about the impact of oil on the Barrier Reef. This matter was dealt with by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, in passing, because it was primarily concerned with oil spills from ships. It was pointed out in the report that ship-generated spills were estimated at about 35 per cent of the total input of spills into the ocean. Of course, there are various types of spills. Minor accidental spills frequently occur during loading and unloading operations. Then there are major accidental spills such as occurred with the Amoco

Cadiz and deliberate spills which usually occur as a result of tank cleaning at sea.

The important thing that needs to be noted by the Australian people, I believe, is that oil spills are very damaging to the marine environment. That is one of the reasons that I think this report is significant. Many statements have been made recently by people who have hopes of drilling on the Barrier Reef. We have had statements from the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) assuring us that he would make sure that no damage would occur to the reef.

I turn now to the report itself which is entitled Oil Spills: Prevention and Control of Oil Pollution in the Marine Environment’. I ask honourable members to note the findings on page 7 of the report which states in regard to the effect of oil spills on the reef:

  1. Major oil spills have a clear and obvious deleterious effect on the marine environment and on the communities of plants and animals living there. Oil is a conspicuous pollutant, and in particular, it has a dramatic effect on sea birds. Although long-term effects of sub-lethal concentrations of oil are not as dramatic as massive mortalities, the results may affect the survival of an important species, or alter the balance in the food chain. At present little is known of the longterm effects of oil spills and an accurate assessment of possible damage is difficult. Damage to the environment is not easy to measure objectively. The basis of environmental concern is so ill-defined, that it is not surprising that research scientists have reached widely differing conclusions about the dangers of oil pollution.

I think that first statement is significant because in recent days the Prime Minister has been saying that he would never allow anything to happen on the Barrier Reef. We are talking about oil drilling and oil spills, but the result is oil in the marine environment. The Prime Minister has been saying that he would never permit any damage to the reef. I put it to the House that it is simply not possible for anyone, even the Prime Minister, with all the magic powers that he may have, to guarantee to anybody that if there is a blow-out on the reef through an oil drilling operation, there will not be damage to the reef. I do not care how much research is done in the short term or the long term; it is not possible for those guarantees to be given.

Let me continue with what is said in this report. On page 8, under the heading ‘Damage to Marine Life ‘, it is stated:

  1. There are five main ways in which oil can damage marine ecosystems. These are: direct coating leading to suffocation; lethal toxicity of oil components; habitat alteration: hydrocarbon accumulation; alteration of behavioural responses.

The most obvious environmental effect of oil is usually the coating of large numbers of sea birds, nearly all of which die. Treatment of the birds is expensive and usually unsuccessful. If oil arrives at breeding time, the effects can be devastating. Birds are particularly vulnerable because of their activity at the air/water interface. Surface-feeding fish together with surface-living plankton are similarly effected by oilblanketing. If a slick arrives on shore, it traps innumerable littoral organisms.

  1. The second harmful effect of oil is related to its inherent toxicity. Oil is extremely poisonous to shore plants. The aromatic components of oil are especially toxic. The overall effect is largely controlled by the manner of presentation to the organism. Thus, any suspension of fine oil droplets in seawater can be expected to harm underwater animals which otherwise might only be slightly affected by floating oil. Long-term toxicity can result from weathered oil which has sunk and then been lightly covered by sand or other sediment.

Surely everybody in Australia is aware of this magnificent marine ecosystem called the Great Barrier Reef. There is an enormous variety of marine life. There are literally hundreds of thousands of different forms of life in the sea. There are different forms of plant, fish, and coral and there is an inter-relationship between the land and the sea.

Dr Everingham:

– There are microscopic organisms.

Mr COHEN:

– That is right; microscopic organisms in their thousands are throughout that whole region. All this is inter-related. If by any chance, and God forbid, the situation should arise where there is a major oil blow-out on the reef through oil drilling, we simply do not know what will happen. But from the findings of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation and from the evidence presented to that Committee it is very clear that very serious damage, probably devastating damage, will result to the reef.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to go on but the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) has been kind enough to permit both the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) and me to speak on this matter. I think the point has been made and I thank the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3125

DISCHARGE OF ORDERS OF THE DAY

Motion ( by Mr Sinclair) agreed to:

That the orders of the day, government business, for the resumption of the debate on the motions to take note of the following papers, be discharged:

Nomad Aircraft- Ministerial statement.

Health care costs- Ministerial statement and paper.

Bilateral negotiations- United States of America and Japan- Ministerial statement.

Naturally occurring LPG- Increase in exciseMinisterial statement.

Passenger vehicle emission controls- Ministerial statement.

Australian 1988 Bicentenary- Ministerial statement.

Whales and whaling- Ministerial statement.

Australian Science and Technology CouncilMinisterial statement and papers.

National resources- Senate Standing CommitteeReport on Australia’s water resources, the Commonwealth’s role- Government response- Ministerial statement.

Civil aviation negotiations with ASEAN-Ministerial statement.

International Energy Agency- Ministerial statement and papers.

Geo-political situation- Ministerial statement.

Nabarlek uranium project- Ministerial statement.

Unemployment benefits- Review of administrative arrangements- Ministerial statement.

International situation and Australia’s economic prospects- Ministerial statement.

Namibia- United Nations’ peacekeeping forceAustralian contribution- Ministerial statement.

Aboriginal Affairs- Policies and achievements- Annual report of Department and ministerial statement.

Science and the Environment- Senate Standing Committee- Report on herbicides, pesticides and human health- Government response- Ministerial statement.

Department of Productivity- The first 2 yearsMinisterial statement.

Aboriginal Development Agency- Ministerial statement.

Taxation- Foreign tax credit system- Ministerial statement.

Defence review- Ministerial statement.

Export policy for bulk raw materials- Ministerial statement.

Lebanon- Ministerial statement.

Australia ‘s international civil aviation policy- Papers.

Middle East peace negotiations- Ministerial statement.

Housing costs- Committee of inquiry- Papers.

Namibia- United Nations’ peacekeeping forceMinisterial statement.

Aviation safety- Ministerial statement.

Multilateral trade negotiations- Ministerial statement.

page 3125

NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 June, on motion by Mr Groom:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-The purpose of this Bill is to amend the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1 975 to facilitate the development of the township at Jabiru. We know that that township is to be located in the Kakadu National Park, a unique area; indeed one of the most beautiful areas not just in Australia but in the world. The Government has decided that the mining town to serve the uranium mines developed in the region would be included in the Kakadu National Park and would be a closed town with a limited population. The town will be developed on land leased from the Director of National Parks and Wildlife and will be subject to a plan of management. The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act requires the Director of National Parks and Wildlife as soon as practicable after a park or reserve has been declared to prepare a plan of management in respect of that park or reserve. The Director has to follow a series of steps directed by the Act in preparing the plan of management, including the receipt of public submissions and making the plan available for comment by interested persons. I will have something to say about that later, particularly the conflict that exists between the conservative and, one might even say, reactionary leadership within the Northern Territory Government, especially under the leadership. of Mr Everingham, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. He is very much at loggerheads with the Director of National Parks and Wildlife and that, of course, means that he is in conflict with the Government here in Canberra on that matter. Even though I think the Government in Canberra is a very conservative government, no matter how conservative it is it does not have to the same extent the reactionary elements that exist within the Northern Territory Government.

It was the Government’s intention that by including the town site in the national park the town would be planned and managed in accord with the park plan of management. The last point in this respect that I want to dwell upon is that the Jabiru Town Development Authority is to be established under this legislation as a statutory authority responsible for the development of the township. I am quite sure that there will be continuing conflict between that body which is under the control of the Northern Territory Administration and the Parks and Wildlife Service.

The Australian Government is responsible for the protection of the Kakadu National Park as a national asset. This Park is one of the world’s great national parks and this Government says that it will continue to be. We on the Opposition side question that claim. We believe that the mining of uranium in the area will lead to the raping and destruction of many of the beautiful aspects of the park, including its natural points of beauty which have existed for thousands of years. Future development aspects will be affected also. We on this side say that the mining of uranium in the area will rape the lifestyle and the environment of the Aboriginal people. We say that the mining will pollute the waters of the Alligator Rivers system and will create a good deal of havoc. We say that clearly- and I will argue this point later on- insufficient work has been done from a scientific point of view to overcome the problems that will result from mining activities. Even those people who carry out the Government’s business are stating that. Later in my comments I will quote what Mr Fry, the Supervising Scientist, had to say.

The Labor Party will divide the House on the motion that the Bill be read a second time. We will divide again on the third reading. We will divide when those questions are put because this piece of legislation is interrelated with the Government’s uranium mining policy. If this township is developed to house the people who will work the Ranger operation, the development will be extended to the Pancontinental mines, when they are given authority to mine, so as to house the people who will work them. The people who will work at Nabarlek will not be involved. Originally, because of the concern expressed at the inquiry into Ranger- what we now call the Fox Commission- it was thought that the uranium mining development would be sequential. It was thought that Ranger would be developed. Later probably there would be development of Nabarlek. It may be necessary to develop the Pancontinental mining area.

The interesting aspect of the proposed mining activity is how the Northern Land Council was duped into signing the agreement. I believe that the evidence that I will place before this Parliament will prove that the manner in which the agreement was signed makes that day one of the darkest days of our history. It is evidence of the way in which the Ranger agreement was forced onto the Northern Land Council. Anyone who reads the transcripts of the discussions at that time between the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the present Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner)- and many people now refer to him as the ‘Minister for Unemployment’- and the Northern Land Council will see who was the guilty man. Historians will write the real truth of the barbarism that was perpetrated at that time. It will be to the dishonour of this Government. Many people will call this Government a racist government because of the attitude that it took at that time.

I want to make clear the reason why the Opposition will divide on the second and third reading motions. The Government’s proposal is contrary to the Labor Party’s policy on uranium mining. The Labor Party’s policy is that, having regard to the present unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental and technical problems associated with the mining of uranium and the development of nuclear power in particular, until Australian sovereignty, the needs of our environment, the economic welfare of our people and the rights and wellbeing of the Aboriginal people are understood we will not assist in any way the Government’s actions to carry out uranium mining in the Northern Territory. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the Labor Party’s policy on uranium as was set out at Perth in 1977.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

THE ALP’s URANIUM POLICY

Uranium-

Conference recognises that the provision of Australian uranium to the world nuclear fuel cycle creates problems relevant to Australian sovereignty, the environment, the economic welfare of our people, and the rights and well-being of the Aboriginal people.

Labor believes, that having regard to the present unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental and technical problems associated with the mining of uranium and the development of nuclear power and’ in particular:

to the proven contribution of the nuclear power industry to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increased risk of nuclear war;

the absence of procedures for the storage and disposal of radioactive wastes to ensure that any danger posed by such wastes to human life and the environment is eliminated.

It is imperative that no commitment of Australia’s uranium deposits to the world’s nuclear fuel cycle should be made until:

a reasonable time has elapsed for full public debate on and consideration of the issues;

the Australian Labor Party is satisfied that the abovementioned problems have been solved; and

the Australian Government endorses Recommendation 6 of the First Fox Report, which states: a decision to mine and sell uranium should not be made unless the Commonwealth Government ensures that the Commonwealth can at any time . . . immediately terminate those activities, permanently, indefinitely or for a specific period.’

Accordingly,

Labor declares a moratorium on uranium mining and treatment in Australia,

Labor will repudiate any commitment of a non-Labor Government to the mining, processing or export of Australia’s uranium, and

Labor will not permit the mining, processing or export of uranium pursuant to agreements entered into contrary to ALP policy. ‘

This Conference asserts that in the event of the Mary Kathleen Mine being closed down by the Company or in the event of a shortfall from this source in fulfilling existing uranium export contracts, a Labor Government will not allow any new mine to be opened to honour those contracts, but will assist in arranging for the final discharge of obligations under those contracts from overseas sources, as outlined in the First Fox Report

Mr UREN:

-I thank the House. The only aspect of our uranium policy that I draw to the attention of the House is that, even if this Government proceeds to develop this township to house people to work the uranium mines of Ranger, when a Labor Government is returned in 1 980, as it will be, we will- and we clearly remind the people of this as we have reminded them so often in the past- repudiate any commitment of a non-Labor government to the mining, processing or export of Australia’s uranium. That of course is the real strength of our policy. We of the Opposition are saying to this Government, to the people of Australia and the people throughout the world that we oppose the mining of uranium at this time because of the unresolved problems that exist. I do not have to remind the House of the Harrisburg incident. Do I need to remind the House of the third recommendation of the first report of the Fox Commission. At page 1 85, that report states:

The nuclear power industry is unintentionally contributing to an increased risk of nuclear war. This is the most serious hazard associated with the industry.

The nuclear power industry is a very dangerous industry. Uranium mining cannot be divorced from the nuclear power industry because nuclear energy provides the material for the development of nuclear weapons and this increases the risk of nuclear war. The nuclear power industry is interrelated with the uranium mining industry. The ‘peaceful uses’ of uranium for the nuclear industry cannot be divorced from the manufacture of nuclear weapons and the increased risk of war. That is clearly the situation. That is why the Labor Party stands very firmly on its decision on uranium mining. For the reasons that I have given, more and more people throughout the world are beginning to understand the reason for our opposition to uranium mining.

We warn the Government, the uranium mining companies and the international financiers who are entering into the mining of uranium in this country that we will repudiate any commitment by this Government. We know that no publicity has been given to the conference being held at the Wentworth Hotel in Sydney. Representatives from most of the big mining companies and most of the financial institutions are present. I might say that most of them are foreign concerns. They include representatives of Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd! The word ‘Australia’ should be in inverted commas. That company is owned by Riotinto of Great Britain. We know that Esso Australia Ltd- an American company- is represented. We know that Getty Oil is represented. It owns 35 per cent of the Pancontinental organisation. Of course the representatives of Pancontinental are there. How much of Pancontinental is owned by foreign interests? All the great financial and foreign concerns are involved because they want to exploit Australia’s resources, particularly our uranium. We have given a clear warning. A good deal of investment has been lost in the past particularly in land speculation in this country. People have had their fingers burned. I believe that those who invest in uranium mining in this country will have their fingers badly burned.

Of course, even on the international scene demand for uranium is falling. We know that the economic aspect is one which will defeat the uranium and nuclear industry in the northern hemisphere. Let me give one example. Who will pay the enormous costs of the crisis that occurred at Harrisburg? Will the company pay? If it does, the cost will be passed on to the taxpayers through increased electricity charges. Will the Government pay? Will we ever really learn the true price of the enrichment of uranium? In the past the enrichment of uranium has been part of the war machine, part of defence expenditure. What about the cost of decommissioning nuclear power stations after their 30 years life has ended? Will they become tombs of the future? What is the real cost to police nuclear waste for a quarter of a million years? People are asking these questions more and more. We know that economics are drying up the nuclear power industry. They will do so more and more.

I want now to talk about some of the conflicts between the Australian Government representative, the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. I refer firstly to an article in the Northern Territory News of 1 4 May which stated:

The Chief Minister, Mr Everingham, is angry that Commonwealth national park laws will override Territory laws within the township.

He is talking about the building of the township of Jabiru. The article continues:

Mr Everingham is against wider powers being given to the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Prof Dereck Ovington.

However, a spokesman said that he thought it had been common knowledge for 18 months that the Commonwealth national parks body would administer Jabiru.

The article also refers to some comments by my colleague, Bob Collins, who is the member for Arnhem Land which is the area in which uranium will be mined. He is a member of the Labor Party. He is a courageous young man who is totally opposed to uranium mining as are the

Aboriginal people in Arnhem Land. That has to be made perfectly clear. The article then states:

  1. . Mr Bob Collins, said today ‘the whole mess was a national scandal’.

He said the Chief Minister was inflaming the issue by calling Prof Ovington a ‘petty dictator’.

Mr Collins said Mr Everingham made it clear in radio comments yesterday that uranium development had ‘ground to a halt’.

And so it should grind to a halt until the problems can be solved. I refer now to an article in the Canberra Times of 1 5 May which states:

Mr Everingham said that Prof Ovington was being a ‘dictator’ and was ‘carving out ‘ an empire.

His actions seem to us to be in total opposition to the Federal Government policy’ Mr Everingham said by telephone from Darwin.

We were given assurances that the Northern Territory laws would operate in the Kakadu National Park, nol just the township. Now we find the director intends to make regulations under his own authority regarding town planning, liquor licences, law and order. ‘

Mr Everingham is again quoted several days later in the Northern Territory News of 18 May. What did the Chief Minister say? The article states: . . Mr Everingham, said the Commonwealth’s latest proposal to amend National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act to overcome the present impasse was unacceptable.

He means that it was unacceptable to him and to the Northern Territory Government. The article continues:

Mr Everingham rejected the proposal, and said that the Jabiru town site should be excluded from the national park area.

The Minister in his second reading speech is clearly saying that the township must remain within the national park and be protected in such a way. But the ‘growth’ men of the Northern Territory whose attitude is ‘growth at any price’ do not want that. They want the township excluded from the national park. They want it under their control. The article goes on:

Mr Everingham said it was important Jabiru was outside the national parks, and administered only by Northern Territory laws.

The article finishes by saying:

The argument that national parks in the Northern Territory should be under Northern Territory control was also given.

These articles give the argument of the Northern Territory Government and of the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister is a member of the Country Party which is part of the Federal Government coalition and which also has influential members such as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony). We know that during the debate on this matter many comments were watered down to try to get some peace with the people in the Northern Territory. We ask the people to give some thought to the fact that the Labor Party policy is a sane one. The Government should not rush into this development. Greater thought should be given. What does the Supervising Scientist employed by this Australian Government say? The Canberra Times of 6 May states:

The Supervising Scientist, Mr Bob Fry, described yesterday his organisation’s operations as ‘ piecemeal ‘.

Because his office has a staff ceiling of 20, much of the scientific and environmental research work has been farmed out to a number of statutory organisations, universities and other tertiary institutions.

We went on to say:

We are overloaded, there is no doubt about it. The work is being done but in a piecemeal fashion by the universities and institutions . . .

What is needed is an overall, master integrating plan that ties all this together . . . that I can’t do until I get my staff . . .

We have enough information now to set standards, but I’m not as confident that these standards will be the right ones as I will be three years from now.

The Supervising Scientist is talking about the restriction of staff and the fact that he cannot do the job. He cannot keep up with the mining companies. The area is not ready for operations to proceed and yet because of the speed with which the companies are trying to get the fast buck out of uranium mining the work flows on.

As I said earlier, I want to stress the overall situation. I want to refer to the ‘black day’ when mining commences. We know that there had to be some agreement with the Northern Land Council to give the go ahead. I would like to quote from papers which I wish to table. I refer to some reports and transcripts of discussions concerning the Ranger agreement. The reports and transcripts relate to meetings held at Oenpelli on 3 November 1978 and at Bamyili on 2 November 1978. I will quote part of these reports. I ask permission of the House to have them tabled.

Leave granted.

Mr UREN:

-I thank the House. As I have said, I will read some quotations from these reports and make some comments on them.

Mr Groom:

– Not out of context I hope.

Mr UREN:

-I will not quote out of context. If I quote out of context the Minister can read back to me where I misquoted him. I will try as much as possible to quote the Minister verbatim. On the first day of the last meeting with the Northern Land Council at Bamyili on 1 November 1978, in the course of the discussion, the deputy chairman of the Northern Land Council, Gerry Blitner said:

The traditional owners will tell us when they are ready and I thought that we were all happy with that. And now we have a mysterious meeting here in a mysterious place, with police outside guarding us and we have mysterious doings outside by white people. If those white men have been asked by your people, okay. I am not angry about that or saying that it is wrong- if they have been asked. 1 still want to know if Oenpelli people want this. I say let us work the right way and proper way.

He was talking to the Minister because the Aborigines were surprised that they had been called together. They did not understand that there would be an agreement and that, in fact, they might sign it. The then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs who is now the Minister for Employment (Mr Viner) orchestrated a meeting with the Northern Land Council and tried to blackmail the Aboriginal people morally into agreeing to the Ranger uranium development. The Minister spoke to the Council on the second day, 2 November 1978, and then again the following day at Oenpelli.

Some people might say that the way in which he manipulated the Aboriginal people into sharing his concern that the whole Ranger matter be settled immediately was very clever. I have other expressions for him but if I used them in this place they would be unparliamentary. Therefore, I will not use those expressions. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, you can probably read my mind and you will know what I think of the man. The Minister said time after time that he was worried about concerns of people outside the Aboriginal area. He said repeatedly that he was worried that for six years the Ranger matter had been discussed. That is, he put the blame on the Aboriginal people for delaying the Ranger development for six years when, in fact, his Government had caused several delays and the whole project was not up for discussion until Mr Justice Fox had made his report.

I might also say that the Minister had not been to Oenpelli until July 1976. 1 had been there several weeks before him and no Minister of this Australian Government had been to Oenpelli and talked to the Aboriginal people up until that time. He was the first Australian Minister to do so although many Ministers had been to the area and talked to the mining companies. However, they had never met with the Aboriginal people there up and until that date. If the Minister follows the transcript of those meetings he will see that the Aboriginal people felt guilty. They were made to feel guilty because they had delayed the proceedings. They were softened up to submit to the pressure put on them by the then Minister for

Aboriginal Affairs, the Government and the Minister’s advisers, particularly a Mr Bishshaw who played a very sinister and treacherous game in the transaction at that special meeting. The Minister acknowledged that the Aboriginal people in their hearts did not want mining in that area. I quote again from page 9 of the second report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry:

The evidence before us shows that the traditional owners of the Ranger site and the Northern Land Council (as now constituted) are opposed to the mining of uranium on that site.

Clearly, they have always been opposed to it and they are still opposed to it. The Minister claimed that the Government had accepted the recommendations of the Fox report. The Government had not done so. As I have already said, some of the most major decisions on the sequential development have been scrapped. Of course, the rat race is now on. May I remind the House of the fishing expedition recently between Tony Gray of Pancontinental and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) who was under pressure in the House today and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony). Of course, a deal has been worked out for Pancontinental. That deal will further erode this Government’s position and break the sequential development decision of the tax commissioner which was one of the most major recommendations of the Fox inquiry. The Minister then said that the Aboriginals would get a good deal from the development of the project. He then said- I will quote him word for word:

You have had your traditional owners at Murganella and Mudginberri, telling the Council, telling the negotiator what to do. He has gone away and done it and he said to the Commonwealth fellow- these are my instructions, I want thatand when the Commonwealth have said alright we will agree to it.

We have been told that your negotiator has been acting on instructions. So I think, Mr Chairman, with me here today, it is a good opportunity for us to sit down and talk about it.

And I would like you to think that it is also a good opportunity to finish it off, to come to a decision and say, right, that is it.

Because at sometime, a decision has to be made, we can’t go on another couple of months, another six months, another 12 months, now we can’t go on, you really can’t go on, it is no good for the mind to get worried, the Commonwealth, the Government can ‘t go on, not knowing, you know, when it is going to come to an end.

That is the Minister speaking. The transcript continued:

All the work has been done and that argument has been reached and I think that if we can sit down today, look at it and if you can ask yourself- is it fair? Is it reasonable for all of us?

And then, Mr Chairman, I think you have got some thought of going off to Oenpelli, maybe tomorrow, to talk to the traditional owners, well we can go and talk to them and maybe finish it all up in these couple of days in the same way that 1 settled that border question up there in the Torres Strait. I know after they said, after we did that, the Torres Strait Islanders - (Extension of time granted).

The transcript concludes:

I know after they said, after we did that the Torres Strait Islanders said- well, the ache has gone out of our hearts, we are happy now, we can put that behind us and we can look at the future.

I will finish on this point: In my view the Minister used his powers, as a Minister, to press and misguide those people into making a hasty decision. I think that this Government will pay the price in the long term.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I wish to quote from the second reading speech of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) when he introduced the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1979. He said:

The amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act contained in this Bill permit the Director before the plan of management is in effect, to approve, by instrument in writing, the performance within the park of such work as he considers necessary or desirable for the establishment of a township at Jabiru . . . Before granting a licence, the Director will be required to consult closely with the Jabiru Town Development Authority-

That is the Authority appointed by the Northern Territory Government and which seems to be under fire from the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). The Director will also be required to confer with the Chairman of the Northern Land Council. I am not speaking to delay the erection of the township at new Jabiru. In fact, I do not want to see time wasted or lost by too many other regulations or amendments which seem unnecessary being brought into the situation. Proposed new section 8D appears to be slowing the development of the town rather than speeding it up, despite the fact that the Minister has said that the amendment is supposed to speed up the work at Jabiru. Why has proposed new section 8D been put into the Bill? Proposed new section 8D (3) (b) states the Director shall not grant a licence unless:

  1. . where, under the Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act 1 976, an Aboriginal Land Council has, or Aboriginal Land Councils have, been established for any area or areas wholly or partly within the Park- the Director has consulted with, and had regard to the views of, the Chairman of that Council or of each of those Councils, as the case may be, in relation to the issue of the licence.

Why is this proposed new section included when section 23 of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act sets out the functions of a Land Council? Section 23(1) states that such functions include:

  1. to ascertain and express the wishes and opinions of Aboriginals living in the area of the Land Council as to the management of Aboriginal land in that area and as to appropriate legislation concerning that land;
  2. to protect the interests of traditional Aboriginal land owners of, and other Aboriginals interested in. Aboriginal land in the area . . .

That is this area, the Kakadu National Park which is of course Aboriginal land leased back to the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Sub-section (1) (c) of section 23 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act gives as a further function of a council:

To consult with traditional Aboriginal land owners of, and other Aboriginals interested in, Aboriginal land in the area of the Land Council with respect to any proposal relating to (he use of that land.

We have that provision in the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. I commend the Northern Land Council on the way it has conducted itself. Its Chairman Galarrwuy Yunupingu and its Deputy Chairman Gerry Blitner, mentioned by the previous speaker, have dealt expeditiously with the matters referred to them regarding the Ranger agreement.

It is said that speed is required. This further consultation does not seem to accelerate the construction of the new Jabiru township. Surely the further reference to the Northern Land Council or councils will delay the granting of licences under sub-section 2. The Aborigines have the right to consult. They have done so. It has been written in the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. Sub-section 18(1) states: . . the director may assist and co-operate with Aboriginals in managing land to which this section applies for the purpose of the protection and conservation of wildlife in that land and the protection of the natural features of that land.

Sub-section (2) (a) states: after consultation with the Aboriginals, if any, as to whom the Minister is satisfied that they have traditional rights in relation to the land;

Sub-section 18 (2) (b) (iii) of the Act states:

In the case of any other land- the person in whom, or body in which, the land is vested.

Although the councils have handled the situation well in the past, it seems unnecessary to include proposed new section 8D.

I wish to reply to some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Reid who spent quite some time attacking the Chief Minister, Mr Paul Everingham, about the conflict which Mr Uren states is ensuing between the Northern Territory and the Director, Professor Ovington, which in turn the honourable member says is the Government. The honourable member is saying it is the Northern Territory Government which is objecting. That is not true. It is the people of the Northern Territory who are objecting because they consider that the Commonwealth, through the Director, is using a heavy hand and moving to a position where it will control to too great an extent a township which is going to be in the Northern Territory. It will be surrounded by Aboriginal land, albeit land leased back to the Director. That is turn is surrounded by Northern Territory land. I just put him right on that point. He said also that uranium development will rape the lifestyle of the Aborigines. When the Ranger consortium first went to that area there were few, if any, Aborigines at that site. Old Peter was probably the only man they dealt with. The grog at Karl’s Crossing was raping Aboriginal life to a far greater extent than an ordered township at Jabiru site would do. No doubt the honourable member and many others have been there, but the open cut site at the Ranger mine is a mere pinpoint on the map when compared with the National Park.

Concerning pollution of the water, I hope the honourable member for Reid is aware that very extensive water and flora research is being carried out right now at Jabiluka. The scientists will continue to establish what pollution, if any, is being introduced into the waters, plants, fish, animals, et cetera. I would remind Territorians, when they hear or read this speech that the honourable member for Reid, one time Deputy Leader of the Labor Party, has stated that if the Labor Party is ever returned to power it will shut down uranium mining. He has said in this House that is what is going to happen. I warn people in the Northern Territory, who are hoping that his mining will help with development and employment in the Northern Territory, that it will occur. Yet the member for Reid knows only too well that his colleagues- I say this unreservedly- in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are forging ahead with the development of nuclear energy. When his friends in the USSR are forging ahead with developing nuclear energy, why does he do his best, with many of his colleagues, to prevent this development in Australia? I leave that question open for the community to answer.

He mentioned the scandal of pressure being brought to bear on the Northern Land Council to make a decision concerning uranium mining. The greatest scandal of the lot was when his friends there- he mentions the local member as one of the people who would have been doing this, and his Labor Party colleagues- were pressuring the decision at Oenpelli, the place he mentioned. They were endeavouring to bring tremendous pressure upon the Land Council that was making the decision at Oenpelli. I point out to the House why we in the Northern Territory consider that the territory should have a far greater responsibility in regard to the planning and running of the Kakadu National Park.

Mr Uren:

– Why are you at loggerheads with your Government? Why don’t you say you do not agree with your Government? Why don’t you tell us you do not agree with your Government -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The honourable member for Reid has made his speech.

Mr CALDER:

-The Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission has a performance record -

Mr Uren:

– It is the old story of Country Party knives going into the Government’s back.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for the Northern Territory will resume his seat. The honourable member for Reid will obey the instructions from the Chair. He has made his speech.

Mr McVeigh:

– We listened in silence to the previous speech which was not very good and was highly unintelligible. Now we have a speech coming from a master. Could we have quiet so that we can listen to it?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I will ignore the adjectives and ask the honourable member for the Northern Territory to continue his speech.

Mr CALDER:

-I thank my colleague. In speaking of the Northern Territory’s ability to manage and plan for national parks there is a proven record, and it is for that reason that we in the Northern Territory are behind Paul Everingham and the actions he is taking to give the Northern Territory Government more say in this regard. The Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission has a proven form in running the Ayers Rock-Mt Olga National Park, the Katherine Gorge and low level; old telegraph station in Alice Springs. All these things have been run efficiently and well by Territorians. In the light of that, I ask the Government what form the National Parks and Wildlife Service has on its side? Why should we not support more representation by the Northern Territory?

I would also like to know why the township is to be limited to a population of 3,500 and, as reported, 13 square kilometres instead of the original 69 kilometres, as was suggested. To me that seems pretty short-sighted. One final remark

I make for the benefit of the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) is that he adopts an antiuranium stance and tries to identify every Aborigine in the Territory with that anti-uranium stance. This is absolutely not so. His Labor colleagues are endeavouring, as he is, to make political capital out of this. There are many people throughout Arnhem Land who are in favour of this. The Yuendumu mining company, which is situated 1 80 miles north-west of Alice Springs, is an Aboriginal mining company and it is flat out for the mining of uranium.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The question is that the Bill be now read a second time. All those in favour say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.

Mr Uren:

– The noes have it. A division is required.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There was only one voice. I rule that there will be no division.

Mr Uren:

– There were two. There was also the voice of the honourable member for Melbourne.

Mr Bourchier:

– It is too late. He was not in the chamber.

Mr Innes:

– I was in the chamber.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I have ruled that there will be no division. If the honourable member wishes his personal opposition to be recorded this can be done.

Mr Uren:

– In the debate on the second reading speech I clearly stated that the Opposition would divide the House at the second and third readings.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member makes it very difficult for the Chair. The Standing Orders state quite clearly that one voice is not sufficient on which to call a division. In view of the fact that the honourable member for Melbourne is here, if somewhat tardily, if the honourable member for Reid insists that he wishes a division, in view of all the circumstances, the Chair will give way and call a division. But I warn the honourable member for Reid that he must have more than one voice on the next occasion.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 62

NOES: 23

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion ( by Mr Groom ) put:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 61

NOES: 24

Majority……. 37

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3133

ALBURY-WODONGA DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-The purpose of the Albury-Wodonga Development Bill which is now before the House is to amend the AlburyWodonga Development Act 1973. This Bill will alter the membership of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation from five to eight members and provides common membership of the Albury-Wodonga development corporations. At present the Corporation is made up of three full-time and two part-time members. The Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victorian

Ministers are also members of the Ministerial Council. It was also agreed that these objectives could best be achieved by extending the membership of the Corporation to include the Mayor of Albury and the Mayor of Wodonga as ex officio part-time members of the Corporation. The legislation makes provision for a prominent businessman to serve on the Corporation in order to build up its membership. That makes the composition of the Corporation eight members, with the addition of the mayors of Albury and Wodonga and a prominent businessman. The prominent businessman who has been selected, Mr Russel Prowse, is a well known banker from the Bank of New South Wales. We know that Mr Prowse has ultra-conservative, extreme private enterprise attitudes. The Bill abolishes the Consultative Council, which was composed of 16 members and which tended to create friction among members of the community. The 16 people who represent the community were meant to create friction because we wanted to get the people’s views. This elitist type government would never really want to obtain the people’s point of view. On behalf of the Opposition I move as an amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: the House declines to give the Bill a second reading until it is re-drafted to include the following:

the Government’s 1975 Election commitment to give financial and moral support to the future of the growth centre;

the provision of proper transport and communications links to Albury/ Wodonga;

provision for the discouragement of private development capital and land speculation, following restructuring of the Development Corporation;

the re-establishment of a Consultative Council to include broad representation from the Albury/Wodonga community;

a firm undertaking by the Government to transfer relevant Government departments to Albury/Wodonga from over-centralised Melbourne to assure the future of the growth centre, and

support by the Government for existing manufacturing industry in the growth centre and the encouragement of new industry there.

This Government has been hypocritical in its support of not only the growth centre but also urban and regional communities. In fact, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said in his policy speech of 27 November 1975:

We will continue urban programs. We are the people who can work with State and local Government to overcome the problems caused by rapid growth in the cities and in new expanding suburbs.

Of course, we know that the Prime Minister continued to dismantle all urban programs entered into by the the Whitlam Labor Government and set about implementing their complete destruction. There are very few of those programs intact that have been continued. The programs that are intact, such as the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation, are given lip service only. What we refer to as ‘ Fraser ‘s new federalism’ has meant a withdrawal of the Australian Government from any inter-relationship with State and local governments in urban and regional programs. I invite honourable members to look at the Labor Government’s commitment on decentralisation. It was a policy of anticentralism because for so long Liberal governments had allowed the market force to determine the development of and even to centralise our cities. Over 60 per cent of migrants who came to Australia between the end of the Second World War and 1972 settled in Sydney and Melbourne. It was their over-centralisation which created the real problem. We had to examine the overall programs in an endeavour to achieve sanity in the development of our cities and to raise the standard of living within our urban communities.

The average population growth between 1950 and 1970 was 1.9 percent, achieved as to 1.1 per cent by natural growth and 0.8 per cent by migration. If our population had continued to grow from the 1970s through to the turn of the century we would have had 23 million people by then. That means, taking as a base the figure for 1972, even if we were equal to the achievement of decentralisation and could slow the growth of our major cities, their population would increase by a litte over one million. If we look at the world, the best achievement was in Great Britain where between the end of the Second World War and 1970, it was able to slow up the population growth of the major cities by about one and a quarter million. If we could achieve that situation in Australia between 1972 and the year 2000 we would be looking to housing about 9 million or 10 million people in our existing cities. That would be simple madness because most of those people would reside in either Sydney or Melbourne. There were several programs that the Labor Government wished to carry out. Firstly, we had to slow down the population increase. We wanted to work towards an objective of l.l per cent increase or thereabouts from natural growth of population and immigration intake.

Mr MacKellar:

– A total of 1.1 percent.

Mr UREN:

– Towards that objective. This would have brought us a population by the turn of the century of about 17.5 million. As it turned out, Professor Borrie came to a very similar conclusion from his population demographic study. I want to make it quite clear that the policies of the Labor

Government at that time for urban and regional development were geared to a population level of about ITA million by the turn of the century. This would have meant, if we could equal Britain’s achievement by slowing the growth of our major cities and redistributing the population by diverting them to selected growth centres a little over one million people in that period, then we could have absorbed the other 3.5 million into our other capital cities and made those cities rational places in which to live. That was our objective. We wanted to achieve our objective in several ways. We wanted to try to stop the over-centralisation of what we call the central business districts of Sydney, Melbourne and the other major capital cities. We wanted to develop in the cities what we call sub-metropolitan centre areas and to build a rational transport system within them, instead of having a transport system of the kind that now exists. At the present public transport travels empty from the cities of a morning, returns to the cities in a packed condition, and the reverse situation occurs at night. In other words, our cities are geared to a peak load system.

We had already obtained agreement with the New South Wales Government on submetropolitan centres for the development of areas such as Parramatta, Penrith, and Campbelltown. In Melbourne we had reached agreement with the Victorian Government over a period of about two years working out a program of agreement. Again this was achieved with co-operation, because the only way we are going to solve these problems is in co-operation between the Commonwealth. State and local governments. We had achieved agreement by which we would have created submetropolitan centres at places such as Broadmeadows, Sunshine, Dandenong and the EppingWatsonia area. That agreement was reached between our Federal Labor Government and the Hamer Government. On top of that, we wanted also certain selected growth centres and the major priority was the Albury- Wondonga Development Corporation. Our study revealed that there were 18,000 too many Commonwealth public servants in the central business district of Melbourne. The great proportion of those 18,000 would have been diverted to selected sub-metropolitan centres in Melbourne as well as the other selected growth centres of Geelong and Albury-Wodonga. That was the pattern that we would have adopted. Some of the Commonwealth public servants would have transferred to the other selected growth centre at Bathurst-Orange. Of course, we know that in the change of government in 1975 these programs ceased and the free market forces have continued. The present Government has undermined completely the whole program of anti-centralisation and also has scuttled what it calls ‘selected decentralisation’ in every shape and form.

Mr MacKellar:

– Do you stick to that population level?

Mr UREN:

– The Minister asks about the population level. 1 stress that the Government’s objectives in relation to the population level have not altered and the Opposition’s objectives have not altered. It is the growth rate that has altered because of the downturn in the economy of the western world. In particular, the Australian economy has gone through a disastrous period. This has had an influence on growth patterns. But people still have to be housed. It is better to house them in a rational way rather than in an irrational way. The present Government represents nonplanning. It consists of non-planners. It is controlled by the Treasury. The Treasury does not believe in planning the economy. It believes in the market forces- the free enterprise system and the power of the corporate sector- determining growth. It does not believe in planning in any shape or form. That is the truth of the matter. That is why this Government has undermined and destroyed the urban and regional development programs that the Labor Government established.

The Labor Government came to power in December 1972. On 25 January 1973-an extremely historic day- an agreement was reached between the Australian Government and the two conservative governments in Victoria and New South Wales. Those Governments worked together in a spirit of co-operation. Local government was also included in the agreement. I will never forget the tensions that existed between the public servants on the day of that historic conference. During the three years of Labor administration from 1972 to 1975 I was extremely proud of the public servants in the Department of Urban and Regional Development. They were part of a special breed of public servants who set out to build up a basis of goodwill, who sought to build a bridge of co-operation between the Australian Government, State governments and local government authorities. They discussed matters in a gentle way with State governments and local government. There is nothing worse than what I saw on the day of the conference. I saw the fear and suspicion of State public servants of the people coming from Canberra. There was an uptight situation. They thought that we were men from Mars or from a foreign land, not representatives of the Australian Government coming to have discussions with a State government. The public servants in the former Department of Urban and Regional Development were great ambassadors for the Australian Government and the Australian Public Service. They set out to cooperate. After two years of negotiations between Commonwealth public servants and planners and the Hamer Government in Victoria we were able to reach agreement on where development in Melbourne should occur. By June 1976 we had invested $90m in Albury-Wodonga. Of that amount $79m went directly to the AlburyWodonga Development Corporation.

Mr Bourchier:

– Into land. It is locked up in land.

Mr UREN:

– Of course the bulk of the money went into land. That is where real wealth lies. Why should the people not own the land? An enormous investment in infrastructure is needed in an area which is to be developed. Urban land is worthless until the infrastructure is put on it by the public sector. Why should not the public sector- by that I mean the people- benefit from that investment? The investment inland represented a sound base for the development program. We invested in land so that we could stop the land speculators. Honourable members opposite support land speculation. They were supporters of Associated Securities Ltd and the Finance Corporation of Australia in Adelaide and the enormous speculation in land. Those organisations tried to reap profits from the young people in this country. Of course, eventually people had their fingers burnt.

Of course we invested in land. That is why, in the long term, Albury-Wodonga will be a great success. When the Labor Party returns to government in 1980 we will make sure that the spirit is reborn and we will give encouragement and stability to the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation. The only way to give that stimulus is for the Government to say that it is behind the Development Corporation. When in government we will transfer public servants from the overcentralised business district of Melbourne. We will create a stimulus and we will encourage manufacturing industry in Albury-Wodonga. We will protect industries in Albury-Wodonga and in other decentralised areas. We will not squash them as this Government has squashed them.

Commitments to the Albury-Wodonga growth centre were made by the Labor Government when it was in office. Up to 30 June 1976 the investment amounted to $90m. The Fraser Government in its first year in office made $ 1 9m available to the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation. In the same year it made available $ 1 ,850,000 to local government in the area. It had made many millions of dollars available previously because it knew of the strain on those local councils. The Prime Minister said that the Government would continue its urban programs. What did it do? In 1 977-78 it cut back the funds to the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation to $5m. What did it give to local government in the area? It did not give local government an extra penny. In the following year, 1978-79 the Government allocated a further $5m to the Development Corporation, a mere pittance to carry out its programs. It did not make any further money available to local government.

The amendment which the Opposition has moved represents a constructive criticism of the Bill. In a way, I am grateful for any crumb that falls from the table. At least the Government has not completely destroyed the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation. When a Federal Labor government is re-elected it will be able to give the Development Corporation the spirit it needs to carry out its program. I could say much more about our urban and regional development program as a whole. An integral part of that program was the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation. However, I know that honourable members want to go home after a long session. I know that my colleague is waiting to deal with legislation. Therefore, instead of speaking for 30 minutes I will shorten my speech. I hope that the few remarks I have made in regard to the Development Corporation will lead to a better understanding of the Corporation in the Parliament. I hope that they will wipe away the hypocrisy about what this Government is doing. It is not meeting its commitment. The only way that AlburyWodonga will take off, be a success and show the over-centralised areas of Sydney and Melbourne that decentralisation can work, is for a federal government to have the guts, the courage and the commitment to support a decentralisation program and the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation. Only then will decentralisation succeed in this country against overcentralisation and the greed of the free market forces.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Dr Cass:

– I second the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3137

MIGRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

-The Opposition does not oppose this Bill but it does want some clarification or simply assurances on a couple of the aspects. I read into the words of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) the intention that nothing will be changed. However, the actual wording of the Minister’s speech was not as clear as it might have been. In making the requirement for obtaining visas and entry permits a statutory requirement rather than as it is now, an administrative arrangement, in that the Minister draws a distinction between the visa and the subsequent entry permit, people might draw the conclusion that one could have a visa, arrive on the shores in good faith and then be refused a permit on grounds of which they have not been totally unaware. I know that there may be some occasions when that may be necessary and I do not deny the Minister’s right to have that discretion. I simply seek an assurance that this new arrangement changes in no material way the expectations of people who visit us have had till now that if they gain a visa, then they can, under reasonable circumstances be assured of entry. In like fashion, someone who has lived in Australia for years and who has gone overseas should be able to expect a re-entry permit.

I do not deny that carriers should be held responsible if they bring people here without a proper visa, but given that they have ascertained that people do have a visa, it would be unfair to the carriers if people with apparently legal visas got here and then, for reasons that no one could know of beforehand, were refused an entry permit. That would seem to be an open-ended liability imposed upon the carriers. I concede that the Minister has defined some of the circumstances under which this requirement would be waived. I acknowledge that. I simply want an assurance that there will be no change from what has been the practice in the past- a practice that holds in most countries. With those comments, we support the Bill.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · Warringah · LP

– in reply- I can give the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) those assurances.

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 MacKellar) read a third time.

page 3137

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr GILLARD:
Macquarie

– I present the ninth report of the Publications Committee.

Report- by leave- adopted.

House adjourned at 5 p.m. until Tuesday, 21 August next at 2.15 p.m., unless Mr Speaker shall fix an alternative day or hour of meeting or, in the incapacity or absence from Australia of Mr Speaker, the Chairman of Committees may fix an alternative day or hour, such alternative day or hour of meeting to be notified by telegram or letter addressed to each member of the House.

page 3137

NOTICES

The following notices were given:

1 ) notes with concern that there are about 60,000 abortions performed in Australia each year and that the number is increasing:

believes that the vast majority of Australians regard this as a tragedy;

accepts that important ways to alleviate this problem are to provide more extensive family planning services and compassionate alternatives to abortion such as pregnancy counselling and support facilities: and

directs the Federal Government:

to provide generous help in the 1979-80 and future Budgets for family planning and pregnancy support services throughout Australia, and

b) to influence Stale governments to do the same.

Mr Hurford to move:

That this House directs the Government to introduce forthwith:

1 ) legislation to regulate the corporations and securities industry; and

national companies legislation.

Mr Hurford to 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, among other things, to:

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

improve the availability of finance for small business;

provide more extensive management training and counselling programs forsmall business; and

explore methods of easing the taxation burden on small business.

page 3138

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Repatriation Inquiry (Question No. 3198)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

What recommendations contained in the independent inquiry into the Repatriation System has the Government rejected or ignored and what are the reasons for the failure to act upon these recommendations.

Mr Adermann:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable member to my answer to Question No. 3 199.

Australian Atomic Energy Commission: Library (Question No. 3200)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Are members of the public able to obtain access to the library facilities of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission.
  2. If so, what conditions and restrictions are imposed on the use of the facilities.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. I ) and (2 ) The Australian Atomic Energy Commission library system was designed, equipped and staffed to service specialist scientific engineering and other professional personnel in their fields of research and is fully utilised for this purpose. These libraries do not have the staff facilities to deal directly with the public. However, outside individuals and groups may obtain material unique to these collections through the public library system by inter-library loan. On occasion, the Commission has permitted bona-fide research workers access to specified material unavailable elsewhere. Each application has been considered on its merits as a genuine research project which could not be assisted under the normal inter-library system.

Radioactive Material: Transportation (Question No. 3201)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

When radioactive materials are transported to and from the Australian Atomic Energy Commission’s Research Establishment at Lucas Heights, NSW, (a) which State or local government authority is notified in advance, (b) what methods of transportation are used and (c) which Federal, State or local government authority supervises transportation of the radioactive material to ensure that there are no breaches of the 1973 regulations for the safe transport of radioactive material issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.

Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. The prior approval of the NSW Radiological Advisory Council is required for the movement of all radioactive material by land in NSW, including to and from Lucas Heights, if the activity of the material exceeds the limits specified in Regulation 1 1 of the NSW Radioactive Substances Regulations or if there is to be any deviation from the requirements of the NSW Radioactive Substances Act and Regulations. There is no legislative requirement to notify local government authorities.
  2. Road transport, frequently in association with air, sea or rail transport.
  3. Provisions for the safe transportation of radioactive materials by land within NSW are detailed in the NSW Radioactive Substances Act and Regulations. Similar arrangements exist for land transport in other Australian States. Sea and air transport may also be used during a particular transport movement and in such cases the Commonwealth Department of Transport is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements in conformity with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials are met.

Nuclear Reactors: Safety Study (Question No. 3271)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 28 February 1979:

  1. 1) Can he say whether the Reactor Safety Study prepared for the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission by Professor Rasmussen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is no longer regarded as reliable by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
  2. Can he also say whether this study formed the basis of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s assessment of the safety of light water reactors.
  3. Is the Australian Atomic Energy Commission’s assessment of the possible consequences of a major accident at the Lucas Heights Research Establishment, NSW, based on the findings or the methodology of this study; if so, what action is proposed to review safety at Lucas Heights.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In a recent statement the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that it no longer regarded as reliable the Reactor Safety Study’s numerical estimates of the overall risk of a reactor accident, and that the absolute values of the risks presented in the Study should not be used uncritically. However, the Commission supported the extended use of the methodology used in the Rasmussen Report in the regulatory process.
  2. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not based the licensing of any light water reactor on the Reactor Safety Study. In a recent statement to the Sub-committee on Energy and the Environment of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Mr Joseph M. Hendrie, the Chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission stated:

I should like to emphasise that our regulatory system, much of which evolved long before the Reactor Safety Study was carried out, does not depend on the ability to make precise quantitative estimates of overall risk. That ability would be highly useful, and should be developed, but it is not essential to our regulatory system.

  1. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission’s assessment of the possible consequences of a major accident at Lucas Heights Research Establishment is not based on the findings of the Rasmussen Study or on the methodology used.

Tokai-Mura Nuclear Plant, Japan (Question No. 3474)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 2 1 March 1 979:

  1. Is he able to state when the pilot nuclear fuel reprocessing plant at Tokai-Mura, Japan, commenced operation.
  2. Is he also able to state what is the mass and type of fuel which has been reprocessed since the operation commenced.
  3. 3 ) If so, has the plant operated continuously.
  4. If the plant has not operated continuously, for what periods has the plant been shut down, and in each case what were the reasons for ceasing its operation.
  5. 5 ) Is any expansion in nuclear fuel reprocessing planned or under construction in Japan; if so, what is the capacity, type and projected date of commencement of any plant.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Tokai-Mura reprocessing pilot plant commenced active operation on 22 September 1 977.
  2. Nineteen tonnes of Boiling Water Reactor fuel have been processed at the plant since operations commenced.
  3. The plant has not operated continuously.
  4. The plant was shut down for two to three weeks during October 1977 following the blockage of a fuel distribution pipe by a piece of zircaloy fuel channel box. The plant was shut down on 24 August 1978 and is still out of operation due to a pinhole leak in the nitric acid evaporator. The operation of the evaporator was automatically stopped and the plant closed when the leak was detected. The defect is being rectified and the plant is likely to re-commence operations later this year.
  5. The Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation plans to construct a plant for reprocessing lowenriched oxide fuel from Light Water Reactors with capacity of five tonnes a day to commence operation in 1990.

Weisscredit Bank of Lugano, Switzerland (Question No. 3533)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the report in the London Financial Times of 1 March 1979 that executives of the Weisscredit Bank of Lugano, Switzerland, had been jailed for fraud after losing about £75m sterling of clients’ money.
  2. Have the official inquiries concerning aspects of the operations of the company, to which his predecessor referred in his answer to question No. SS4 on 2 June 1977 (Hansard, page 2S7 1 ), disclosed (a) the losses incurred by Australian residents and (b) the conviction imposed on Mr Renzo di Piramo, an Australian citizen.
  3. 3 ) If not, will inquiries now be pursued into those aspects.
  4. Have the activities of this Bank or any of its directors, officers or subsidiaries been the subject of consideration by any officers of the Treasury with a view to proceedings being brought for breach of any applicable legislation; if not, why not.
  5. Did Treasury officers decide that no proceedings should be brought against this Bank or any of its directors, officers or subsidiaries; if so, what were the grounds for this decision.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No. However, I am informed that Weisscredit Australia Pty Ltd (in liquidation) has no Australian shareholders and that the Statement of Affairs filed under the Companies Act of NSW lists amounts of approximately $69,000 owing to creditors in Australia. The amounts recoverable by these creditors will depend on the realisation of the company’s assets now in progress. I have no information that would enable me to answer your question concerning Renzo di Piramo.
  3. No.
  4. Yes.
  5. No. I am informed that the then Treasurer decided that, on the facts available, prosecution for breaches of the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations was not warranted. It would not be proper for me to inquire into the reasons for a decision made by a Treasurer of a former Government. In any case, it is not the practice of Treasurers to give reasons for decisions in relation to prosecutions.

Oil Refining (Question No. 3583)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 28 March 1 979:

What is the (a) refining capacity, (b) rate of crude oil refined and (c) utilisation factor of each Australian oil refinery, and of the Australian oil refining industry overall.

Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. See Oil and Australia 1978 published by the Australian Institute of Petroleum Ltd.
  2. and (c) See 5th report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum (page 185).

Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital (Question No. 3628)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 3 April 1 979:

Has he received a complaint from an ex-prisoner-of-war, dated 19 March 1979, about the lack of privacy when examined by a specialist at the out-patients urology clinic at Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital, Victoria; is so, has he investigated the complaint.

Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

I have received and investigated such a complaint. The problem has been recognised and steps are being taken to improve the conditions under which patients are examined. I have written to the veteran who raised this matter and expressed regret at the loss of privacy he suffered under existing conditions.

Department of Veterans’ Affairs: Polls and Surveys (Question No. 3764)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) How many opinion polls or surveys have been commissioned or carried out by his Depanment in each year from 1975 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 Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Two surveys have been carried out by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs since 1975, one of which was a joint project with the Depanment of Social Security. Both surveys have been completed.

  2. (a) None.

    1. An Arm Amputee Survey was conducted jointly with the Department of Social Security in 1975. The purpose of the survey was to gather information not previously available about amputees to assist maintenance and development of the health and welfare services provided to these amputees.

A Painful Amputation Stumps Survey was conducted in 1977. The purpose of the survey was to find the incidence of pain in Victorian Amputees.

  1. Apart from ordinary administrative costs the cost of the Arm Amputee Survey was approximately $ 1 ,000 and the cost of the Painful Amputation Stumps Survey was approximately $500.

National Acoustic Laboratories (Question No. 3778)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

How many persons have been employed by the National Acoustic Laboratories in each year from 1 970 to date.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Service Pensions: Merchant Navy (Question No. 394S)

Dr Klugman:

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

What would be the estimated cost of making all those, at present ineligible, who served in the Australian Merchant Navy in war zones during 1939-45, eligible for the Service Pension at age 60 years.

Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

The approximate cost to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs would be $3. 54m per annum. There would be additional costs to other government departments due to the consequent extension of eligibility for other benefits to these pensioners.

Philippine Embassy: Customs (Question No. 3954)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 22 May, 1979:

  1. Is it a fact that during 1978 allegations were made against 2 officials of the Philippine Embassy in Canberra, relating to the alleged falsification of customs documents in order to obtain various goods under diplomatic privilege.
  2. If so, when Australian customs officers sought to interview officers of the Philippine Embassy in relation to these allegations, did the then Philippine Charge d ‘Affaires, Mrs Rosalinda Tirana, claim diplomatic immunity and refuse to allow the customs officers to conduct interviews.
  3. Did the Philippine Government recently make a complaint to Australian authorities alleging that a former Philippine Charge d ‘Affaires, Mr Joselito Azurin, had embezzled Philippine Government funds and that the Philippine Government was waiving any diplomatic immunity he may have had so that the allegations could be investigated by the Australian police.
  4. If so, will the Government now press the Philippine Government to also waive immunity in the case of trie alleged defrauding of Australian customs revenue referred to in part (1) so that the allegations may also be fully investigated.
Mr Fife:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. 1 ) An allegation was made in 1978 relating to the alleged falsification of Customs documents emanating from the Philippines Embassy in order to obtain various goods under diplomatic privilege but the allegation was not specifically made against any official in the Embassy.
  2. In the course of inquiries a Customs officer did make an informal request to interview persons in the Philippines Embassy. This request was declined at the time by the recently arrived Charge d ‘Affaires who indicated that she wanted the opportunity to make a personal assessment of the situation.
  3. Yes.
  4. The investigation did not disclose any abuse of diplomatic privilege by any official in the Philippines Embassy and the Bureau of Customs is satisfied that further inquiries in that direction are not warranted.

Malaria: Repatriation Benefit (Question No. 3969)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 23 May 1979:

What proportion of Australian servicemen in World War II served in (a) tropical areas and (b) areas in which malaria was endemic.

Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

Information is not kept within the Department of Veterans’ Affairs in the form requested by the honourable member.

Social Security: Handicapped Child’s Allowance (Question No. 4058)

Mr Kerin:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. 1 ) Have regulations recently been changed with respect to eligibility for handicapped child’s allowance; if not, when were these regulations last changed and what were the changes.
  2. If the regulations were recently changed, is it a fact that (here are 2 categories, namely (a) severely handicapped and (b) substantially handicapped children; if so, what is the criteria for deciding between the 2 categories.
  3. 3 ) What benefits accrue to each category.
  4. Does either category entail the discretion of the Minister for Social Security or a doctor.
  5. Is it a fact that eligibility for the severely handicapped category does not entail a means test and that eligibility for substantially handicapped does, if so, what is the means test.
  6. 6 ) Is or could the cost to a parent for a severely, substantially, moderately or mildly handicapped child be the same.
  7. How do doctors or the Minister make the distinction between a severely, substantially, moderately or mildly handicapped child.
  8. 8 ) Do all doctors make the same distinctions.
  9. Do costs to a parent of a child suffering any degree of handicap consistently increase with the age of the child; if so, has the Minister considered taking this factor into account when deciding on the level of benefit.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The Social Services Act was amended on 10 November 1 977 to give the Director-General power to grant a handicapped child’s allowance in respect of a substantially handicapped child as distinct from a severely handicapped child. The Act was further amended on 26 October 1978 to enable payment to be made in respect of full-time students aged between 16 and 25. A number of other minor changes were also made at that time.
  2. Yes. The allowance is available to parents or guardians of severely physically or mentally handicapped children who are living in the family home and who by reason of their disability require constant care and attention and are likely to need such care and attention permanently or for an extended period. The allowance may also be paid where parents or guardians care for substantially handicapped children in their family home and provide care and attention only marginally less than that required if the child were severely handicapped and who, as a result, experience severe financial hardship.
  3. A maximum payment of $65 a month may be made for substantially handicapped children. The rate of $65 a month applies in all cases where the allowance is granted for a severely handicapped child.
  4. Neither the Minister for Social Security nor any doctor has the legal authority to grant or refuse payment of a handicapped child ‘s allowance. The Director-General of the Department of Social Security, who has responsibility for assessing entitlements, may require the child to be medically examined or he may obtain medical advice from a legally qualified medical practitioner. This is usually a Commonwealth Medical Officer but specialists in private practice may be consulted in some cases.
  5. Yes. The Director-General has the discretion to set the rate of handicapped child ‘s allowance where the family is suffering hardship as a result of providing almost constant care and attention to a substantially handicapped child. I have been informed that in setting the rate the DirectorGeneral has regard to the family income, its relationship to the average minimum weekly wage, the size of the family and, of course, the special costs incurred in providing the required care. In such cases payments may not exceed $65 a month.
  6. Yes.
  7. In assessing entitlement to an allowance, and in particular in assessing the need for constant or almost constant, care and attention the Director-General and the medical practitioners from whom he seeks advice have regard to a number of factors including the extent to which the child relies on the claimant for the performance of everyday activities such as eating, dressing, bathing, ambulation, toileting and any other special activities such as therapy programmes.

I must point out that the law is based on the need for constant or almost constant care and attention because of the handicap rather than on the severity of the medical condition.

  1. Each claim for handicapped child’s allowance is treated on its merits and there is regular consultation between officers of my Department and Commonwealth Medical Officers involved in the scheme to ensure consistency of approach.
  2. The Department of Social Security has no information on the first part of the question. Where however the cost of care is involved in setting the rate, i.e. for a substantially handicapped child, any changes in the cost of care are taken into account.

Telephone Booths (Question Without Notice)

Mr Goodluck:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question, without notice, on 4 April 1 979:

I direct a question to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. He will recall that I previously brought to his attention a report that a young lady, after endeavouring to use an out of order telephone, was forcibily dragged from the booth and viciously assaulted. I now draw his attention to a case which occurred over the weekend and in which another young lady in a similar situation was viciously assaulted. Will the Minister once again call for a full report? Could research be undertaken into means by which the doors of telephone booths can be locked from the inside?

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

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

Telecom Australia has advised that it would be feasible though quite costly to fit all public telephone cabinets with locks. One of the design features of the aluminium seethrough cabinets now in wide use is that the door opens inwardly and diagonally, thus providing for easy bracing by a person inside and therefore a reasonable degree of protection against instrusion. It is conceivable that if it were possible to lock the cabinet door from the inside this could provide further protection from a would-be attacker in some instances, but it is doubtful whether a locked door would deter a determined attacker. Fortunately, incidents such as those referred to by the honourable member involving public telephone users are rare. Instances where a person faints or collapses due to illness in a public telephone cabinet and requires outside help are a more frequent occurrence and rendition of assistance in such cases could be seriously hampered if the cabinet door were locked. On balance, it is Telecom’s view that it is preferable not to fit locks to public telephone cabinets.

No. 34 Squadron: Flights to Nareen (Question No. 1466)

Mr Morris:

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

  1. 1 ) To which airfields near Nareen, Victoria, can any aircraft of No. 34 Squadron operate on flights from Canberra.
  2. Which aircraft of the Squadron are suitable for that purpose.
  3. What is the cost of operating these aircraft on the journey from Canberra to the airfields designated.
Mr Killen:
Minister for Defence · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (Si-

The honourable member should note that costs of chartering commercial aircraft, from Canberra to Nareen, or from Melbourne to Nareen, are lower than the costs given above. On current rates, the all-up cost for a charter flight from Canberra to Nareen is $ 1 , 1 88.

Adelaide Television: Licence Renewal Hearings (Question No. 2425)

Dr Blewett:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

  1. I ) With regard to the forthcoming licence renewal hearings for the 3 Adelaide commercial television stations, will any pan of the hearings commencing on 16 October 1978 be held in camera; if so, why.

    1. What is the nature of material the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal might consider deserving of a confidential hearing and what guidelines will be used to make these determinations.
    2. If the Tribunal decides on the petition of a licensee to hear certain evidence in camera, will the Tribunal allow a member of the public to appear at those times, as an observer, and to comment on any evidence presented.
    3. What undertakings can the Tribunal give that a licence will not be renewed after a ‘public hearing’ at which a substantial part of the evidence may have been heard in secret.
    4. Will the Tribunal allow members of the public who have not indicated their intention to give evidence prior to the date of the hearing to appear.
    5. Will members of the public be entitled to call other witnesses to give supporting evidence or opinions relevant to their own submission without prior notification.
    6. Will the Tribunal allow members of the public to ask questions supplementary to those asked by Tribunal members.
    7. Will the Tribunal allow direct questioning of the licensees and nominated key employees of the licensee company; if not, how will members of the public be allowed to elicit information from the applicants.
    8. Will the Tribunal allow members of the public to tender as evidence videotape clips of certain programs relevant to their submission.
    9. 10) will the Tribunal require the licensees to make available videotapes of certain programs as evidence at the hearings, provided reasonable notice is given.
    10. Will the Tribunal provide the necessary videotape replay equipment.
    11. Will witnesses be allowed to tender evidence which relates generally to all of the licensees, or to the industry in general, or will witnesses be required to restrict their submissions to the performance and suitability of certain licensees.
    12. What restrictions will the Tribunal place on evidence tendered by members of the public in general and what restrictions will the Tribunal impose on evidence which may have been covered at previous Tribunal or Broadcasting Control Board hearings or inquiries.
    13. What arrangements has the Tribunal made to give intending witnesses, including a number of Adelaide citizens who desire to give evidence at the hearings, some idea of the day and/or hour on which they are likely to be called to give their evidence.
    14. Is it a fact that the total number of Tribunal advertisements published in the Adelaide press announcing the forthcoming hearings was 3 insertions of an advertisement measuring 4 inches by 6 inches on page 3 1 of one newspaper, page 2 1 of another, and page 4 of another paper that does not have a wide circulation in South Australia.
    15. What is the total sum spent by the Tribunal on advertisements relative to the television licence renewal hearings.
    16. What other steps has the Tribunal taken to publicise the fact that the hearings will take place from 16 October 1978.
    17. Will he, as a matter of urgency, provide the information requested for the benefit of members of the Adelaide viewing public and the licensees prior to the hearing.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. Pursuant to section 19 of the Broadcasting and Television Act the Tribunal may, by reason of the confidential nature of any evidence, direct that proceedings be held in private. No pan of the proceedings of the Adelaide hearings nor any subsequent licence renewal hearings was held in camera, but the Tribunal has agreed to accept certain material on a confidential basis.
  2. Material of a financial or operational nature which may place a licensee at a commercial disadvantage if it were made public.
  3. It is not likely that the Tribunal would admit a public witness to confidential proceedings involving another party.
  4. The Tribunal can give no undertaking about the renewal of a licence until it has considered all evidence, including any evidence which it may have heard pursuant to section 19 of the Act.
  5. Yes, provided that the Tribunal is satisfied that grounds exist for admitting such persons either as ‘having an interest in the proceedings ‘ or as ‘Tribunal witnesses ‘.
  6. A person accorded the status of’having an interest in the proceedings’ has the right to call witnesses to give supporting evidence.
  7. A person accorded the status of’having an interest in the proceedings’ has the right to cross-examine the applicants ‘witnesses.
  8. 8 ) See answer to Q.7.
  9. Yes, provided no breach of copyright is involved.
  10. Yes, if considered to be necessary.
  11. Yes.
  12. The Tribunal will have regard to only those submissions which it judges to be relevant to the renewal of the licence, i.e. material which relates to the performance of the particular licensee in question.
  13. As a general rule the Tribunal would not wish to traverse ground which has already been covered and on which it is well informed.
  14. By press notice, private correspondence, personal contact, and telephone.
  15. (i) Advertisements inviting submissions to the Adelaide inquiries were inserted in the following newspapers:

The Australian- 23.8 . 78 page 4;

Adelaide Advertiser- 23.8.78 page 3 1 ;

AdelaideNews-23.8.78 page 2 1 ;

Adelaide Advertiser- 29.8.78 page 10.

The advertisements measured 6 inches by5 inches ( 16 cms by 3 cols).

  1. Advertisements concerning the commencement dates of the inquiries were inserted as follows:

Adelaide Advertiser- 5. 10.78 page 8;

Adelaide News- 5. 10.78 page 10;

The Australian-5. 10.78 page 2;

The advertisements measures5 inches by 43/4 inches ( 12 cms by 3 cols).

The Tribunal arranged for all such advertisements to be placed in the ‘General News Section’ of each newspaper. It was not satisfied with the placement in the Advertiser on 23 August and arranged for it to be more advantageously placed on 29 August.

  1. 16) $1,51 1.40
  2. 17) The Tribunal arranges for news releases in respect of all of its proposed inquiries. Wherever possible these are supplemented by radio, television and press interviews.
  3. Procedures for, and administrative requirements associated with, the conduct of licence renewal hearings are matters for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.

Costs of Overseas Accommodation (Question No. 3172)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1979:

What sums were paid for (a) hotel or other accommodation for him and his staff on official overseas trips and (b) the rent overseas of (i) official offices and (ii) domestic premises used by any member of his Department during the periods (A)11 November 1975 to 30 June 1976, (B) 1976-77, (C) 1977-78 and (D) 1 July 1978 to date.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

There is a series of questions on the Notice Paper addressed to ten Ministers asking for details of expenditure on official overseas accommodation. The honourable member for Hughes will appreciate that, with the passage of years and changes in departmental structure, the clerical work required to find and tabulate the information requested would be very time consuming. I am therefore reluctant to askdepartments toundertake the work involved.

The honourable member may, however, wish to refer to my answer to Senate Question No. 1335 (Senate Hansard, 2 May 1979, pages 1608-9).

Australian Government Cadetships (Question No. 3183)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

How many cadetships with the Australian Government were offered through the Public Service Board in which (a) professional and (b) technical areas during (i)1975, (ii) 1976, (iii) 1977 and (iv) 1978.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. The number of persons who took up cadetships offered by the Public Service Board in professional areas in the calendar years 1 975-78 were as follows:
  1. The number of persons who took up traineeships offered by the Public Service Board in technical and subprofessional areas in the calendar years 1975-78 were as follows:

South Australia: Closure of Post Office Agencies (Question No. 3224)

Mr Chapman:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many post office agencies have been closed in South Australia since I January 1978.
  2. ) Where was each of these agencies located.
  3. What reasons have been given by Australia Post for these closures.
  4. Are these reasons considered to be justification for the inconvenience the closures have caused users of the agencies.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Twenty non-official post offices were closed in South Australia between I January 1978 and 30 April 1979.
  2. and (3) The locations of the non-official post offices, and the reasons for their closure, were as follows:

Allenby Gardens- Closed on 30 June 1978 as the location of the office was considered unsuitable, the postal business had declined to a low level and another post office, Welland, is located approximately 700 metres away. The proprietor of the delicatessen, in conjunction with which the Allenby Gardens Post Office was conducted, is licensed to sell postage stamps.

Andrews- Closed on 3 1 December 1978 following closure of the general store, in conjunction with which the post office had been conducted, and a decline in postal business. A roadside mail delivery service has been extended to serve the local residents.

Clarence Park West-Closed on 24 November 1978 because business had declined and the nearest post office,

Glandore, is only 800 metres away. The owner of the delicatessen, in conjunction with which the post office was conducted, is licensed to sell postage stamps.

College Park-Closed 28 April 1979 because postal business at the office had declined and two other post offices, St Peters and Kent Town, are located within 600 metres. Postage stamps are available from a licensed stamp vendor operating in the same block of shops.

Cygnet River- Closed on 31 July 1978 because postal business at the post office had declined to a low level and there was no likelihood of an increase. Mail is delivered by contractor four times a week and the posting box has been retained.

Edwardstown East- Closed on 12 January 1979 because of the postmaster’s resignation and a decline in postal business. Postage stamps are available from a licensed stamp vendor operating the store in which the post office was conducted and the posting box has been retained. The nearest post office. Daw Park, is approximately I ‘A kilometres away.

Ferryden Park -Closed on 22 May 1978 following difficulties with the business management of the post office. Postage stamps are available from a licensed stamp vendor operating in the same block of shops and the nearest post office, Woodville Gardens, is approximately 800 metres away.

Kalyan- Closed on 3 February 1978 following the closure of the manual telephone exchange attached to the post office, the postmaster’s resignation and a decline in postal business. Residents collect their mail from Perponda Post Office, 5 kilometres from Kalyan.

Mansfield Park -Closed on 30 November 1978 following difficulties with the business management of the post office. No suitable alternative accommodation was available. Postage stamps are available from a licensed stamp vendor at Mansfield Park and the nearest post office, Mansfield Park North, is approximately 800 metres away.

Nonning- Closed on I July 1978 because the office, which was located on a pastoral property, was converted to a telephone office and the postal business at the office had declined. Residents now receive and send mail through a community mail bag.

Peterborough West- Closed on 31 July 1978 following a change in ownership of the store in conjunction with which the post office had been conducted. Postal business at the office had been declining and the new store owner was not willing to conduct the office. The nearest post office is at Peterborough, approximately 3 kilometres away.

Port Pirie West- Closed on 31 August 1978 following the postmaster’s resignation and a decline in postal business. Three other post offices, Port Pirie, Risdon Park and Solomontown, operate within 2 kilometres.

Seacliff- Closed on 27 November 1978 because of the postmaster’s resignation and a decline in postal business at the office. Postage stamps are available from four licensed stamp vendors located in the area. The nearest post office, South Brighton, is approximately 1.3 kilometres away.

Semaphore South- Closed, at the postmaster’s request, on 30 November 1978. Postal business had been declining. The nearest post office, Semaphore, is approximately 850 metres away.

Tepko- Closed on 30 December 1978 following the closure of the manual telephone exchange attached to the post office, the postmaster’s resignation and a decline in postal business. A roadside mail delivery service has been extended to serve the local residents.

Warrachie- Closed on 22 February 1978 following conversion of the manual telephone exchange to automaticoperation and because of declining postal business at the office. Postage stamps are available from a licensed stamp vendor at Warrachie and mail is delivered through a community mail bag service.

Whyalla North- Closed on 31 January 1979 because postal business had declined and two other post offices, Whyalla Playford and Whyalla, are located within 2 kilometres. Mail is delivered through a community mail bag service and the posting box has been retained.

Whyalla South-Closed on 3 1 July 1978 as the owner of the premises in which the office was conducted advised that accommodation for the post office would no longer be available. Postal business had declined and two other post offices, Whyalla Playford and Whyalla, operate within I kilometre. The area is served by a street letter delivery service and postage stamps are available from a licensed stamp vendor at Whyalla South.

Wild Horse Plains-Closed on 20 December 1978 when the general store, in conjunction with which the post office was conducted, closed. Mail is now delivered to roadside mail boxes.

Wool Bay- Closed on 30 April 1979 because of a decline in postal business and the availability of suitable alternative service facilities. A community mail bag service has been provided and postage stamps are available from a licensed stamp vendor operating in the store in which the post office was conducted.

  1. Generally, very little use was being made of the post offices concerned and the alternative arrangements made and/or the existing facilities and services that were available, are considered adequate to meet the postal needs of customers in each area. The decision to close each of these offices was made only after careful consideration of all the factors involved, including the effect the closure was likely to have on the local community. Moreover, it is normal practice for a proposal to close a post office to be discussed with local representative bodies, and for State and Federal Members of Parliament to be advised in advance of the proposed action.

Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act (Question No. 3246)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 22 February 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How many proposed actions under the terms of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act have been notified to the Department of Science and the Environment, and the Department’s predecessor, during each year since operation of the Act commenced.
  2. How many draft environmental impact statements have been (a) required by, and made available to, the Department, (b) made available for public comment in part only and (c) made available for public comment in full in each year over this period.
  3. What proposed actions or classes of proposed actions have been exempted from all or any of the requirements of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act and the Administrative Procedures approved under the Act.
  4. Which proposed actions have been altered as a consequence of their assessment under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act and in each case what were the alterations.
  5. Which proposed actions have not proceeded subsequent to being subject to all or any of the requirements of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act and the Administrative Procedures approved under the Act.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Although the Environment Protection ( Impact of Proposals) Act was assented to on 17 December 1974, the Administrative Procedures under the Act were not notified in the Gazette until 24 June 197S. Proposed actions notified to the Department in each year since then have been 324 to 30 June 1976,331 to 30 June 1977, 219 to 30 June 1978 and 59 to 24 April 1979.
  2. The following table sets out the details required:
  1. Exemptions made under the Environment Protection Administrative Procedures have been notified in the Commonwealth Gazettes of the following dates: 15 June 1976,24 August 1976, 19 October 1976, 22 October 1976, 13 December 1976, 4 April 1977 and 30 August 1977.
  2. and (5) The response to question 1 indicates the large number of proposed actions which have been examined under the Impact of Proposals Act. A review of those proposed actions which have been altered or not proceeded with as a consequence of their assessment under the Act would require a major diversion of staff resources away from necessary functions associated with administration of the Act and its Administrative Procedures. In these circumstances, I must advise that it is not possible to provide a detailed response to the honourable member’s questions.

Clearly, however a great many proposals have been altered because of the environmental assessment requirements of the Act. Many of these alterations have been quite substantial.

The decision of the Government to accept the recommendations of the Fraser Island Inquiry commissioned under the Act led to the cessation of sandmining on the Island. I am not aware of any other proposed action which has not proceeded as a result of being subject to the requirements of the Act.

International Market Trends (Question No. 3248)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 22 February 1 979:

  1. Did he state in answer to Question No. 2984 (Hansard, 24 November 1978, page 3561), that Australia is well provided with data on international market trends; if so, can he say why the Government acted so belatedly in trying to gain access to the European Economic Community to protect our primary interests.
  2. Was this failure attributable to the Government’s neglect in monitoring and reading the international implications of the EEC ‘s agricultural policies.
  3. If the Government monitors international market trends, will he say who collates this information and will he also provide data on existing and future market trends affecting coal, gas, uranium, diamonds, copper, bauxite and iron ore.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. I ) and (2)1 refute any suggestion that this Government acted belatedly in trying to gain access to the EEC market for primary commodities of export interest to Australia. During the late 1 960 ‘s and early 1 970 ‘s, my predecessor the Rt Hon. John McEwen and myself as Minister for Trade and Industry highlighted the problems for Australian exports particularly primary products and strove to have special access to the EEC. Since its return to office in December 1975, the Government has maintained its long-standing policy of actively working to secure stable, fair and equitable trading conditions not only in Europe but in all existing and potential markets. We have been unceasing in our efforts both bilaterally and in relevant multilateral fora such as the GATT, to seek to obtain some moderation of the policies of the EEC which were not only resulting in severely limited market opportunities for Australia within the Community but which were also seriously disrupting our sales to third markets. It was as a result of the continued resistance of the Community to our continuing representations that the Government decided in mid 1977, to mount an intensive campaign to press our case at the highest political levels within the EC Commission and member states. To suggest that the Government acted belatedly is to ignore the facts.

    1. See my answer to Question No. 2984 (Hansard, 24 November 1978, page 3561).

Post Office Agency Takeover (Question No. 3251)

Dr Blewett:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 22 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) Does he share the concern expressed by Australia Post for the takeover of its agency business by Telecom.
  2. Will the steady takeover of those functions affect employment opportunities in and the profitability of Australia Post.
  3. Is it considered that the agency relationship between Telecom and Australia Post is satisfactory.
  4. Will this relationship eventually lead to increased charges for services such as telegrams.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Australia Post in its 1977-78 Annual Report pointed out that it has been recognised from the outset that Telecom would ultimately assume direct responsibility for much of the agency work performed by Australia Post. The concern expressed by Australia Post and indeed by Telecom is that this changeover is to be achieved without leading to duplication of effort.
  2. The withdrawal of Telecom agency work will result in Australia Post requiring fewer staff than would otherwise be the case and will create in some cases, particularly in country areas, excess staff capacity in the short term.

Some of the staffing problems accompanying withdrawals from Australia Post of Telecom agency work are being alleviated by the transfer of staff from Australia Post to Telecom. Staff engaged full-time on a Telecom function are offered employment with Telecom when the function is transferred. Should the offer be declined, the staff remain with Australia Post and are allocated other appropriate duties. In some such cases, staff are relocated to facilitate their continued employment.

Staff engaged part-time on Telecom functions are not offered employment with Telecom and work rearrangement and staffing adjustments are handled by Australia Post. The under-utilisation of staff caused by the loss of Telecom agency work in these circumstances may be offset partially by growth in postal business.

The withdrawal of Telecom agency business will, of course, reduce Australia Post’s revenue with consequent adverse effects on operating results since, at least in the short term, Australia Post costs will not fall at a corresponding rate.

  1. The agency work performed by one enterprise for the other is governed by a formal commercially-based agreement drawn up 4 years ago and oversighted by a management committee representing both authorities.
  2. Increases in charges for services such as the public telegram service are not dependent on relationships between Telecom and Australia Post. The cost of the telegram service is dependent on factors such as increases in handling costs and the continuing trend of reduced public demand for the telegram service.

Commonwealth Vehicles: Sun Visors (Question No. 3277)

Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 28 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government decided to stop fitting sun visors to Commonwealth vehicles operating in Melbourne.
  2. ) If so, what is the estimated saving per vehicle.
  3. 3 ) Will the absence of the sun visor result in drivers working in direct sunlight in temperatures over 40°C for extremely long periods.
  4. Is he satisfied that the savings warrant the deterioration in drivers ‘ working conditions.
Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. In the current period contract for Ford Fairmont Sedans tinted banded laminated windscreens are specified instead of sun visors.
  2. The saving in fitting tinted banded laminated windscreens instead of sun visors is about $37 per vehicle.
  3. and (4) It is considered that these windscreens afford the driver similar protection from direct sunlight to that provided by a sun visor.

Monies Paid to Aborigines (Question No. 3294)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 28 February 1979:

Of each dollar spent on Aboriginal Affairs in the last 6 years, how many cents have been paid as (a) wages, (b) salaries, (c) allowances or personal benefits, (i) directly or (ii) through other administrations to Aborigines.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

My Department requires, as a condition of each grant, that the recipient provide audited reports of expenditure. These are not always sufficiently detailed to provide the information requested and extracting such relevant information as is available would be a costly and time-consuming exercise, which I do not consider justified.

Civilian Defence Personnel (Question No. 3352)

Mr Scholes:

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

What are the grades and functions of redundant civilian Defence personnel positions referred to in his answer to a question without notice on 1 March 1979. (Hansard, page 510).

Mr Killen:
LP

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

In my answer to a Question Without Notice, I informed the House on 1 March 1979 on the steps taken to reduce the civilian element in the Defence Forces. I said that in 1973 the number of civilians employed within the Department of Defence was of the order of 37,300. Today that number has been reduced to 30,700.

I take this reduction of 6,600 in staff numbers to be the aspect referred to by the honourable member for Corio in his Question.

This total reduction of 6,600 in civilian staff numbers represents the net result of recruitment to and wastage from the Department in the six years from 1973 to 1979. In that period there has been considerable turnover in both staff and positions and it is not possible to trace out and identify all these movements. Many of the staff positions which were abolished and others which were created arose from the reorganisation of the Departments of Defence, Navy, Army, Air and Supply in 1 975 and 1 976, the transfer of some 6,000 staffs employed under the Naval Defence Act and Supply and Development Act to the Public Service Act in 1975 and 1976 and changes to a number of functions and activities undertaken by Defence.

Estimates have been calculated of the net changes in staff numbers between 1973 and today in broad functional areas and these are shown below. It is not possible to calculate staff grades because of the lack of comparability between Public Service Act grades and the staff grades of personnel previously employed under the Naval Defence Act and Supply and Development Act referred to above.

Currently, redundant civilian staff number 55 throughout the Department of Defence.

Applications for Air Fare Increases (Question No. 3402)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) To whom were each of the applications by Ansett Airlines and TAA for air fare increases since December 1 975 initially directed.
  2. On what date (a) was each application for each air fare increase from each airline received and (b) did he announce his decision in respect of each application.
  3. Did he receive recommendations from his Department in respect of each fare increase application: If so, (a) were the recommendations made following an examination by his Department of the justification for each of the fare increases sought, (b) on what dates were each of the recommendations made and (c) what information and specific statements or documents were requested from each of the airlines in association with each application.
  4. What is the classification of each officer who participated in the examination of each fare increase application.
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. Applications were submitted to the Minister for Transport with copies to the Department.

  2. (a) See table.

    1. b ) Airlines announced the increases.

  3. Yes.

    1. Yes.
    2. See table.
    3. Relevant airline revenue and cost data.
  4. Officers of the Air Transport Policy Division participating in the examination are listed in the table.

Current Review of Work Test (Question No. 3421)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 8 March 1979:

Will he include the following matters in current review of the work test: (a) a redefinition of suitable work so that those physically capable of doing physical work are required to do so when it is available, and not be allowed to claim that they prefer clerical work or that physical work is beneath their dignity; ( b) a work test of persons in a different employment district or State to that in which there is a job vacancy, but which otherwise meets the criteria for travelling time and distance; (c) a recognition that there is not a double standard in the application of the work test between country and city persons; and (d ) a special provision for those who have been unemployed and take a short-term job such as fruit picking and who continue working until that work ends, that they be immediately eligible for the unemployment benefit at that time.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

All the matters mentioned in the question were considered during the recent review of the Unemployment Benefit work test.

Employment: Fruit Picking Areas (Question No. 3422)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 8 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many persons were registered for employment in February 1979 in (a) Echuca, (b) Rochester, (c) Cohuna, (d) Moama, (e) Mathoura, (f) Kyabram and (g) Tongala.
  2. How many persons from those centres were work tested in that month and placed in (a) tomato and (b) fruit picking.
  3. How many persons refused the work test for these jobs. (4)How many vacancies for these jobs remained at the end of the month for (a) tomato and (b) fruit picking at each of these centres.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The numbers of persons residing at each of the following centres who registered with the CES for employment during the four weeks ended 2 March 1979, together with the number of unemployed awaiting placement on that date, are shown below insofar as they are available from CES statistics:

Note: Separate figures for each of these towns, which are in the Echuca CES area, are not available. However, the total number registered at Echuca CES office as unemployed and awaiting placement on 2 March 1979 was 769.

  1. The CES does not keep statistics of the number of persons work tested.
  2. The number of Unemployment Benefit claimants at each centre who failed the work test by declining fruit or tomato picking jobs during the four weeks ended 2 March 1979 was:

Echuca- nil;

Rochester- nil;

Cohuna- nil;

Moama- n.a.;

Mathoura- n.a.;

Kyabram- 23;

Tongala- nil.

  1. Of the centres referred to, only Kyabram had unfilled vacancies for fruit or tomato pickers on 2 March 1 979, the las’ day of the CES February statistical period. The numbers were:

Fruit picking- 15;

Tomato picking- 38.

Standard Occupational Classification (Question No. 3443)

Mr Willis:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has work begun on the preparation of a Standard Occupational Classification.
  2. What funds and personnel have been allocated to this task.
  3. When is it expected that the Standard Occupational Classification will be completed.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Department of Employment and Youth Affairs and the Australian Bureau of Statistics have recently started a joint project to develop an Australian Standard Classification of Occupations. The project is currently engaged on preliminary tasks such as detailed discussion of requirements with potential users of the classification, the development of a detailed work program, and the determination of resource needs.
  2. ) Until this preliminary stage is concluded it will not be possible to provide precise information on personnel and funds allocated to the project. However, a preliminary assessment suggests requirements of the following order:
  1. ) Subject to the qualifications mentioned in (2) above, it is hoped to complete development by about mid 1982 for subsequent publication and implementation in statistical publications.

Manpower Planning (Question No. 3446)

Mr Willis:

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

What funds and personnel have been allocated to the introduction of manpower planning and/or manpower forecasting within his Department.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

In terms of manpower planning and forecasting for community needs, it would not be possible to identify the total resources employed by the Department without incurring a cost which I do not believe is justified.

Elements of the CES, as well as establishment in regional and central offices of my Department, are engaged in activities which can be described as related to the processes of manpower planning and forecasting.

Further expansion of this work is for consideration by the Government as part of its examination of the recommendations of the Crawford and Williams inquiries.

Woomera: Persons Employed in Services Canteen (Question No. 3521)

Mr Willis:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many persons are employed on a (a) full-time and (b) part-time basis in the Australian Services Canteens Organisation store at Woomera, South Australia?
  2. With the proposed replacement of ASCO by the Army and Air Force Canteen Service Organisation at Woomera, how many staff will be employed by AAFCANS?
  3. Will civilian employees at Woomera be eligible to serve on the local committee to be established to advise on the local operations of AAFCANS?
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) At 30 April 1979, ASCO employed the following staff for the Woomera Community Store:

    1. Full-time-25
    2. Part-time- 5.

In addition casual staff (currently around 20) are employed to meet peak work loads.

  1. and (3) Under an agreement with the Department of Defence, ASCO provides a management service in operating the community store. There is a Store Advisory Committee comprising representatives of the Woomera community and ASCO to act as a liaison body between the Woomera Board and store management. No changes in the current arrangements, including staffing levels and Advisory Committee membership are contemplated with the introduction of AAFCANS.

Non-official Postmasters (Question No. 3523)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 27 March 1979:

Have negotiations taken place between Australia Post and the Non-official Postmasters Association regarding rates of pay and conditions of non-official postmasters; if so, what agreement was reached on the matters.

Mr Staley:
LP

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

Negotiations between Australia Post and the Non-official Postmasters’ Association are an ongoing feature of the relationship between the two bodies. The Association is free to discuss and negotiate conditions affecting its members at any time. At present, the following items relating to non-official postmasters are under consideration by Australia Post and negotiations with the Association are soon to be resumed: conditions to apply to non-official postmasters whose offices are closed or converted to official status; review of basis of payment for non-official postmasters; office cleaning allowance; counter reimbursement scheme.

Electorate of Grey:Automatic Telephone Exchanges (Question No. 3524)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 27 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) What plans exist for Telecom to extend the provision of automatic telephone exchanges within the Electoral Division of Grey.
  2. Which manual exchanges will be replaced, and when will they be replaced.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) Provision is being made by Telecom Australia for the conversion of manual telephone exchanges to automatic in the Grey Electorate as indicated below.

A close examination of other manual exchanges in the Electorate for conversion in later years is in progress. Telecom expects that considerable inroads will be made into the remaining manual exchanges by 1 985.

1979- 80-

Black Rock, Yatina, Minvalara, Kimba, Leigh Creek, Peterborough, Poochera, Karcultaby, Emerald Rise, Coultawarrow, Cleve, Cowell, Dark Peake, Monument, Kielpa.

1980- 81-

Burra, Calca, Orroroo, Butler Tanks, Arno Bay.

1981- 82-

Wootoona, Pordia, Eurelia, Hammond.

Telecom: Service Restoration Centres (Question No. 3577)

Mr Humphreys:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 28 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Have special service restoration centres been established in every major Telecom network around Australia.
  2. if so, is the purpose of these centres to provide special services, such as telephone repairs, to major subscribers who have been given a telephone fault rectification number and an N code by which they can be recognised.
  3. Has this created 2 classes of Telecom customers.
  4. In Queensland and, specifically, the Brisbane area, what (a) was the number of new connections (telephones and telexes) and repairs (telephones) in (i) 1977-78 and (ii) I July 1978 to date and (b) are the staff levels in areas relating to new connections (telephone and telex) and repairs (telephone) for each quarter since 1 July 1977.
  5. What is the average length of time for new telephone connections to be made in the Electoral Division of Griffith.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Telecom Australia has advised that Special Service Restoration Centres are being established in each State capital city except Hobart.
  2. ) Telecom provides two basic types of service viz:

Telephone service where subscribers have access to all other subscribers over the public exchange switched network. Subscribers report their telephone service difficulties and faults to Service Assistance Centres.

Special Services such as burglar alarm lines, datel lines, lines for transmitting data for computers and other devices, and special lines such as for Defence and Aircraft Control. Special Services provide a greater range of facilities than telephone services, and many of them have complex line and equipment arrangements. Some lines for Special Services span several States.

Customers report faults on Special Services to the Special Service Restoration Centre. Special Services usually have an identification number prefixed by N to facilitate their identification for reporting purposes. Special Service Restoration Centres are staffed by people with the necessary specialist skills and centralised records necessary for the efficient handling of fault reports. Experience has shown that Service Assistance Centres cannot efficiently handle the fault reports for the increasing variety and complexity of Special Services.

  1. No. There are two types of service as outlined in (2 ) above.

Telecom aims to provide a high standard repair service to both telephone services and Special Services.

  1. The number of new connections of telephone and telex services and the number of repairs undertaken each quarter since July 1977 is shown in the following Tables A and B which relate to the Brisbane area and Queensland respectively.

On the matter of staff levels, separate figures for installation and repair work separately are not readily available as the staff is utilised in either area as the work load demands. As a guide however the total number of technicians and linemen employed at the end of each quarter on District type work is also given in Tables A and B.

  1. During the first quarter of 1979 and over most of the Griffith Electorate 95 per cent of requests for new service were provided within 1 5 working days. In some suburbs such as the Paddington area industrial bans imposed have prevented the use of overtime to level out peaks of work. In that area between 70 and 80 per cent of services are being provided within 5 weeks.

Transfer of Telephone Numbers (Question No. 3578)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 28 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Are delays of between 3 and 5 weeks regularly occurring in the transfer of telephone numbers, even when the transfer occurs within the same building, in the Brisbane area.
  2. ) If so, are the delays caused by staff shortages.
  3. In view of the recently announced profitability of Telecom, will he review staff ceilings with Telecom management.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Telecom Australia has advised that in the Brisbane area as a whole the average time for telephone connections requiring construction of a new line is four weeks, and a similar time is taken where removal of a service within a building is required to transfer a service from one lessee to another. Where the line and telephone are already in place at the new location, transfer is effected without delay.
  2. and (3) Staff shortages are not the cause of these delays. However, because of an industrial ban on overtime these delays are likely to continue. At the present time additional staff could not be gainfully employed between peaks of installation activity. However, having regard to the expanded programme of installations planned for next year some increases in field staff numbers can reasonably be predicted within the next few months.

CRAFT Scheme (Question No. 3598)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 28 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many apprentices have been employed in each State under the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice FullTime Training (CRAFT) Scheme in each year since its inception.
  2. What are the names of the companies and Departments employing these apprentices and how many have they employed in each year.
  3. ) Have any companies or Departments been refused assistance under the CRAFT Scheme; if so, which companies and Departments and for what reasons.
  4. Is there any preference given to employers in particular industries for use of assistance under the CRAFT Scheme; if so, which industries.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. In 1977, the number of apprentices generating CRAFT Technical Education Rebate was as follows:

Figures for technical education carried out in 1978 are not yet available as claims are still being received.

Craft Off-the-Job Training Rebate is paid for releasing apprentices to approved courses of off-the-job training. The number of apprentices who have generated this claim is as follows:

Apprentices who are compelled to live away from home to obtain or remain in apprenticeship may be assisted by the CRAFT Living-Away-From-Home Allowance. The number of apprentices assisted is shown below:

  1. As some 19,000 individual claims for the CRAFT Technical Education Rebate may be received in any one year, it would not be feasible to supply the information sought in this part of the Question.
  2. Applications from companies and Departments for CRAFT rebates have sometimes been rejected because they did not meet the eligibility criteria.
  3. No discrimination is made in assessing eligibility for payment of CRAFT rebates/allowances other than a determination as to whether eligibility criteria have been met.

Military Training Area: Yampi Sound (Question No. 3608)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 March 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Did his Department recently acquire an area of land at Yampi Sound, Western Australia, as a military training area.
  2. ) If so, what was the area.
  3. What previous use was made of the land.
  4. Does his Department’s occupancy exclude any control over mineral exploration and development.
  5. Has any mineral exploration taken place on the land; if so, with what results.
  6. Will State authorities have control of mineral exploration in the area; if so, on what basis.
  7. Is a continuation of mineral exploration and resultant extraction compatible with the use of the area for defence exercises.
  8. Will his Department be responsible for any accidents which may occur as a result of unexploded ammunition et cetera.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) As notified in Commonwealth of Australia Government Gazette S241 of 20 November 1978 and G49 of 12 December 1978 the Commonwealth acquired an area of land at Yampi Sound for defence purposes.
  2. 575,000 hectares.
  3. Grazing.
  4. The acquisition of the land excluded mineral rights. However, the method of control of mineral exploration and development in the area will not be decided until after consultation between Commonwealth and State officials.
  5. Yes; some copper deposits have been noted and results of other recent explorations are not yet to hand.
  6. Refer to (4) above.
  7. having regard to the estimated frequency of Defence use of the training area, the present scale of mineral exploration in the area, and the limited discoveries of commercial deposits made in the past, it is believed that mineral exploration and exploitation would not unduly affect Defence use of the area.
  8. Should any claims be made against the Commonwealth arising from accidents involving unexploded ordnance these will be considered on the basis of the particular facts applicable to the claim.

Tasmanian College of Advanced Education (Question No. 3658)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. With reference to the Government’s 10 point policy package for Tasmania announced in November 1977, has the Minister carried out an examination of the scope for specialist courses of national interest at the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education.
  2. If so, what recommendations resulted from the examination and which of these recommendations have been acted upon.
  3. Has a feasibility study been carried out for a timber training school in Tasmania: if so, what was the result of the study.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

The Tertiary Education Commission has carried out an examination of the scope for establishment in Tasmania of additional specialist courses of national interest and I have received a report from the Commission. The suggested establishment of a National Timber Industry Training School was one of the matters considered by the Commission.

The recommendations of the Tertiary Education Commission are under consideration and an announcement concerning this matter and other aspects of the 1 0 Point Plan can be expected in the Budget context.

Tasmania: Increasing Defence Activity (Question No. 3659)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. With reference to the Government’s 10 point policy package for Tasmania announced in November 1977, has he carried out an examination of the scope for increasing defence activity in Tasmania.
  2. If so, what recommendations resulted from the examination and which of these recommendations have been acted upon.
  3. Will an infantry battalion be established in Tasmania as urged by Sir Bede Callaghan.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The examination as well as subsequent reviews confirm that currently there are no strategic or operational reasons either to base additional Service units, or to increase training activities, in Tasmania.
  3. For reasons of operational training, general support and economy, battalions are located within the ambit of their particular Task Force base. These bases are currently adjacent to Sydney, Brisbane and Townsville. It is important that the fighting and support elements of a Task Force can be trained and deployed together, and without incurring heavy movement costs. Should a battalion be located in Tasmania, it would be at some considerable distance from the tactical air and other support forces needed to enable it to train effectively. Such support would have to be provided from the mainland. Therefore it is not intended to locate a battalion in asmania. To do so would involve substantial cost penalties with no countervailing benefits in terms of operational training and capability.

Fraudulent Use of Money Transfer Forms (Question No. 3675)

Mr James:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 5 April 1979:

  1. 1 ) What sums has Australia Post lost by fraudulent use of money transfer forms during each of the years 1 975-76 to 1977-78.
  2. ) What sums were recovered in each of the same years.
  3. ) What steps are being taken to correct the situation.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) 1 975-76 - $ 1,809; 1 9 7 6- 7 7 -$ 1 , 3 3 1 ; 1977-78-$36,287.
  2. 1975-76-$247; 1976-77-$300; 1977-78-$7,379.
  3. Serial numbers of stolen or missing money transfer forms are circulated to all post offices where money transfers may be cashed. In addition, in March 1979, a computer check system was implemented to supplement the manual detection of stolen postal money orders presented for payment.

These arrangements are continually under review to ensure that adequate procedures for detection are maintained.

Staff: Australia Post and Telecom (Question No. 3715)

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 1 May 1979:

How many (a ) temporary and ( b ) permanent staff are currently located at the office of (i) Australia Post, Westfield Shopping Town, N.S.W. and (ii) Telecom, 5th Floor, 30 Darcy Street, Parramatta, N.S. W.

Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. (a) None.

  2. 21 (20 full-time and 1 part-time) (17 employees are located in the office of the Divisional Manager, Sydney West ( Parramatta ) and 4 in the Post Office ).

    1. (a)l. (b)43.

Additional Finance: Department of Transport (Question No. 3733)

Mr Morris:

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

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Australian Financial Review of 15 March 1979 entitled Transport Department defies Cabinet Decision.
  2. Is it a fact that his Department is refusing to provide the Department of Finance with information to allow that Department to assess his Department’s request for additional funds for administrative purposes; if so, why.
  3. Is it also a fact that his Department has opposed a Cabinet Directive that funds to all departments for administrative purposes be cut by 3 per cent.
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer given to his Question No. 3465 on 2 1 March 1979 on the same topic.

Staff Levels: Australia’s International Airports (Question No. 3738)

Mr Morris:

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

  1. 1 ) What additional staff for (a) transit of passengers and baggage and (b) airport terminal security have been appointed at Australia’s international airports since I February 1979.
  2. What are the (a) passenger and baggage handling staff establishment levels and (b) actual staff numbers at each of Australia ‘s international airports.
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. (a) No Department of Transport staff are involved with the transit of passengers and baggage at Australia’s international airports.

    1. b) No additional airport terminal security staff have been appointed by my Department at Australia’s international airports since 1 February 1979. 2 (a) and (b) As stated in 1 (a) above, no Department of Transport Staff are involved with passenger and baggage handling at Australia’s international airports.

The transit of passengers and baggage for each international airline operating in Australia is handled by either the airline’s own staff located at the international airport or by Ansett Airlines, Trans-Australia Airlines, or Qantas Airways staff on behalf of the particular international airline.

For your information, Qantas passenger and baggage handling staff establishment levels at each of Australia’s international airports and actual staff numbers are detailed below:

Domestic Airlines: Cabin Staff (Question No. 3741)

Mr Morris:

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

  1. 1 ) What is the cabin staff complement and what are the duties of each cabin staff position in each of the major aircraft types operated by domestic airline regular public transport licence holders in Australia.
  2. Is he able to give comparable information on simitar types operated in similar tasks on domestic airline services in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) Canada, (c) the United States of America and (d) European Economic Community nations.
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The minimum number of cabin attendants carried on any Australian airline aircraft is based on two requirements:

    1. Firstly, on aircraft carrying more than fifteen passengers the ratio of cabin attendants to passengers shall not be less than one for each 36 passengers or part thereof.
    2. Secondly, an emergency evacuation demonstration to the satisfaction of the Department of the full complement of passengers and crew is required in respect of aircraft carrying more than 44 passengers. The evacuation must be completed in 90 seconds and the number of cabin attendants carried on passenger flights may not be less than the number utilised during the demonstration.

The only reason for the requirement to carry cabin attendants is passenger safety. The operator is required to train each cabin attendant in accordance with the functions they are required to perform in normal operations and in an emergency such as emergency evacuation. The specific duties of each cabin attendant can and does vary from operator to operator and from aircraft to aircraft but includes ensuring that passengers hand luggage is safely stowed, seat belts are fastened at the appropriate times, demonstrating safety requirements and that smoking prohibitions are observed.

The minimum number of cabin attendants is:

F27-100 and 500-2

page 3154

DC9-3

B727-100-4

B727-200-5

F28-2

United States, United Kingdom and Federal Republic of Germany- one cabin attendant for each 50 passengers or part thereof.

Canada- one cabin attendant for each 40 passengers or part thereof.

Loan Guarantees: Major Domestic Airlines (Question No. 3743)

Mr Morris:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) On what occasions, and for what specific purposes have loan guarantees been provided to (a) Ansett Transport Industries or its associates or subsidiaries and (b) TAA since 1958 under the provisions of the various Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Acts.
  2. What was the amount of the guarantee provided in each case.
  3. Who was the lender or lenders in each case and what were the terms of borrowing including interest rates charged.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

The various Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Acts provide authority for the Treasurer to guarantee on behalf of the Commonwealth, borrowings undertaken by Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd to finance the purchase of aircraft.

The table below lists details of all Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd borrowings supported by a Commonwealth government guarantee under the provisions of such Acts since 1958.

To date, TAA has not requested the assistance of a Commonwealth guarantee for any aircraft borrowings but, during the period, some funds were borrowed by the Commonwealth and on-lent to TAA for aircraft financing.

Opinion Polls and Surveys (Question No. 3748)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 May 1 979:

  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 Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Eight surveys were commissioned or carried out during 1977 and 1978 for the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training (CIET), the secretariat for which was located in my Department. All surveys have been completed.

  2. ) Details of the surveys commissioned for the CIET are as follows:

    1. (a) DrT.W.Beed, Director, Sample Survey Centre, University of Sydney.
    2. national sample surveys on staff and student attitudes in universitites, CAEs and TAFE institutions throughout Australia.
    3. $63,000.

    1. (a) Professor D. G. Beswick, Director, Centre for the Study of Higher Education.

    2. analysis of existing data from longitudinal surveys of education and training to employment and further research.
    3. $19,000.

    1. (a) Mr P. W. Hughes, Head of School of Teacher Education, Canberra College of Advanced Education, and Dr C. Collins, School of Teacher Education, Canberra College of Advanced Education.

    2. expectations of secondary schools: a study of the views of students, teachers and parents.
    3. $15,669

    1. (a) Mr J. A. Mcintosh, Personnel Development Manager, ICI Australia Ltd.

    2. the Education System and the Labour market: a survey of 25 employer organisations concerning the opinions of personnel managers on education and training.
    3. no costs incurred.

The following surveys were conducted for CIET by Commonwealth departments and agencies:

  1. Apprentices and employees working as tradesmen (Australian Bureau of Statistics).
  2. Survey of unqualified persons employed as tradesmen (Department of Employment and Industrial Relations).
  3. Student progress studies in universities and CAEs throughout Australia (2 surveys- conducted by the secretariat in collaboration with other Commonwealth Authorities and departments).

Opinion Polls and Surveys (Question No. 3757)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  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 Killen:
LP

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

  1. Six surveys have been carried out. All have been completed.

  2. (a) No private companies or individuals were commissioned for the surveys, which were carried out utilising departmental resources.

    1. (i) To assist in the study of the capability of Australian industry to meet Defence needs ( 1 975 ).
    2. To ascertain from the families of Army personnel their views on Community Services provided at Holsworthy (1976).
    3. To determine the basis of provision of living accommodation at Holsworthy (1978).
    4. To determine the basis for provision and design of future messes at Holsworthy ( 1978).
    5. v ) To determine the urgency for the construction of facilities at Holsworthy ( 1 978).
    6. To assist in planning for the re-location of the Army Apprentice School from Balcombe to Bonegilla (1978).
    1. No direct costs were involved.

Opinion Polls and Surveys (Question No. 3760)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, 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 Viner:
LP

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

  1. I ) Seven opinion polls or surveys have been commissioned or carried out by my Department since 1 975: 1975- Nil.

1976- 1.

1977- 2.

1978- 3.

1979- (todate) 1.

All surveys have been completed.

  1. 1976- (a) Company commissioned: None, survey carried out by Department.

    1. Subject matter and purpose: Survey of employer attitudes to the Commonwealth Employment Service- in connection with the (Norgard ) Review of the CES.
    2. Cost: Not applicable. 1 977- Project 1- (a) Company commissioned: None, survey carried out by Department.
    3. Subject matter and purpose: Survey of unqualified persons employed as tradesmen. Survey prepared for the Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training.
    4. Cost: Not applicable.

Project 2- (a) Company commissioned: Bruce Smith Pty Ltd and Margot Weir.

  1. Subject matter and purpose: The purpose of this study was to test the awareness, knowledge and usage of Employer Assistance Training schemes prior to and after advertising campaigns.
  2. Cost: $2,000. 1978- Project 1- (a) Company commissioned: None, survey carried out by Department.
  3. Subject matter and purpose: The purpose of this study was to test awareness and usage of the CES Job Show.
  4. Cost: Not applicable.

Project 2- (a) Company commissioned: International Public Relations.

  1. Subject matter and purpose: Survey on behalf of the National Training Council to determine industry attitudes to training. The survey was conducted among companies, industry association and trade unions.
  2. Cost: $3,000.

Project 3- (a) Company commissioned: None, survey carried out by Department.

  1. Subject matter and purpose: Survey of 200 unemployed school leavers in Sydney and Melbourne. Results of the survey were submitted to the (Williams) Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training as part of the submission of the Office of Youth Affairs.
  2. Cost: $3,500 (cost of services of 7 outside interviewers). 1979- (a) Company commissioned: Nexus Research.
  3. Subject matter and purpose: Survey of 350 employers to provide information on the level of awareness of youth employment training schemes, in particular the Special Youth Employment Training Programme.
  4. Cost: $2,000.

Community Youth Support Scheme (Question No. 3777)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 2 May 1979:

How many officers of his Depanment involved with the Community Youth Support Scheme (CYSS) are able to communicate with participants in languages other than English.

Mr Viner:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 1 am not aware that any officers of my Department involved with the Community Youth Support Scheme are able to communicate with participants in languages other than English. Departmental officers are not in fact required to communicate extensively with CYSS participants. This is undertaken by the CYSS Project Officers who are in turn employed by the CYSS Committees which supervise the projects.

Air Services: Isolated Areas (Question No. 3808)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport the following question, upon notice, on 3 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) In view of the decision by Ansett Airlines to end on 8 May 1979 its night cargo freight service from Brisbane to Mackay, Townsville and Cairns, will the Government hold an inquiry into air services to isolated areas of Australia.
  2. What arrangements are being made to provide an alternative service for people in the areas of northern Queensland affected after 8 May.
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. The Department of Transport has granted a number of approvals, since the announcement of the withdrawal of the Electra, to general aviation operators to carry freight over the route.

Appropriation for the 1976 Census (Question No. 3842)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What was the appropriation for the 1976 Census.
  2. How much of this appropriation has been spent.
  3. If the total amount is in excess of the appropriation, what is the difference.
  4. Why are so many figures from the 1 976 Census not yet available.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. There was no separate appropriation for the 1976 Census of Population and Housing. Funds were appropriated on the basis of approved requirements for each financial year as part of the ABS’s general appropriation. Depending on the particular financial year these amounts included allocations for the 1971, 1976 and 1981 Censuses because of the overlap of different phases of the various Censuses.

In addition many items of expenditure arc met from general ABS resources and it is not possible to precisely identify the 1976 Census component amongst such expenditure. Most of the expenditure for the 1976 Census, however, fell under specific functional categories viz printing, field collection, salaries for clerical staff, accommodation, transportation, etc and it is from such sources that the direct cost of the 1 976 Census has been calculated at $ 1 9.4m.

  1. It is expected that this direct cost of $ 19.4m will be fully spent by the end of the financial year 1 978-79.
  2. Not applicable.
  3. The tabulation program for a population Census is so large that, of necessity, it must span several years. For budgetary reasons, the Government deferred the main processing of the Census for 12 months, and consequently the main tabulation phase did not commence until May 1978.

Considerable statistical information has already been produced from both the preliminary processing phase completed in 1976 and. during the last year following the creation of the final data files.

A wide range of characteristics of the population and housing for all geographic areas of Australia is available in the form of publications, microfiche and summary tabulations on computer tapes and such information has been made available to a wide range of users, including the Parliamentary library.

The tabulation program will continue for the next 2 to 3 years when further detailed tabulations will bc produced both in the Canberra Office and in each State Office of the ABS working to a program determined in consultation with major users of Census information.

National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence (Question No. 3846)

Dr Blewett:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the present composition of the National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence.
  2. 2 ) What criteria are used by the Committee for determining what should be the appropriate trafficable quantity for each narcotic drug.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The present composition of the National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence ( N.S.C.C. ) is as follows:

    1. Commonwealth Representatives

Secretary, Department of Business and Consumer Affairs (Chairman);

Deputy Director General, Department of Health ( Deputy Chairman);

Senior Assistant Secretary, Criminal Law Branch, Attorney-General ‘s Department;

Chairman of the Drug Education Sub-Committee (exofficio member).

  1. State Representatives

Permanent Head (or his nominee) of respective State Health Commissions or Health Departments;

Representatives of Chief Secretary’s or Justice Departments;

Officers-in-Charge of State Police Drug Squads.

The N.S.C.C. reports to a Committee of Federal and State Government Ministers concerned with the problem of drug trafficking and abuse. The role of the N.S.C.C. is to make recommendations to the Ministerial Committee which then decides on appropriate action.

  1. Trafficable quantities were introduced into Federal and State legislation in 1 970-7 1 . Quantities were determined by the N.S.C.C

Factors taken into consideration by the Committee were: quantities specified in similar legislation overseas; quantities of each particular drug which were seen to be consistent with personal use; where no other information was available SO times the maximum therapeutic dose shown in the British Pharmacopoeia.

In October 1976 the N.S.C.C. again considered the schedule of trafficable quantities in the light of a decision to increase the maximum penalty for offences involving trafficable quantities and the amounts then seen to be consistent with personal use.

As a result it was recommended by the N.S.C.C. that the quantities specified in the schedule be increased by a multiple of 4.

Federal legislation was amended in November 1977 to reflect both the revised schedule and the increased penalties.

Contract: Hire of Simulation Time (Question No. 3869)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 May 1 979:

  1. For what reason was contract PTB31, for the hire of B747 simulator time from Qantas Airways Ltd referred to on page 97 of the Commonwelth of Australia Gazette of 24 April 1979 (G16) awarded.
  2. ) Who will make use of the simulator time and for what purpose.
  3. What is the duration of the contract.
  4. Have similar contracts been let in the past; if not, for what reason is it necessary to commence the calling of tenders now.
  5. On what basis are contracts for simulator hire awarded.
  6. Who were the unsuccessful tenderers for contract PTB31.
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The B747 simulator was hired in accordance with the Department’s airline surveillance program, which, in part, requires officers to exercise judgement in approving airline training programs.
  2. The simulator time will be used by two officers of the Department to evaluate the efficacy of the simulator in replacing certain aircraft training tasks.
  3. 3 ) Total training time under this contract was 3 hours.
  4. Yes.
  5. Qantas operate the only simulator of this type in Australia. Because calling of tenders is impracticable, contracts for B747 simulator dme are awarded to Qantas in accordance with the provisions of Finance Regulation 52AA(4).
  6. Nil.

Automatic Data Processing Facilities (Question No. 3876)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) What access to ADP facilities is provided for Members of Parliament
  2. ) If access is available, on what terms and conditions is it provided.
  3. If access is not available, will he take appropriate action to help eliminate any possible inequity in information transfer between the legislature and the executive.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

– The Clerks of the Senate and the House of Representatives have provided me with the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) At present no direct access to ADP facilities is provided for Members although the Parliamentary Departments, in response to Members’ requests, have limited access to certain ADP facilities by informal arrangements, for example, experimental use has been made of the legal data base (SCALE) (from the Attorney-General’s Department) and of certain bibliographical facilities of the National Library.
  2. The access that has been made available has usually been provided free of charge. It has been used on the assumption that the organization providing the assistance was able to meet the Parliamentary request without impeding its own work-flow.
  3. As indicated, the access that has been provided was limited and provided on a courtesy basis.

In 1978 an internal committee on information systems was formed within the Parliamentary departments. This committee examined the possible use of microforms, computer services and related equipment for the Parliament.

In consequence the Parliamentary Departments reported to the Presiding Officers that expert consultant advice was necessary in the further analysis and technical evaluation of parliamentary information needs, and that suitable arrangements should be made in this regard with the assistance of the Public Service Board. The Public Service Board has agreed to make available an experienced officer to work with the Parliamentary Departments. It is intended, subject to the availability of funds, that a comprehensive evaluation study be carried out during 1979-80 using the assistance of computer consultants.

Reinsurance Arrangements (Question No. 3882)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to media reports of comments made by Mr Brian Hunter, the liquidator of VIP Insurances Limited, particularly those relating to the reinsurance arrangements made between VIP and the Allstate Insurance Company of the United States of America.
  2. ) If so, is it a fact that an illegal backdoor agreement was entered into between VIP and Allstate to hoodwink the Insurance Commissioner.
  3. If there were illegal arrangements perpetrated by Allstate, what arrangements have been made to see that other Australian-based insurers with reinsurance contracts with Allstate terminate these contracts.
  4. Has Allstate been (a) officially advised of any breach of the provisions of the Insurance Act and ( b ) classified as an unsatisfactory reinsurer for the future.
  5. What amendments to the Insurance Act will be introduced to ensure that illegal arrangements are not entered into in the future.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. I ) Yes.

    1. ) and (3 ) As the honourable member may be aware, recent press reports indicate that the liquidator of VIP Insurances Limited may be recommending legal action against Allstate Insurance Company on matters connected with the reinsurance arrangements entered into between these two companies. In these circumstances, I do not feel that it would be appropriate for me to make any comments at this time on the reinsurance arrangements. I should add, however, that where any breaches of the Insurance Act are established, appropriate action will be taken.
    2. (a) No. Allstate is not subject to the Insurance Act.

    1. The Act makes no provision for the formal classification of unsatisfactory reinsurers by the Insurance Commissioner does, of course, have regard to such matters as the standards of reinsurers in administering the provisions of section 34 of the Act.

    2. 5 ) No such amendments are envisaged.

VIP Insurances Ltd (Question No. 3883)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to media reports of comments made by Mr Brian Hunter, the liquidator of VIP Insurances Limited, particularly those relating to the probability that 70,000 policy holders of the company will receive an initial return of only 20c in (he $ 1 of money owing to them.
  2. As VIP was approved as an insurer after an extensive investigation by the Insurance Commissioner and his staff, does he agree that this seal of approval encouraged people to take out insurance policies with VIP.
  3. As VIP was an approved company under the Insurance Act, will the Government consider providing funds to make up any deficit of the company as far as policy holders are concerned.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I am not in a position to say what factors might or might not have ‘encouraged’ people to take out policies with a particular company. I should add that there is no basis in the Insurance Act 1 973 for any suggestion that authorisation under the Act represents a guarantee against possible losses by the creditors of individual insurance companies authorised under the Act, although the general effect of that Act has been to improve the overall soundness and stability of the industry. I note that there was a large number of insurance companies authorised under the Insurance Act at the time of entry into liquidation of VIP Insurances Limited and that purchases of insurance had a wide choice of insurers available to them.
  3. No.

Holsworthy Field Firing Range (Question No. 3900)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has any damage been caused to roads adjacent to the Holsworthy Field Firing Range in the last ten years as a result of present or past Defence Forces activity; if so, what was the cause of the damage and the cost of repairs.
  2. What action has the Government taken to ensure the safety of the public in the vicinity of the Range.
  3. What precautions have been taken to ensure the safety of the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Lucas Heights from such activity.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In the last ten years no damage has been caused to roads as a result of the Defence Force activity on the Holsworthy Field Firing Range, with the exception of the incident which occurred on 14 July 1978, when a 105mm shell impacted on the Heathcote Road. The damage caused was minor and repairs were effected by the Department of Main Roads road maintenance patrol, as a matter of routine. No separate costing is available.
  2. A special working party was established to examine safety procedures, following the incident on . 14 July 1978. As a result all procedures are now subject to triple checking. Further, in accordance with the requirements of the Defence Act, before live firing occurs, warning notices are published in the press, picquets are placed on roadways and at gates giving access to the range and red flags are flown.
  3. In addition to the safety measures outlined above (see (2)), an area of 1700 metres around the Atomic Energy Research Establishment is noted on all military maps as a restricted area.

Caravan Residence (Question No. 3938)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 22 May 1979:

How many persons in each State in Australia are living permanently in caravans.

Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. I ) Comprehensive data is not available on the number of persons living permanently in caravans in Australia.

However the 1976 Census collected information on the number of people residing in caravans on the night of the Census and classified them into two groups:

  1. persons occupying private ‘ mobile dwellings. These are defined as mobile dwellings (including caravans) standing on their own block of land and not occupied by members of the same household resident in an adjacent dwelling.
  2. persons occupying a caravan in a caravan park, on either a permanent or temporary basis.

Information on the number of persons occupying a caravan in a caravan park is not yet available.

The number of persons occupying private mobile dwellings in each State and Territory as at 30 June 1976 is as follows:

Contracts: Binders (Question No. 3947)

Mr Morris:

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

  1. 1 ) What quantities of folders, binders and P.V.C. binders are involved in contracts S 123 1, S 1234, S 1236 and S 1240 referred to on page 97 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 24 April 1979.
  2. Are the goods mentioned in these contracts of Australian manufacture; if not, where were they manufactured.
  3. For what period are the various quantities being purchased expected to suffice.
  4. What are the various types of binders being purchased and by what sections of his Department are they to be used.
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Quantities to be purchased under each contract are:

    1. S 123 1-1 70,000;
    2. SI 234- 1,600;
    3. SI 236- 1,235;
    4. S1240-900.
  2. All items to be supplied under these contracts are of Australian manufacture. However, with the exception of folders being purchased under SI 23 1, manufacturers use rings imported from England.
  3. 3 ) S 1 23 1 -6 months. S1234, S1236, S1240-12 months.
  4. Types of items being purchased and end users are as follows:

SI23 l-(a) Folder, road safety, titled ‘Cycle Safety’.

  1. Primary and secondary schools throughout Australia.

S1234-(a) Binder, 21 ring, strawboard, PVC covered, titled ‘Airways Operations Instructions’.

  1. b ) Airways Operations staff.

S1236-(a) Binder, 3 ring, strawboard, PVC covered, titled ‘Air Navigation Orders’.

  1. Departmental Flying Operations and Airworthiness staff, and for sale to the aviation industry.

S1240-(a) Binder, 3 ring, strawboard, PVC covered, titled ‘Aerodrome Emergency Procedures’.

  1. Operational staff associated with airports.

Home Savings Grants Applications (Question No. 3956)

Mr Howe:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 22 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How many Home Savings Grant applications received and approved in (a) each State and (b) Australia have had payment deferred.
  2. What is the value of the payments deferred in (a) each State and (b) Australia.
  3. How many applications remain to be processed in (a) each State and (b) Australia and what is the estimated value of the unprocessed applications.
  4. What advice is currently being given to applicants.
  5. ) When can applicants expect to be paid.
  6. What sum remains from the 1978-79 Budget allocations.
  7. What steps has he taken to ascertain the extent of hardship caused by the deferment of the Home Savings Grant payments.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. Applications are acknowledged upon receipt and the applicants advised of the month in which their grant, if approved, will be paid, so they can arrange their finances appropriately. The month advised is nine months after the month of lodgement.
  2. See (4)above
  3. $263,000, which will shortly be exhausted.
  4. 7 ) The Government is well aware of the financial difficulties of first home buyers, for whom the Home Savings Grant Scheme was designed. It is unfortunate that because of Budgetary constraints payment of grants will be delayed. Banks have announced they are willing to provide additional finance to home buyers pending payment of their grant.

Commonwealth Rebate Apprentices Full-Time Training Scheme (Question No. 3960)

Mr Chapman:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 22 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) What sums have been paid to each State Government in each financial year under the Commonwealth Rebate Apprentices Full-Time Training scheme since its introduction.
  2. How many apprentices have been taken on under the scheme by each State Government in each financial year.
  3. What other funds have been provided to the States in the field of apprenticeship training.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) CRAFT rebates are not paid to State Governments but are paid directly to State Government establishments concerned. Since the introduction of CRAFT in January 1977 the following amounts have been paid to such establishments:
  1. Records in relation to State Government establishments are not maintained separately.
  2. The Commonwealth makes a major financial Contribution to technical and further education in the States which in turn provides essential technical education for apprentices.

In 1977 the Commonwealth agreed to make available to States NEAT funds for the provision of additional preapprenticeship course places and in Victoria for accelerated technical education places. These funds were paid in two instalments as follows:

The Additional Apprentices Scheme for full-time apprenticeships in State Government establishments has been financed by the Commonwealth since 1 975.

Expenditure on this Scheme has been:

In 1978 and 1979 an offer was made to the States to extend the Group One- Year Scheme for Commonwealth establishments into State establishments. Queensland and South Australia accepted. As a result payments were made under NEAT to State establishment in 1977-78 and 1978-79. In 1977-78 the payments were not separately recorded. In 1978-79 to the end of May 1979 payments were:

Tax Incentives: Handicapped Persons (Question No. 3965)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 May 1979:

  1. Is he able to state whether the Government of the United States of America provides tax incentives for employers to employ handicapped persons.
  2. If so, can he provide a summary of the benefits available.
  3. Does the Australian Government provide similar incentives.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that the United States tax law does provide a tax incentive for employers to employ handicapped persons.
  2. The incentive takes the form of a credit against tax payable. It is based on salary and wages paid to handicapped individuals. Broadly speaking the credit is equal to 50 per cent of the first $6,000 of the year’s wages and 25 per cent of second year wages paid to each handicapped person. Where a credit is allowed the income tax deduction allowable to an employer for wages paid is reduced by the amount of the credit.
  3. No.

World Health Organisation (Question No. 3967)

Dr Klugman:

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

  1. 1 ) Was there a move to suspend Israel from the World Health Organisation at the recent World Health Assembly.
  2. If so, (a) why and (b) what as the outcome of the move.
  3. 3 ) What is Australia ‘s financial contribution to WHO.
  4. Which countries voted for the suspension of Israel.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.

  2. (a) The draft resolution suspending Israel from the World Health Organization (WHO) was co-sponsored by 27 countries. The draft alleged that, by refusing to comply with World Health Assembly resolutions regarding the health conditions of the inhabitants of the occupied territories and because of certain of its actions in the occupied territories, Israel had ‘breached the provisons and spirit of the World Health Organisation’s Constitution’. The draft called for the voting rights and WHO services to Israel to be suspended until Israel complied with the resolutions of the Organization and relevant international conventions.

    1. b ) The draft resolution was not voted on at the Assembly. Following statements by a large number of countries regretting the politicization of specialised agencies such as WHO, Australia, Ghana and Fiji co-sponsored a resolution making the suspension of a member of WHO an ‘important question’ requiring a two-thirds majority. This resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority of the Assembly. In the light of this result, the co-sponsors of the draft resolution came to an agreement with Israel, through intermediaries, that discussion of the item on the health conditions in the occupied territories, and the associated draft resolution suspending Israel, be postponed until the next World Health Assembly in 1980. This decision, which also called for a report by a committee of experts, was adopted by plenary session.
  3. Australia’s assessed contribution to WHO in the 1978-79 fiscal year is $2,230,517.
  4. See 2(b).

Emission Controls on Motor Vehicles (Question No. 3972)

Mr O’Keefe:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister of Transport, upon notice, on 23 May 1979:

  1. Have the New South Wales and South Australia Governments decided to proceed to stage 3 of ADR 27A in respect of emission controls on motor vehicles.
  2. With the shortage of petroleum fuels, will this action mean considerably increased fuel consumption.
  3. Will he take up this important matter with the States concerned in order to conserve essential liquid fuels.
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) At the April 1 979 meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council (ATAC) the New South Wales and South Australian Transport Ministers indicated that their Governments would proceed through State legislation to introduce more stringent motor vehicle emission controls. The exact details of the measures which New South Wales and South Australia intend to adopt have not so far been advised.
  2. If the measures to be adopted are equivalent to those originally proposed for stage 3 of ADR 27A I understand that there will be a significant increase in the average fuel consumption of new vehicles.
  3. The Commonwealth’s concern over the fuel effect of vehicle emission controls and on the conservation of liquid fuels generally has been discussed with the States at the Australian Transport Advisory Council and at other Ministerial meetings. However, the responsibility for emission controls rests with State and Territory governments and as indicated, these two States feel it is necessary to bring in more stringent motor vehicle emission controls in this way.

Purposes of Australian Overseas Aid (Question No. 3977)

Mr James:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 May 1979:

With reference to his Department’s Annual Report for 1978, Appendix 8- Geographic distribution of Australian aid 1977-78, for what purposes was aid provided to (a) Uganda, (b) Argentina, (c) Chile, (d) El Salvador, (e) Afghanistan, (f) Indonesia, (g) Iran, (h) Iraq, (i) Jordan, (j) Kampuchea, (k) Laos and (1) Pakistan.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

The table below gives the functional distribution of Australia’s overseas aid in 1977-78 to the countries mentioned in the question. As indicated by the table the most common form of aid is related to training in Australia to help the developing countries concerned meet their needs for skilled manpower. In those instances where bilateral project aid is provided it is primarily of a technical assistance nature and supportive of such manpower objectives.

Aborigines: Treaty of Commitment (Question No. 3981)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 23 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that, at the recent National Aboriginal Conference, a resolution requesting that a treaty of commitment be executed before the Aboriginal nation and the Australian Government, was unanimously passed.
  2. ) Has the Government received a formal request regarding the treaty from representatives of the Aboriginal people.
  3. 3 ) What action will be taken in relation to the resolution.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The National Aboriginal Conference forwarded a copy of its resolution to me and to all members of Parliament.
  3. I am considering the resolution and will respond to the National Aboriginal Conference in due course.

Australian Aboriginal Affairs Council (Question No. 3990)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 23 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did the Australian Aboriginal Affairs Council agree in May that the Commonwealth must spend more and make advance triennial commitments (a) to achieve the ideal of self-management, (b) to overcome urgent social problems, (c) to provide employment, training and health support, and ( d ) to provide a target date for housing the homeless.
  2. ) If so, does this confirm that in the Council ‘s view funding cuts in real terms over the last 3 budgets have disadvantaged Aborigines in all of these aspects of need.
  3. Does the Minister support the stated view of all the State Ministers that funding from the Commonwealth is grossly inadequate.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (3) A question in similar terms was asked of me in the Senate by Senator Robertson and I refer the honourable member to the answer I then gave (Hansard, 22 May 1979, p. 1905).

Charge against Torres Strait Islander (Question No. 3995)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 24 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Cairns Post of 1 7 May 1979, apparently referring to a charge placed by an alien against a Torres Strait Islander, Mr Bob Ware, based on his use of turtle meat.
  2. If so, what steps has the Minister taken to ensure adequate legal protection for Mr Ware and compensation for the confiscation of the meat, harassment and indignity.
  3. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that (a) traditional and State law entitling indigenous people to take traditional foods for their private use is respected, (b) prima facie baseless charges are not placed or (c) penalties are applied for insult to the rights of minority ethnic groups, including repeated discriminatory practices of Queensland officials documented by the Commissioner for Community Relations.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Legal Service has advised that Mr Ware is eligible for assistance, but that to date the Service has not been approached by him.

  3. (a) and (b) My Department provides financial assistance to the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Legal Service which is well situated to represent indigenous people in such situations. In the 1978-79 financial year, this Service received $9 1 2,000 from my Department.

    1. Remedies are available under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 to persons suffering from any acts of discrimination to which that Act applies.

Occupation of East Timor (Question No. 3998)

Mr Holding:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 24 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) With respect to his answer to a question without notice on 22 May 1979 ( Hansard, page 2153) and his subsequent statement to the House on his discussions with President Suharto, did he raise in those discussions the question of Indonesia’s continuing occupation of Timor and repeated defiance of United Nations resolutions in respect of the occupation.
  2. If not, on what basis did he inform the House that Indonesia will be going to very significant lengths to advance the cause and well being of the people of what was formerly Portuguese Timor.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. As I said in my statement to the House on 22 May 1979, past difficulties between Australia and Indonesia are now firmly behind us and we are determined to look to the future constructively and realistically.
  2. Reports available to the Government confirm that the Indonesian authorities are indeed placing considerable emphasis on the economic and social development of East Timor. This is reflected in the substantial funds allocated by the central government for East Timor over recent years.

Cloncurry Airport (Question No. 4000)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is Cloncurry Airport to be abandoned as a strategic alternate airport for defence purposes in the north of Australia.
  2. Is Cloncurry Airport still the best defence airport in north-western Queensland.
  3. Is the nearest largest airport at Mount Isa still inadequate for defence purposes.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There has been no significant Defence use of Cloncurry Airport since World War II. It is not ‘a strategic alternate airport for defence purposes’, and is not likely to become so in the future.
  2. ) No. Mount Isa is better.
  3. Mount Isa is used on occasions for Defence purposes. It would require development for sustained operations.

Location of Departmental Offices (Question No. 4004)

Mr Howe:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 4 June 1 979:

  1. Has the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs been seeking accommodation for a Commonwealth Employment Service office at Northcote, Victoria, for 5 years.
  2. Is it currently proposed to move the Northcote office to Collingwood where another CES office is already in existence.
  3. Is the Department of Social Security also seeking an office in Northcote in which to locate approximately SO staff.
  4. If so, will he consult with the Minister for Administrative Services with a view to seeking the establishment of a Commonwealth Government office in Northcote housing both the CES and the Department of Social Security.
  5. 5 ) Will he ask the Minister for Administrative Services to consult the Northcote City Council with a view to securing a suitable location for these offices.
  6. Does he support the view that co-operation between Commonwealth Government Departments and consultation with relevant local government councils are essential aspects of planning for Commonwealth services designed to serve local communities.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. I ) My Department has been searching continuously since February 1975 for satisfactory accommodation for the Northcote CES office.

    1. No. Leasing arrangements have been completed to relocate the present Northcote CES office to Queens Parade, Clifton Hill.
    2. Yes.
    3. and (5 ) It was not until May 1979 that the Department of Social Security decided to proceed with establishing a Northcote Regional office. By that time my Department was irrevocably committed to its Clifton Hill premises. Officers of my Department had discussions with the Northcote City Council earlier this year but the Council was unable to assist in locating suitable premises within its municipality.
    4. Yes.

Unemployment (Question No. 4007)

Mr Howe:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 28 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What does his Department estimate to be the extent of hidden unemployment in Australia in 1 979.
  2. How many persons currently undertaking part-time work are estimated to prefer full-time employment.
  3. What estimates exist of the number of persons who have withdrawn from the work force but who would prefer to work if jobs were available.
  4. What research has been carried out by his Department since 1975 into the levels of hidden unemployment.
  5. Is his Department currently sponsoring any surveys or research into hidden unemployment.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The question apparently refers to ‘discouraged job seekers’ the subject of special surveys carried out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. According to the preliminary results of the latest survey conducted in March 1979, there were an estimated 63,400 ‘discouraged jobseekers’ in Australia.
  2. Data provided by the ABS monthly population survey show that in April 1 979 there were 125,000 persons working part-time who would have preferred to work full-time. Of these, 43, 100 were actually looking for full-time work.
  3. There are no estimates of the number of persons who have withdrawn from the work force but who would prefer to work if jobs were available.
  4. None.
  5. The Department of Employment and Youth Affairs has asked the Australian Bureau of Statistics to undertake surveys of discouraged jobseekers.

Accommodation at Palm Island (Question No. 4011)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 28 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the policy of the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement that its primary objective is to provide accommodation for married persons and their dependants and to its claim that, consequently, no specific accommodation can be provided for single persons at Palm Island.
  2. If so, will the Minister take steps to see that suitable accommodation is made available at Palm Island for single persons and their dependants as well as for married persons.
  3. When will sufficient funds be available to enable Aboriginal housing to be supplied at a rate exceeding the growth in demand for it.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Priorities for Departmental funding were discussed during Area Advisory Committee meetings held in the QED (Townsville) Area in March and August/September last year and accommodation for single meetings, delegates preferring to support grants for family accommodation. But if the Palm Island community wishes to give priority to single accommodation, any request to my Department will be duly considered. In addition, proposals for the provision of hosteltype accommodation could be submitted to Aboriginal Hostels Ltd.
  3. The rate at which housing needs of Aboriginals can be met depends only in part upon budgetary decisions of the Commonwealth Government. It is also influenced by the priorities which Aboriginals in different communities and regions attach to the provision of housing as compared with programs to meet other needs and by the extent to which State Governments through their housing authorites give priority to the housing needs of Aboriginals eligible for welfare housing.

Budget allocations to my Department for the year 1 979-80 are yet to be determined.

Dr P. Ivory (Question No. 4012)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 28 May 1979:

When may I expect a reply to my representations of 6 March 1979 in support of Mr P. Ivory’s letters of 19 December 1978 and 26 February 1979 and what action has been taken to relieve the position.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

I replied to Dr Everingham by letter on 24 April.

Officers of my Department have attempted to bring Dr Ivory and the directors of Trinity Lane Hostel together in order to discuss and resolve the matters at issue. Dr Ivory has not been prepared to attend a meeting at which the President of the Board of Directors was present. In the circumstances, I do not see that my Depanment can take any further steps.

Official Establishments (Question No. 4036)

Mr James:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 29 May 1 979:

Further to his answer to paragraph (2) (a) of question No. 3887, (Hansard, 24 May 1979, page 2416), what were the names of the VIP guests of the Government who stayed at Kirribilli House on the dates specified.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 6 to 8 May 1977- Mr C. Tricoupis, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Greece. 28 June to 1 July 1977-Hon. Dr G. K. T. Chiepe, M.B.E., Minister for Mineral Resources and Water Affairs, Botswana. 4 and S September 1977- Rt. Hon. J. Silkin, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Britain. 16 to 19 September 1977-The Hon. Ebia Olewale, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Papua New Guinea. 23 and 24 October 1977-The Rt. Hon. Sir Keith Holyoake, Governor-General Designate of New Zealand. 18 to 20 February 1978-His Excellency J. R. Jayawardene, President of the Republic of Sri Lanka. 2 to 10 March 1978-Hon. G. Velasco, Minister for Energy, Philippines. 12 to 15 March 1978- Lady Avon. 9 to 1 1 April 1978- Prince Malietoa Tanumafili II, Head of State, Western Samoa. 24 to 26 April 1978-Rear Admiral J. K. Amedume Member of the Supreme Military Council and Navy Commander, Ghana. 8 July 1 978-Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester. 23 September 1978-Mr F. Foschi, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs (Emigration), Italy. 12 December 1978-His Excellency M.E1 Hadj Omar Bongo, President of Gabon. 16 December 1978- Professor Dr Mochtar Kusumaatmadja, Foreign Minister of Indonesia. 3 1 January to 4 February 1 979- His Excellency Brigadier General Hia Tun, Minister for Construction, Burma.

II February 1979- His Excellency Brigadier General Hia Tun, Minister for Construction, Burma. 25 February to 3 March 1979- Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester. 9 March 1 979- Her Royal Highness the Princess Alice. 20 to 22 March 1979-Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester. 25 and 26 April 1979-Mr G. Z. Velasco, Minister for Energy, Philippines. 29 April 1 979-His Excellency Choi Kyu Hah, Prime Minister, Republic of Korea. 3 May 1979- Mr G. Z. Velasco, Minister for Energy, Philippines.

Home Savings Grants Scheme (Question No. 402)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 29 May 1979:

  1. What sums have been allocated under the Home Savings Grants Scheme since its inception.
  2. What areas in each Commonwealth electoral division in each State have received the grant.
  3. How many persons in each Commonwealth electoral division have applied for the grant.
  4. How many persons in each Commonwealth electoral division (a) have received the grant and (b) are still on the waiting list.
  5. What is the average age of couples who (a) have applied for the grant and ( b) are still on the waiting list.
  6. What effect will the new Budget scheme have on (a) funds to be allocated to the scheme and (b) those on the waiting list for the grant.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Since its inception in 1964, $237m has been allocated under the Home Savings Grant Scheme.
  2. , (3), and (4) Statistics are not maintained by electoral division.
  3. (a) and (b) Statistics on the average age of applicants are compiled after the end of the financial year in which the grant is approved. Of the couples whose grants were approved during 1977-78, the men were most commonly in the 26-30 years age group, and the women in the 21-25 years age group.

  4. (a) Funds to be allocated to the scheme are determined in the Budget context. It is estimated that the value limit on qualifying homes will effect a saving of some $5m in 1979-80. The greater part of expenditure on grants in 1979-80 will be for applications approved in 1978-79 and not affected by the value limit.

    1. The value limit on qualifying homes announced on 24 May 1979 will not affect those who at that date were on the waiting list for payment of a grant, nor those who contracted on or before that date to buy or build their home.

Employment (Question No. 4044)

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) How many civilians were employed at 30 June in each year from 1970.
  2. How many were (a) adult males, (b) adult females, (c); junior males and (d) junior females.
  3. What was the population of Australia at 30 June in each year from 1970.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. I ) and (2) No information is available on the number of civilians who were employed as at 30 June in each year from 1 970. Information in respect of civilians who were employed as at February, May, August and November of each year is available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics publications ‘The Labour Force No. 6203.0 and No. 6204.0. ‘

    1. The information may be obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics publication ‘Population and Vital Statistics No. 321 1.0’.

Price and Location of Land (Question No. 4045)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 29 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is he able to state in which suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne a new house and land can be built or purchased for under $35,000.
  2. Can be also state which Federal electoral divisions those suburbs are in.
  3. What is the distance of the land available in each suburb from the nearest railway station or public transport.
  4. What distance are those suburbs from the central business district (CBD) of each city.
  5. What is the cost of the return fare by public transport from each of the same suburbs to the CBD
  6. What is the average length of time of the public transport journey from each of these suburbs to the CBD.
Mr Groom:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) My Department does not keep statistics on the prices of homes by suburban location or of the duration and cost of public transport journeys.

Commonwealth Employment Service: Vietnamese Refugees (Question No. 4061)

Mr Kerin:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 30 May 1 979:

Are Vietnamese refugees treated differently to Australian citizens by the Commonwealth Employment Service with respect to any aspect of job placement, work test or training programs, if so, in what ways does the Service discriminate in favour of Vietnamese refugees.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

The Commonwealth Employment Service does not discriminate between migrants (including refugees) and Australian citizens with respect to any aspect of job placement, work test or training programs. It does, however, give particular consideration to meeting the special needs of nonEnglish speaking clients by the provision of CES staff who are bi-lingual or multi-lingual.

Bauxite and Alumina Industry (Question No. 41 15)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 3 1 May 1 979:

What percentage of the Western Australian workforce is presently employed in the bauxite and alumina industry in Western Australia.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

Approximately 0.5 percent.

Tax Avoidance (Question No. 4120)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 June 1 979:

What matters remain to be considered before the Government strengthens section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act to deal adequately with tax avoidance schemes.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

As I have indicated on several occasions, both in the Parliament and elsewhere, the Government has been looking very closely at the feasibility of rewriting section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act in order to have an effective general provision against tax avoidance practices.

I said in the House on 4 June that I hope to have an exposure draft of a new provision available for comment during the Budget sittings.

However, any person with a knowledge of income tax law will realise that drafting a provision to replace section 260 is an extremely complex task. It is not one that can be, or should be, hurried.

Apan from considering all the ramifications of judicial decisions on the present section 260, it is necessary to ensure that any new provision does not impinge upon genuine transactions or concessions provided in the income tax law to encourage various forms of activity.

Work Test (Question No. 4121)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 4 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many changes to the work test applying to applicants for unemployment benefits have been made since December 1975.
  2. ) What were these changes.
  3. 3 ) When were the changes put into effect.
  4. How many persons have been refused unemployment benefits or had their benefit withdrawn for failure to comply with any one component of the successive work tests put into operation.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There have been five main changes.
  2. and (3) The changes were, in brief, that persons who ( a ) place themselves in a situation where they are likely to remain unemployed or move to an area where opportunities are severely limited; (b) present themselves to employers in a manner which is clearly inappropriate to the employment sought; (c) seek only occupations for which they are not qualified or are extremely rare will be considered not to have satisfied the work test ( announced January 1976).

A further change made was in the definition of suitable work to allow the CES to extend the range of jobs to which beneficiaries could be referred after they had been in receipt of benefit fora reasonable period (announced March 1976).

Graduates were to accept any suitable work after six weeks, even if this involved a change in anticipated status or wages (announced July 1977).

  1. No such statistics are maintained by my Department.

Unemployment Benefits (Question No. 4122)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 4 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many (a) applicants for unemployment benefits and (b) persons in receipt of unemployment benefits have been refused a benefit or had their benefit withdrawn because of their refusal to accept a job within Vh hours travelling time by public transport from their place of residence since December 1975.
  2. 2 ) How many of those persons were in the 1 7 to 20 years age group.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. and (2) My Department does not maintain statistics on these particular matters.

Dried Vine Fruit Harvest (Question No. 4143)

Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 June 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How serious is the impact of rain on I979’s dried vine fruit harvest.
  2. What is the expected impact on (a) quantity and (b) quality.
  3. What percentage of fruit is of 4 crown quality as at 3 1 May 1979.
  4. What is the estimated loss of income in the industry, as against forecasts, in this year of record overseas demand.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The heavy rains that occurred in the main producing areas in February 1979 have meant that the dried vine fruit industry did not obtain the large crop expected and was thus unable to benefit fully from the high prices on the export market.
  2. ) These rains affected mainly the production of sultanas. lt is estimated that the sultana pack is around 10,000 tonnes lower than that being forecast by the industry in January with the bulk being of 1 Crown and 2 Crown fruit; in 1978 the main grades were 4 Crown and 5 Crown. Some rains, which fell in January, affected the production of currants. The output of currants was higher than in 1 978 but the grade of the pack was lower.
  3. On the basis of receivals into packing sheds up to end of May the following are the percentages of sultanas and currants that are of 4 Crown quality in each of the two most recent seasons:
  1. The reduction in net returns to growers resulting from the February 1979 rains is estimated to be of the order of $10m. Approximately Sim of this loss is attributed to the effect of the down-grading of the fruit and the remainder to a reduction in output.

Insurance Cover (Question No. 4210)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 6 June 1979:

In view of the Government’s policy information paper Natural Disaster Insurance, dated May 1 979 which indicates that Government’s and Government Authorities should, to the maximum extent possible, seek to avoid intervention in matters that can be left to the private sector, which private sector insurance companies operating in Australia offer insurance cover for losses caused, related to, or arising from, landslip.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

I do not not have information indicating which private sector insurance companies operating in Australia offer insurance against losses caused, related to, or arising from, landslip. I have, however, asked my Department to make appropriate inquiries. I shall pass the results on to the honourable member as soon as possible.

Admirals Cup (Question No. 4225)

Mr James:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 June 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that defence force personnel are presently en route to the United Kingdom to participate in the yachting classic called the Admirals Cup.
  2. Will these officers be crew on the yacht called Anaconda II.
  3. What are the names and designations of these officers and what type of leave do they have from their positions.
  4. How are these officers travelling to the UK.
  5. 5 ) Who paid their fares.
  6. How was the Anaconda //transported to the UK.
  7. Has the Government leased or purchased the Anaconda II; if so, what was the cost to the Commonwealth.
  8. Has the Government contributed to the refitting and or refurbishing of Anaconda II; if so, what was the cost.
  9. Who owns or owned Anaconda II.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Defence Force personnel will be participating in the Parmelia Yacht Race, from Plymouth to Fremantle, as part of the Commonwealth contribution to the Western Australian 150th Anniversary celebrations. Time permitting, they will also participate in the Fastnet Race (which is included in the Admirals Cup series) as a working-up exercise for the Parmelia Race.
  2. Yes. However, the Defence Force personnel comprise all ranks down to Army private, or equivalent.
  3. Anaconda II is participating as a Defence Force entry in the Parmelia Race, and the personnel involved are undergoing an official Defence Force activity known as Adventure Training. It is customary for personnel on Adventure Training to contribute personally towards the cost of the activity, and in this case each member is to contribute $350, which will amount to a little over $ 10,000 collectively and none will receive overseas allowances. Details of the personnel involved are:

Race crew: Captain M. Calder, RAN, 2nd Lieutenant C. D. J. Chidgey, Army, Lieutenant Commander G. R. Deacon, RAN, Private J. A. Fraser, Army, SubLieutenant D. J. Frew, RAN, Lieutenant Commander K. J. Heynatz, RAN, Captain R. K. Howarth, Army, 2nd Lieutenant P. G. Lewis, Army, Leading Aircraftsman G. I. Mills, RAAF, Petty Officer B. W. J. Nicholls, RAN, Lieutenant Colonel K. E. Northwood, Army, Able Seaman K. D. Patterson, RAN, Sergeant D. P. Ryan, Army, Major P. J. Spence, Army, Chief Petty Officer M. J. Thompson, RAN.

Delivery crew: Lieutenant Commander G. Brice, RAN, Lieutenant Commander P. R. Cartwright, RAN, Warrant Officer, Class 2 D. V. de Heer, Army, Corporal S. Dembrowski, Army, Lieutenant Colonel D. R. Gillies, Army, Able Seaman K. A. Halstead, RAN, Sergeant W. J. Hunter, Army, Squadron Leader K. F. Johnson, RAAF, Chief Petty Officers. F. McMahon, RAN, Lieutenant J. B. Merton, RAN, Warrant Officer, Class 2 R. J. Partis, Army, Warrant Officer, Class 2 H. J. Richardson, Army, Major A. W. White, Army, Major I. Wishusen, Army.

  1. The race crew will fly to England by civil air, and return on the Anaconda II. The delivery crew will sail the Anaconda II to England and return to Australia by civil air. Service aircraft would be used instead, if available.
  2. Travel expenses will be met by the Commonwealth.
  3. Anaconda His being sailed to the UK by the delivery crew.
  4. No. The Commonwealth negotiated an agreement with the owner for use of the Anaconda II by the Defence Force specifically to compete in the Parmelia Yacht Race. There were no direct hiring or leasing charges.
  5. Anaconda II was refitted by the Navy to the extent necessary to meet race special regulations and safety specifications, at an estimated cost of $27,350. Additionally, the Commonwealth agreed to purchase sails and equipment at an estimated cost of $60,000.
  6. Mr Josko Grubic of Adelaide.

Community Youth Support Scheme (Question No. 4232)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 6 June 1979:

  1. How many telegrams advising approval of Community Youth Support Scheme applications have been dispatched by his Department since the inception of the scheme.
  2. To whom are these telegrams sent and how many have been sent to each category of recipient since the inception of the scheme.
  3. What has been the expenditure of his Department on telegrams related to CYSS programs since their inception.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( I ), (2) (3) Statistics of telegrams sent in relation to Community Youth Support Scheme projects are not separately recorded.

Registered Unemployed (Question No. 4257)

Mr Young:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June 1 979:

  1. How many junior (a) females and (b) males were registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service as unemployed as at 3 1 January in each year since 1 975.
  2. ) What categories of work were they registered for.
  3. How many unfilled junior (a) female and (b) male vacancies were registered with the Service as at 3 1 January in each year since 1975.
  4. In what categories were the vacancies registered.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2), (3) and (4) Commonwealth Employment Service statistics relate to the Friday nearest the end of the month. Classification of vacancies by sex was discontinued in 1978. Subject to these reservations, the information sought may be found in the relevant issues of the Monthly Review of the Employment Situation published by my Department.

Labour Productivity (Question No. 3789)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

What has been the (a) average manufacturing productivity growth rate (for labour) for the last IS years and (b) the GNP growth rate for the same period.

Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. From 1962-63 to 1975-76 labour productivity for manufacturing industry is assessed to have grown at an average annual rate of 3.6 per cent. In this context labour productivity was taken as the average growth in Gross Manufacturing Product (at constant prices) per person employed. (Figures for periods more recent than 1975-76 are not available.)
  2. In the period 1962-63 to 1975-76 the average growth rate of Gross Domestic Product at constant prices is estimated to be 5.3 percent.

Applications for Political Asylum (Question No. 4041)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 May 1 979:

  1. How many persons have been (a) granted and (b) refused political asylum in Australia during the period I January 1975 to 30 April 1979.
  2. From which countries did each person originate.
Mr Peacock:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) none (b) fifty-two.
  2. Poland, Hungary, USSR, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, South Africa, Singapore, Maldive Islands, Vietnam, Syria, India, FRG, Burma, France, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Finland, Iran, Thailand, Malaysia, Libya, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Bolivia and Brazil.

War Crimes (Question No. 4215)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 6 June:

  1. 1 ) Can he say whether a statute of limitations will prevent the prosecution of alleged war criminals and those accused of crimes during the Hitler period in the Federal Republic of Germany after 3 1 December 1979.
  2. Has the Australian Government expressed any views to the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on this matter; if not, will it do so.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a question on this matter asked by Senator Wheeldon in the Senate on 8 May 1978 (see Senate Hansard, 6 June 1 979, page 28 1 5 ).

Issue of Passport to Sir John Pagan (Question No. 4224)

Mr James:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 6 June 1979:

Further to his answer to my question No. 3957 (Hansard, 5 June 1979, page 2958), what type of passport does Sir John Pagan, Federal President of the Liberal Party hold and when was it issued.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

Sir John Pagan holds an ordinary passport issued on 23 August 1978.

Migratory Birds (Question No. 3500)

Mr Cohen:

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

  1. 1 ) Did Australia and Japan sign an Agreement for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction and their Environment at Tokyo on 6 February 1 975?
  2. Did Japan ratify the Agreement on 18 April 1974?
  3. Has Australia yet ratified the Agreement? If not, why not?
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. No: The Agreement was signed at Tokyo on 6 February 1974.
  2. A bilateral agreement, such as the present one, is normally ratified by the exchange of ratification instruments between the parties at an agreed time. The Australian Government was informed by the Japanese Government that it had completed by 18 April 1974 all requirements necessary to enable it to proceed to ratification.
  3. The Agreement deals mainly with matters for which the States traditionally have had responsibility. All of the States and the Northern Territory have been invited in the first instance to legislate as appropriate to implement the obligations imposed by the Agreement. Once any necessary legislation has been passed, ratification can take place. The Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Attorney-General’s Department will be liaising with the States, the Northern Territory and other appropriate authorities on this matter.

Elections in Uganda (Question No. 4031)

Mr Dobie:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 28 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Can he state what general elections have taken place in the Republic of Uganda since its establishment as an independent country within the Commonwealth of Nations in 1962.
  2. If so, what percentage of the electorate voted and was there a genuine choice of candidates from differing political parties at each election.
  3. 3 ) When did Australia establish diplomatic relations with that country.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) No general elections have taken place in the Republic of Uganda since its establishment as an independent country within the Commonwealth of Nations in October 1962. (There was a general election earlier in 1962 prior to independence which saw Dr Milton Obote ‘s Uganda People’s Congress/Kabaka Yekka alliance elected to power. Three parties contested this election ).
  2. ) See answer to ( 1 ).
  3. Australia established diplomatic relations with Uganda in 1965.

Outer Space: Legal Sub Committee (Question No. 4013)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 May 1979:

What are the legal aspects of concern to Australia regarding nuclear power sources in space, as raised by Mr F. P. Nolan, the Australian representative on the Legal Sub Committee of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, at its meeting in April 1 979.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

At the 18th Session of the Legal Sub-Committee of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, the Australian Delegation supported a Canadian proposal that an item entitled ‘Legal Aspects of the Uses of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space’ should be included in the agenda of the Sub-Committee’s next session. The Canadian proposal indicated four aspects worthy of further consideration:

) further development of the existing outer space legal regime to require the launching State to provide notification prior to the launching of a satellite carrying a nuclear power source;

b) elaboration of an obligation to provide early warning of a possible re-entry or malfunctioning of a satellite containing a nuclear power source;

requests for emergency assistance from other States, including the launching State; and

the question of how acceptable radiation exposure levels could be incorporated into a legal regime.

Officials will be further considering legal aspects of the use of nuclear power sources in outer space in an effort to identify those points of concern to Australia.

Overseas Training Mission (Question No. 4258)

Mr Young:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the anticipated cost of the overseas training study mission by members of the National Training Council announced by mm on 3 March 1979.
  2. In which division of his Department is Mr K. J. Fitzgerald, the mission leader, a First Assistant Secretary.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. $50,000.
  2. ) Mr FC. J. Fitzgerald undertook the mission in his role as acting First Assistant Secretary, Manpower Development and Operations No. 1 Division and Executive Director of the National Training Council.

Transfer of Departmental Sections to Canberra (Question No. 4233)

Mr Bryant:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 6 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is it planned to transfer the Manpower and Programs Policy Division, Manpower and Industry Studies Division, Management Services Division and the Women’s Bureau and Employment Discrimination Section of the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs to Canberra.
  2. What is the schedule for the transfer and how many officers are involved.
  3. Will the move from the industrial centre of Melbourne to the non-industrial area of Canberra be to the advantage of the efficiency of these departmental elements. If so, in what way.
  4. What studies have been carried out on the social impact of these moves on the families involved.
  5. What steps have been taken to ensure that there will be employment available for all the young people not employed in the public service transferring with their families.
  6. In respect of the persons referred to in part (5), (a) how many are involved, (b) in what age groups are they and (c) what employment is available for them in Canberra.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. to (6) The Department of Employment and Youth Affairs is drawing up a proposal to transfer certain Central Office departmental elements from Melbourne to Canberra. The elements for transfer and the program schedule are subject to consideration by the Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Location of Australian Government Employment.

Employment: Advertising Campaign (Question No. 4262)

Mr Young:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June 1 979:

What sum will the Government spend on the advertising campaign to encourage employers to employ Special Youth Employment Training Program trainees as announced by him on 29 April 1979.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

An estimated $ 1 00,000.

Medical Fees: Bulk-billing (Question No. 3888)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) What was the cost to the Government of the bulkbilling provisions applicable to (a) persons classed as disadvantaged and (b) eligible pensioners, in the 6 months from I November 1978.
  2. How many persons were involved in each category referred to in pan ( I ).
  3. What are the most often quoted reasons by medical practitioners for classing persons as disadvantaged.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

My Department, in conjunction with the Australian Medical Association, is at present reviewing the revised bulk billing arrangements now that they have been in operation for more than six months. I am expecting a full report on the matter in the near future and I would expect it to comment on such matters as cost and patient utilisation. In the meantime, the following information is available in answer to the honourable member’s questions:

1 ) (a) The cost to the Government of the bulk billing provisions applicable to persons classed as disadvantaged, in the period 1 November 1 978 to 30 April 1979 was $9.0m.

The cost to the Government of the bulk billing provisions applicable to eligible pensioners in the same period was $60.8m.

Statistics are not yet available on the number of persons receiving benefit in either of the above categories. However, I can provide the honourable member with particulars in respect of the number of services rendered to these persons.

  1. There is no requirement for medical practitioners to state the reasons for determining patients as disadvantaged.

Campaign against Alcohol Abuse (Question No. 3908)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 9 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a report on page 7 of the Australian of 8 May 1979 that the United States of America Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Mr Joseph Califano, has launched a national campaign against alcohol abuse with a counselling and referral service in his own department which has about one problem drinker for every 1 8 staff members.
  2. ) If so, will he give a similar lead in Australia to improve his Department’s efficiency and decrease the costs of alcohol abuse in terms of public expenditure and private suffering.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes.
  2. I do not believe it likely that alcohol presents any more, or any less, of a problem within my Department than in other Commonwealth Departments or in the community in general.

The Director-General of Health, as the occupational health authority in respect of Commonwealth employees, issued a statement on Commonwealth Occupational Health Policy on Alcohol and Drug Dependence in November 1978. This statement supplements Guidelines for Handling Problems of Alcohol Misuse in the Australian Public Service, also issued in November 1978, by the Public Service Board. These Guidelines are intended to assist departments and authorities to develop policies and procedures in the identification and sympathetic and effective handling of staff affected by alcohol misuse.

I see these initiatives as making a positive contribution to the management of problems associated with alcohol abuse within the Australian Public Service.

National Acoustic Laboratories- Reports (Question No. 3779)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Has there been a delay in processing and reporting on data collected by the National Acoustic Laboratories (NAL); if so, to what does he attribute these delays.
  2. What reports commissioned in the last 3 years have not been completed by NAL.
  3. What are the reasons for the delay or failure to complete each of the reports.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. The delays can be attributed to a number of factors:

    1. Staffing. The two sections involved with requests for noise testing have a combined approved establishment of 1 3 positions. However, the staff ceiling applied to the Laboratory overall, following careful evaluation of laboratory priorities, has necessitated reductions in staffing to an effective level of 9 officers in these areas. Action is being taken to make two further officers available for this work.
    2. Complexity. The complexity of investigations of noise problems has increased.
    3. Increase in Requests. There has recently been an increase in requests for noise investigation, particularly due to a greater awareness of noise hazards. In many cases an organisation which requests an investigation is made aware that such investigations can only be completed as resources permit. Occasionally some requests are given priority. Currently the estimation of noise levels on RAAF bases is a priority so as to assist the Department of Defence to meet its deadlines.
    4. Consultancy. The necessary provision of an acoustical consultancy for the new NAL/Ultrasonics Institute Laboratory Building is placing additional pressure on the noise section of the NAL central laboratory.

  2. As at 21 May 1979 the following projects remain uncompleted:

Department of Defence- Hearing conservation surveys RAAF Bases- Edinburgh, East Sale, Laverton, Amberley, Townsville, Butterworth, Richmond, Fairbairn, Wagga Wagga and depots at Kingswood, Regents Park and Villawood. .

Department of Defence- Estimates of aircraft noise for building siting and design at RAAF Bases- Pearce, East Sale, Richmond and N.A.S. Nowra.

Department of Defence- Environmental noise, Holsworthy.

Australian Army- Environmental noise from Hornsby Rifle Range.

Department of Defence- Noise survey in HMAS Melbourne.

Department of Defence- Building attenuation measurement at HMA S Nirimba.

Department of Defence-Noise survey of Puckapunyal Workshop Company.

Department of Defence (Navy)- Assessment of office noise, Aircraft Maintenance and Repair Branch, Garden Island.

Department of Defence (Navy)-Noise measurements in an audiometric booth, Area Medical Centre, Garden Island.

Australian Army- Advise on noise control- Watercraft Workshops, Woolwich.

Public Service Board- Assessment of noise levels in Mandata Computer Centre.

Reserve Bank of Australia- Assessment of noise levels of encoding equipment.

Australian Taxation Office- Noise reduction in form handling and printing rooms.

Technical College, Canberra- Assessment of noise in trade workshops.

Canberra Hospital, Canberra- Assessment of noise in laundry and sterilizing service.

Department of Productivity- Advise on noise reduction at the Australian Government aircraft plant, Bankstown.

Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics- Assessment of noise in survey aircraft.

Australian National Line- Advise on ear protection required during cargo operations. ANRO AUSTRALIA.

Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia)- Assessment of office noise, O.T.C. House, Sydney.

Bureau of Customs- Hearing conservation survey, Cairns Airport.

Department of Productivity- Advise on noise problems in the automatic screw machines section, Lithgow Small Arms Factory.

Department of Social Security- Assessment of noise in workshops at Queen Elizabeth II Rehabilitation Centre.

Department of Primary Industry- Advise on computer noise levels.

Department of Transport- Aircraft Noise Social Survey.

Bureau of Census and Statistics, Adelaide- Assessment of noise in computer room.

Department of Social Security, Perth- Assessment of noise of office machinery.

A great deal of the work has been completed on many of these projects. In addition a further 20 were completed this financial year, II were completed in 1977-78 and 28 in 1976-77.

  1. ) It is not feasible to detail reasons for delays in each report but, in addition to the factors mentioned in ( 1 ) in some cases the commissioning authority has been required to provide additional data to NAL.

Conservation Status of Wetland Areas (Question No. 3477)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 21 March 1979:

  1. Have any State Governments requested Commonwealth assistance for the assessment of the conservation status of wetland areas.
  2. If so, what action has been taken or is proposed to meet these requests.
  3. Has the CSIRO proposed the establishment of a national wetlands survey; if so, has any progress been made in implementing such a proposal.
  4. What decisions or recommendations relating to the conservation status of wetland areas, have been formulated at meetings of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers in the last S years.
  5. What action has been taken, or is proposed, by the Commonwealth as a consequence of any decisions or recommendations.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) State Governments, through the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (CONCOM) have been involved in the development and assessment of a National Wetlands Survey for over five years. In 1974-75 Commonwealth funds were provided to Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales to support pilot projects. CONCOM at its meetings in August 1978 and April 1979 strongly endorsed the need for a national wetlands survey conducted in co-operation between the States, Territories and the Commonwealth and urged the Commonwealth Government to provide funds to initiate the survey.
  2. The Commonwealth Government is sympathetic to the desirability of a national wetlands survey and is currently seeking advice as to the likely availability of funds for initiating the survey.
  3. CSIRO did not propose the national wetlands survey but with funding provided by the former Department of Environment was engaged in 1975 to undertake a feasibility study to determine how a National Wetlands Survey could best be conducted. CSIRO provided a feasibility study report to CONCOM in 1976. The proposals were not implemented because of cost, lack of agreement on a national approach and differences of opinion on the extent to which a national survey should concentrate on the aquatic fauna or the total wetlands ecosystem. CSIRO Land Use Research Division completed a further feasibility study in 1 978, which Standing Committee of CONCOM endorsed.
  4. The concept of a National Wetlands Survey was conceived in 1973 by the Australian Fauna Authorities Conference (precursor to CONCOM). The first stage of the National Wetlands Survey was initiated in 1 974-75 through the former Department of Environment, when $ 100,000 was allocated for this purpose.

At its third meeting in August 1975 CONCOM, reviewed the progress of the National Wetlands Survey. In November 1976, at its fifth meeting, CONCOM accepted the view of Standing Committee that the Ecological and Wetlands Survey proposals submitted by the CSIRO in February 1 976 did not meet the immediate needs of nature conservation agencies but should be considered as the framework for a broader Australian land inventory. At its seventh meeting in August 1978, CONCOM noted the final reports by CSIRO on the feasibility study for a national wetlands survey, and accepted the view of Standing Committee that such a survey was an important conservation objective. At its eighth meeting in April 1979, CONCOM again strongly endorsed the need for a national wetlands survey conducted in co-operation between the States, Territories and the Commonwealth and urged the Commonwealth Government to provide funds to initiate the survey.

  1. The Commonwealth Government, in recognition of its specific responsibilities is taking action for conservation of wetlands in a number of fields:

    1. The extensive coastal wetlands incorporated in Kakadu National Park will be protected in accordance with a plan of management for the park.
    2. The management and conservation of that part of Towra Point in NSW acquired by the Commonwealth Government and containing wetlands of international importance will be subject to negotiations with NSW authorities.
    3. The Australian Heritage Commission which lies within the portfolio of the Minister for Home Affairs has advised that it has proposed for inclusion on the Register of the National Estate a number of significant wetland areas in all States and that the Government has provided funds through the National Estate Grants Program to identify wetlands of scientific and conservation significance.
    4. CSIRO, through its Division of Land Use Research, is engaged in preliminary studies for the production of an Australia-wide map on the distribution of wetlands and a study on the hydrological aspects of wetlands.
    5. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation has announced an inquiry into Coastal Zone Management in Australia.

Hire of DC9 Simulator (Question No. 3868)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 May 1979.

  1. 1 ) For what reason was contract PTB23, for the hire of DC9 simulator time from TAA referred to on page 97 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 24 April 1979 (G 16), awarded.
  2. What is the duration of the contract.
  3. ) Who will make use of the simulator time and for what purpose.
  4. On what basis are contracts for such simulator hire awarded.
  5. Have similar contracts been let in the past; if not, for what reason is it necessary to commence the calling of tenders now.
  6. ) Who were the unsuccessful tenderers for the contract.
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The DC9 simulator was hired in accordance with the Department’s safety surveillance program, which requires Examiners of Airmen to maintain proficiency on the various types of regular public transport aircraft.
  2. 2 ) Total training time under this contract was 5 hours.
  3. The simulator time will be used by one of the Examiners of Airmen, of the Regular Public Transport Branch, whose duties are concerned with the oversight of DC9 operations in Australia.
  4. Trans Australia Airlines operate the only simulator of this specific aircraft type in Australia. Because calling of tenders is impracticable, contracts for DC9 simulator time are awarded to TAA in accordance with the provisions of Finance Regulation S2AA(4).
  5. Yes.
  6. Nil.

Hire of DHC 6 Aircraft (Question No. 3867)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 May 1 979.

  1. 1 ) For what purposes will the DHC 6 aircraft being hired under Contract OTB22 referred to on page 97 of Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 14 April 1 979 (G 16) be used.
  2. What is the duration of the contract.
  3. 3 ) Who is to operate the aircraft.
  4. Were the tasks to be performed by the DHC 6 aircraft previously carried out by a similar aircraft type; if not, why not.
  5. 5 ) What are the terms of payment of the contract.
  6. Who were the unsuccessful competitors for the contract.
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The DHC 6 aircraft was hired in accordance with the Department’s safety surveillance program, which requires Examiners of Airmen to maintain proficiency on the various types of regular public transport aircraft.
  2. Total flying time under this contract was three hours.
  3. 3 ) The flying time will be used by one of the Examiners of Airmen of the Regular Public Transport Branch whose duties are concerned with the oversight of DHC 6 operations by domestic airlines.
  4. As indicated in (2) above, this contract involved only ad hoc short-term hire.
  5. Payment in full, nett, following receipt of the contractor’s claim for payment and completion/certification of flying time.
  6. Nil. Trans Australia Airlines is the only Regular Public Transport operator of this specific type in Queensland.

Board of Qantas (Question No. 3649)

Mr James:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice on 4 Aprii 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Does he intend to nominate a replacement for Harry M. Miller on the Board of Qantas.
  2. ) If so, when may an announcement be expected.
  3. ) If not, does he intend to re-appoint Mr Miller depending on the outcome of legal proceedings.
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. ) The matter is at present under consideration and I am not in a position to say when an announcement may be made.
  3. Not applicable.

Tarcoola/Alice Springs Railway Line (Question No. 4145)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 4 June 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Will the Tarcoola/Alice Springs standard gauge railway be completed by the end of 1 980.
  2. If so, will the Australian National Railways run regular passenger services on that line to replace the historic

Ghan passenger service now operating on the existing narrow gauge line to Alice Springs.

Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government’s recent decision to accelerate the construction program should allow the line to be completed in November 1980.
  2. The Australian National Railways will inaugurate passenger services on the standard gauge line to Alice Springs when construction is completed.

Qantas Flights (Question No. 3699)

Mr Jull asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 May 1979:

1 ) How many Qantas services are operating from Brisbane to London each week during April 1 979 on the Kangaroo route and how many were operating each week during February 1979.

If there has been a reduction, what are the reasons in light of the demand for Apex fares to London from Brisbane.

Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In April Qantas operated one service via Sydney to London and another with a connection to a Qantas flight in Singapore each week. The same situation existed during February. There has been no reduction in services offered to Brisbane passengers.
  2. Not applicable.

Hire of B727 Simulator Time (Question No. 3872)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) For what reason was contract 3 1 /2/399, for the hire of B727 simulator time from Ansett Airlines of Australia, referred to on page 98 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 24 April 1979 (G16), awarded.
  2. Who will make use of the simulator time and for what purpose.
  3. 3 ) What is the duration of the contract.
  4. Have similar contracts been let in the past; if not, for what reason is it necessary to commence the calling of tenders now.
  5. 5 ) On what basis was this contract let to Ansett Airlines of Australia.
  6. Who were the unsuccessful tenderers for contract 31/2/399.
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The B727 simulator was hired in accordance with the Department’s safety surveillance program, which requires Examiners of Airmen to maintain proficiency on the various types of regular public transport aircraft.
  2. The simulator time will be used by three of the Examiners of Airmen, of the Regular Public Transport Branch, whose duties are concerned with the oversight of B727 operations in Australia.
  3. Total training time under this contract was twelve hours.
  4. Yes.
  5. 5 ) Ansett Airlines of Australia operate the only simulator of this aircraft type in Australia. Because calling of tenders is impracticable, contracts for B727-200 series simulator time are awarded to AAA in accordance with the provisions of Finance Regulation 52AA (4).
  6. Nil. 1978-79 Estimates (Question No. 3152)
Dr Klugman:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did the Speaker and the President of the Senate write to him saying that in the light of recent experience in the settlement of the 1978-79 Estimates of the Parliament, they now must conclude that the existing working relationship has done little to protect the rights of the Parliament, that discussions with the Presiding Officers did not occur, that queries raised by the Minister for Finance by letter in respect of the House of Representatives, the Parliamentary Library, Joint House and Hansard, were answered by the Presiding Officers fully and with clear re-statement of Parliamentary needs and priorities, without effect, and that in most cases these priorities were rejected by officials of the Department of Finance, it seems, without further consideration by Government.
  2. Did the Presiding Officers’ letter also state that it is totally inconsistent with a proper relationship between the Executive and Parliament that the Presiding Officers’ needs and priorities be questioned to the extent and in the manner recently evident, that they then be rejected, and replaced by the judgment of Government officials which are further communicated, often indirectly, to the Parliament’s Presiding Officers in a manner suggesting indifference to the Parliamentary viewpoint.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Presiding Officers did write to me in the light of experience in the settlement of the 1 978-79 Estimates of the Parliament, the final provisions of which were determined by the Government. The Government has always been concerned to ensure that the Parliament receives adequate funds and I have now replied to the Presiding Officers concerning the matters raised in their correspondence.

Estimates: Reduction in Expenditure (Question No. 3151)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Prime Minister upon notice, on 20 February 1 979:

Did Mr Speaker complain to him regarding the reduction by the Government of the House of Representatives estimates for Standing and Select Committees, Division 102-2-05, from $124,600 to $51,600, and did Mr Speaker state the issue as being the whole question of the Executive’s ability, through funds control, to frustrate the Parliament’s capacity to inquire into executive action.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to my answer to his question No. 3152.

Cost of Maternity Leave Allowance (Question No. 3964)

Mr Burns:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 May 1979:

How much did maternity leave allowance cost (a) the Public Service and (b) Commonwealth statutory bodies during (i) 1972-73, (ii) 1973-74, (iii) 1974-75, (iv) 1975-76, (v) 1976-77, (vi) 1977-78 and (vii) the period 1 July 1978 to 30 April 1979.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. The Public Service Board has informed me that the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Act which provides paid maternity leave for Commonwealth public servants received Royal Assent on 18 June 1973 and the Act contained provision for retrospective payments for maternity leave absences since 1 January 1973. The Board, however, does not have information on the numbers of women taking paid maternity leave in the period 1 January to 30 June 1973.

The administration of the Act is decentralised, so that precise cost figures are not readily available. However for PublicService Act employees the Board has provided the following cost estimates:

  1. To obtain information on the cost of Maternity Leave in Commonwealth statutory bodies during this period would require examination of decentralised personnel records within each of a large number of authorities. Allocation of resources for this task is not considered warranted.

I have been advised that since 1 July 1975, when the Australian Telecommunications Commission and the Australian Postal Commission were established and the staff removed from the Public Service Act, it could be expected that the total cost of maternity leave for the non-Public Service Act area of Commonwealth employment would be of roughly the same order as for the Public Service Act staff as set out in (a) above.

Opinion Polls (Question No. 3752)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) How many opinion polls or surveys have been commissioned or carried out by the Department of Education in each year from 1975 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 Staley:
LP

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

  1. I ) and (2) In the course of developing and administering the various educational programs for which it is responsible, my Department consistently seeks the views and advice of educational authorities, expert consultants, professional organisations and educational interest groups. In a broad sense, the informed views of these groups help the Department to determine prevailing public attitudes and opinions, and to take these into account. it has not, however, been my Depart ment ‘s practice either to conduct itself or commission outside bodies to undertake opinion polls in the more limited sense, e.g., seeking reactions from sample groups by the use of door-to-door canvassing and similar methods.

Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (Question No. 3916)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 9 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme beneficiaries in each State have been prosecuted for failure to comply with Student Assistance Regulations 85 ( 1 ) ( a ).
  2. Are all students failing to comply prosecuted: if not. what criteria are used to determine whether prosecutions will take place.
  3. Is it a fact that Commonwealth Police are the agents used in prosecutions.
  4. What information is made available to the Police in carrying out prosecutions.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. Regulation 85 ( 1 ) (a) of the Student Assistance Act 1 973 requires a beneficiary to notify the Department of Education within seven days if he discontinues any part of the approved course he is undertaking and provides a penalty for failure to do so. Between 15 October 1974 when this Regulation became effective and 31 May 1979 the 1979 the following numbers of former TEAS beneficiaries have been prosecuted for failure to comply with this particular provision.
  1. No. Prosecution action is only initiated under Regulations 85 ( I ) (a) if there has been a significant delay in notifying the Department of the discontinuation, and a significant overpayment has occurred us a result of the recipient continuing to accept and negotiate cheques after he has ceased to bc entitled to them.
  2. Yes. Where it appears that an offence may have been committed under the Student Assistance Act and Regulations or the Crimes Act in the receipt of student assistance benefits, the matter is referred to the Commonwealth Police for investigation and the preparation of a report for further consideration by the Department and the Deputy Crown Solicitor.
  3. The Commonwealth Police arc only provided with information necessary for their investigations.

Electoral Division of Scullin: Schools (Question No. 4 172)

Dr Jenkins:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 5 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) Which State and private schools in the Electoral Division of Scullin have received Commonwealth grants during each of the years 1970-71 to 1978-79.
  2. For each school what was (a) the sum received, (b) the purpose for which the grant was made and (c) the fund from which the grant was paid.
Mr Staley:
LP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:

It is not possible to provide information in respect of payments to individual government schools except in relation to grants made under the Special Projects (Innovations) Program and the Disadvantaged Schools Program of the Schools Commission. The Commonwealth Government provides bulk funding to the Victorian Government for Government schools program to disburse on a needs basis as it sees fit.

Funds for non-government schools in the Electoral Division of Scullin in the period in question are made available under programs administered by the Department of Education and the Schools Commission:

Programs administered by the Department of Education: Funds administered by the Department of Education were made available under the following acts:

States Grants (Science Laboratories) Act 1971; States Grants (Independent Schools) Act 1969; States Grants (Secondary Schools Libraries) Act 1971; States Grants (Schools ) Act 1 972.

Payments made under these acts are set out in reports which were tabled in the Senate on the dates listed below:

States Grants (Science Laboratories) Act 1971: 27 October 1972; 12 December 1973; 28 October 1975; 4 May 1976.

States Grants (Independent Schools) Act 1969: 13 December 1972; 12 March 1974; 5 December 1974.

States Grants (Secondary Schools Libraries) Act 1971: 17 May 1972; 3 April 1973; 23 July 1974; 29 May 1975.

States Grants (Schools) Act 1972: 12 November 1974.

Programs administered by the Schools Commission:

Payments for 1974-1978 are set out in my reply to Question No 1044 asked by Senator Button (Senate Hansard, 21 February 1979, pages 144-147).

Information in respect of 1 979 is set out in the table below:

Innovations Grants paid to other organisations in electorate:

Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (Question No. 3597)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 28 March 1979.

  1. ) What criteria are used to formulate the Adjusted Family Income rate for the calculation of the living allowance under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme.
  2. When was this rate last adjusted and by what percentage.
  3. Is this rate adjusted (a) regularly and (b) to take into consideration such things as the national wage adjustments.
  4. Is there any additional concession made for country children, who generally have greater distances to travel to attend a tertiary institution and who therefore of necessity have to obtain board, similar to the assistance given for isolated primary and secondary schoolchildren.
  5. If not, why is there special assistance for isolated primary and secondary schoolchildren but not for tertiary students.
Mr Staley:
LP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) Maximum living allowances under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme are payable where the Adjusted Family Income of the student’s parents does not exceed $8,700. This rate is known as the Marginal Adjusted Family Income (MAFI). For Adjusted Family Incomes in excess of the MAFI the maximum allowance is reduced by $2.50 for each $ 10 of additional income.
  2. The MAFI was increased for the 1978 academic year from $8,200 to $8,700, an increase of 6. 1 per cent.
  3. The MAFI is reviewed annually in the budget context in the light of movements in relevant indicators.
  4. and (5) All students who have to live away from home to undertake their courses at a tertiary institution are eligible for the higher ‘living away from home ‘ rate of allowance and for fares allowance. Country students would generally qualify for this concession. The maximum level of allowance for dependent students ‘living away from home’ for 1979 is $45.15 per week (including the transfer of family allowance). This compares with the maximum allowance of $29.28 per week (including the transfer of family allowance) for dependent students living ‘at home’. In addition, a fares allowance is paid for students living away from home to cover the cost of three return trips a year between the institution and the student’s home.

Universities in Western Australia

Mr Staley:
LP

-On 23 May 1979 (Hansard page 2246) Mr Dawkins asked the following question, without notice:

I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Education to recommendation 5.33 of the Williams Report, which states: . . that the Tertiary Education Commission discuss with the University of Western Australia and Murdoch University and the Western Australian PostSecondary Education Commission an integration of the activities of the two universities.

Can the Minister explain the inconsistency between that recommendation and the statement of the Prime Minister on 22 March in which he alleged that the report had suggested the merger of Murdoch University and the University of Western Australia? I am sure the Minister will understand the difference between the integration of activities and merger. Will the Minister take into account the strong educational arguments in favour of the maintenance of separate institutions and not compel the two universities to merge?

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

As the honourable member has pointed out, Recommendation 5.33 of the Williams Report uses the phrase ‘integration of activities’ rather than the word ‘merger’ which was used in the speeches in both Houses of Parliament when the Report was tabled. The relevant portion of the speeches was a brief summary of certain major themes in the Report and the use of a different word to describe the Recommendation in this context did not imply any pre-judgment of the issue. I would point out that the recommendation is not that the two universities in question be merged, integrated or amalgamated but merely that an integration of activities be discussed between relevant State and Commonwealth bodies.

This recommendation along with all other Williams Report recommendations will be considered by a Ministerial Committee set up for the purpose. The Committee will certainly take account of all arguments and representations which are relevant to the Recommendations and will have particular regard to the findings of the inquiry recently instituted by the Western Australian Government into the future of Murdoch University.

Australian Education Council (Question No. 3569)

Mr Humphreys:

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

  1. When will the reports be received from the (a) working party established by the Australian Educational Council meeting on 8 December 1978 to investigate the coordination of planning and administration between the Tertiary Education Commission and the States through either the provision of a direct State representative on the Commission or the establishment of more appropriate consultative arrangements, ( b ) working party of senior officers established by the Council meeting in Melbourne on 8 December 1978 to compile information on programs being undertaken or contemplated to facilitate the transition of young people from school to possible employment and to recommend the further development of such action by education authorities of the States and the Commonwealth and (c) working party established by the Council at its last meeting in Melbourne to examine the consultative arrangements and procedures including legislative provisions, governing the distribution of Commonwealth funds to the States through the Schools Commission.
  2. ) Is it a fact that a letter was sent to the Queensland Minister for Education by the Queensland Association of Academic Staff in Colleges of Advanced Education stating its opposition to what it refers to as a Commonwealth Government proposal to introduce shared funding for tertiary education.
  3. ) If so, what action has the Minister taken in this matter.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) The working party set up by the Australian Education Council to deal with tertiary education issues will hold its second meeting in June 1 979 and is expected to report to a special Council meeting to be held 28-29 June 1979. The latter meeting has been called primarily to examine the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training (the Williams Committee).

    1. The working party of senior officers established to compile information on the transition from school to work is expected to submit its report to the special meeting of the Australian Education Council referred to above.
    2. The working party dealing with the schools area reported to the February meeting of the Australian Education Council. It was agreed that consultative arrangements between the Schools Commission and State Education Departments would be strengthened, both in regard to the preparation of Commission reports and the administration of Commission programs. The Schools Commission is proceeding along these lines.
  2. I am aware that the Queensland Association of Academic Staff in Colleges of Advanced Education wrote to the Queensland Minister for Education expressing its opposition to the introduction of shared funding for tertiary education. The Commonwealth has made no such proposal.
  3. The Commonwealth is continuing its discussions with the States on possible improvements in co-operative arrangements across the whole field of education. Issues in tertiary education are expected to be discussed at the special June meeting of the Australian Education Council, when comments from the tertiary education working party (see 1 (a) above) are expected to be available. The Commonwealth will continue to exercise its national responsibilities in education by helping to ensure that the highest possible standards are maintained in institutions at all levels.

Commonwealth Pesticides Co-ordinator (Question No.4112)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 3 1 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the duty statement for the Commonwealth Pesticides Co-ordinator.
  2. When was the position created.
  3. Who is the present incumbent.
  4. ) What is the present salary.
  5. What are the qualifications of the-present incumbent.
  6. Who were the present incumbent’s previous employers in the 10 years immediately prior to this taking up his present position.
  7. How many other applicants were there for this position at the time of appointment of the present incumbent.
  8. 8 ) What is the public service grading for this position.
  9. What standing arrangements exist for liaison between the Coordinator and (a) other Commonwealth and State Departments whose programs overlap in the area of pesticide and herbicide usage and control and (b) the National Health and Medical Research Council.
  10. How often and at what level does liaison take place.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2), (3) and (6) See my reply to Question 3509.

  1. $23,646.

  2. The present incumbent’s qualifications and professional memberships are:

    1. Associate of Sydney Technical College
    2. b ) Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute
    3. Member, International Academy of Environmental Safety
    4. Counsellor, International Society of Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety
    5. Member, FAO Working Party of Experts on Pesticide Residues
    6. Member, Joint FAO/ WHO Meeting of Experts on Pesticide Residues
    7. Member, Australian Entomological Society
    8. h ) Member, Australian Society of Parisitology
    9. Member, Weeds Society of New South Wales.
  3. See(l).
  4. I am advised that there were 30 applicants for the position when advertised in early 1 967.
  5. Science 5 (Chemist) $22,349-$23,646.

  6. (a) Standing arrangements providing for Commonwealth/State liaison on matters concerning pesticides and herbicide usage and control are:

    1. The Co-ordinating Committee on Agricultural Chemicals and its subsidiaries, the Agricultural Chemicals Committee and the Technical Committee on Agricultural Chemicals (a further subsidiary is concerned with veterinary drugs);
    1. Australian Weeds Committee;
    2. Plant Pathology Committee;
    3. Entomology Committee;
    4. National Advisory Committee on Chemicals.

Committees listed in (i) to (iv) operate under the auspices of the Australian Agricultural Council. The Pesticides Coordinator is a member of the three committees listed under (i) and the Australian Weeds Committee. An officer from the Department of Primary Industry’s Pesticides Section, which the Pesticides Co-ordinator heads, is a member of the Plant Pathology Committee, and the Section maintains close liaison on pesticides issues with the Entomology Committee. The National Advisory Committee on Chemicals, on which an officer from the Pesticides Section serves as the Australian Agricultural Council’s nominee, operates under the Australian Environment Council.

  1. The current Pesticides Co-ordinator serves in an expert capacity on the Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals Sub-Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council. The Pesticides Section also maintains close liaison with the Council ‘s Poisons Schedule Committee. (10). The above-mentioned Committees generally meet formally at intervals varying from once to up to four times annually. The work of a number proceeds however on the basis of day-to-day contact and correspondence. Day-to-day liaison on issues concerning the usage and control of pesticides and herbicides also takes place outside the Committee arrangements.

Rain Damaged Wheat (Question No. 3963)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 May 1 979:

Further to his answer to Question No. 3363 (Hansard, 8 May 1979, page 1975) when the remaining four temporary sites in Victoria have been cleared will he advise of the amount of wheat which has been rain affected at each dump.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

The last four of the seven open wheat storage sites in Victoria have now been cleared of stocks. Amended figures for rain damaged wheat for the three sites referred to in the answer to Question No. 3363 are now available. Final figures for each of the seven sites are as follows:

Jojoba Beans (Question No. 3840)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 3 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the significance of jojoba beans in producing oil products similar to those derived from whale oils.
  2. If so, to what extent is the jojoba bean being grown in Australia.
  3. What action is being taken to promote it as a cash crop.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. State Departments of Agriculture and the CSIRO are conducting research into the potential for jojoba bean production under Australian conditions. There have been small experimental plantings of jojoba in all mainland States and the Northern Territory. There have also been small plantings by private individuals and companies. Statistical data are not available.
  3. The information presently available does not indicate that jojoba can be established as a commercially viable crop in the short term. The plant is still undomesticated and a good deal of research will be necessary before it can be regarded as a one suited to Australian conditions. Work is being done, however, on numerous aspects including seed selection, planting, harvesting, weed and disease control. <-

A further consideration in the potential for development of jojoba as a commercial crop is that the present market for sperm whale oil is small by agricultural standards and there are already alternative products, other than jojoba, being substituted for both the purposes for which sperm whale oil is used and the wide variety of other purposes for which jojoba could be used. At this stage unknown factors include probable growth in world production, the costs of that production and the extent to which jojoba will be able to compete with these alternative products. Research results to date indicate that prospects of stability of production under Australian conditions cannot be expected to be known before the late 1980s.

Foreign Fishing Vessels: Taking of Clams (Question No. 4102)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 3 1 May 1979:

Are clams of the genus Tridacna protected in Australian waters: if so, what measures are being taken to halt the poaching of approximately 1 million clams annually by overseas fishermen.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

The taking of clams in Australian waters is prohibited under the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968.

Considerable efforts are being made to halt the taking of clams by foreign fishing vessels.

A primary surveillance effort is provided by air and surface units of the Defence forces.

In addition privately owned aircraft are chartered to search the area between Geraldton (WA) and Cairns (Qld).

Surveillance is also undertaken by units from the Commonwealth Departments of Business and Consumer Affairs (Bureau of Customs), CSIRO, and Transport. This effort is supplemented by reports from volunteer coast watchers and other sources such as fishermen, merchant ships, lighthouse keepers, pilots of civil aircraft.

The Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry also charters privately owned fishing vessels to follow-up sightings and to apprehend foreign fishing vessels.

A considerable amount of success has been achieved with these charters. Since December 1978 eight Taiwanese clam boats have been apprehended and charged with taking clams whilst in Australian waters. Penalties imposed by the courts have been heavy and normally include fines and forfeiture of vessel, catch and gear to the Commonwealth.

In the most recent apprehension, that of the Yi Mang Chai, the magistrate imposed fines totalling over $2 1 ,000 on the master and crew. Vessel, catch and gear were also forfeited. In addition the master was sentenced to 3 months hard labour in an Australian prison.

Queensland: Legislation (Question No. 4221)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 6 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs recommending legislation to support each specific community in Queensland wishing to achieve selfmanagement because co-operation is unlikely from the Queensland Government to discharge Australia’s obligations to indigenous peoples.
  2. Will the Minister assure the House that the recommended legislation is being prepared and that no further dilution, equivocation or delay will be tolerated in awarding control of (a) traditional land, (b) appointment of administrators, (c) the setting of funding priorities and (d) the type, style and structure of community administration to democratically chosen representatives of the indigenous community concerned in each case.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Government is proceeding in accordance with the motion passed by the Senate in its debate on the Report on 5 April 1979.

Patents (Question No. 4002)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 24 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that less than IS per cent of patent applications of Australian origin are lodged by relatively large businesses and that most of the remainder are lodged by relatively small businesses; if so, will he include a representative of the relatively small business sector on the Industrial Property Advisory Committee.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to the commercial importance of the very large number of inventions which arc made which do not contain the quantum for a full patent; if so, will he rectify the position by adopting the recommendation of the Franki Committee and vary the quantum of invention required for a petty patent.
  3. Having regard to a change of practice of the Patents Office following a Court decision and a Patent Office decision with respect to applications for extension of time, will he take action to make section 160 of the Patents Act again available to applicants who might otherwise lose valuable industrial property rights due to reasons which may be beyond their control.
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is true that of the patent applications of Australian origin which initially or ultimately have a complete specification associated therewith, less than 1 S per cent are lodged by relatively large companies. What percentage of the remainder are lodged by small business or by individual inventors cannot be ascertained from figures kept by the Patent Office, since firms and partnerships as distinct from companies are not permitted by the Patents Act to apply for patents in their own name, but only in the name or names of the individual owner or partners.

The Industrial Property Advisory Committee as presently constituted comprises people expert in industrial property with either professional or industry background. The original Cabinet approval for the establishment of the Committee set out the number of long-term members. These members have all been appointed. I am reluctant at this time to increase the long-term membership of the Committee for reasons of financial restraints. 1 would however expect that in the future there will be a need for short-term appointments to the Committee where a particular reference would require the views of persons in small business and consumer groups. When such occurs consideration will be given to the shortterm appointment of a member from the small business sector.

  1. The Franki Committee made considerable efforts to discover whether there was a significant number of articles which were not capable of patent or design protection, or which were not adequately protected by existing industrial property legislation, and which merited adequate protection. The Committee found that there was no significant gap in the protection available in Australia. The Franki Committee considered and in fact rejected any approach to vary the quantum of invention required for a petty patent and this is clear from paragraph 27 and section 3 of the Franki Committee Report.

I therefore see no reason at this time to take any action in this regard. The operation of the petty patent legislation will however be monitored with a view to possible modification in the light of practical experience of the effects of the legislation.

  1. The question of effective provisions for the granting of extensions of time under section 160 of the Patents Act is under consideration by officers of my Department. The Patent Office has initiated discussions with interested organisations, in particular the Institute of Patent Attorneys of Australia and the Australian Manufacturers Patents, Industrial Designs, Copyright and Trade Mark Association, with a view to reviewing all extensions of time and restoration provisions of the Patents Act and Regulations, and has requested the views of those organisations. When those views have been presented and discussions are completed, 1 expect to seek Cabinet approval for the introduction of appropriate amending legislation.

War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal (Question No. 3328)

Dr Klugman:

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

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the findings in the annual report of the No. 4 War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal that Departmental files relating to a particular claimant are not prepared until an appeal to an Appeal Tribunal has been lodged and that it is usually too short a period to permit the production of a supporting medical opinion at the hearing.
  2. If so, and given the Tribunal’s concern that contrary medical opinions are not usually put forward until after the Repatriation Commission has given a decision on the preliminary appeal and that consequently Departmental medical opinion tends to become more rigid and partisan than is consistent with the spirit of section 48 of the Repatriation Act, has he taken action to ensure that the right to appeal is exercised more consistently with the objectives of Repatriation legislation.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. The report referred to by the honourable member actually states that ‘summaries of Departmental files relating to a particular claimant are not prepared until an appeal to an Appeal Tribunal has been lodged’. Summaries are prepared from Departmental files which are already in existence. There is no point in preparing a summary until an appeal has been lodged.

If, after an adverse decision by the Repatriation Commission, an appellant to an Entitlement Appeal Tribunal decides to put forward further medical evidence and finds that there is insufficient time between his receipt of the summary of evidence provided by the Appeal Tribunal and the date of the hearing for him to obtain the further evidence, it is the normal practice for a Tribunal to grant an adjournment of 28 days to enable that f Further evidence to be obtained.

  1. As explained above this is not so. Nor is there a Departmental medical opinion as such, as the medical officers who write opinions for consideration by the determining authorities are required by section 48 of the Repatriation Act to express their own opinions. The medical officers who advise the Repatriation Commission when further evidence is referred to the Tribunal, are not the same medical officers who deal with the initial claims and each case is considered by the Commission and its medical advisors on its merits.

There is no evidence that Departmental medical opinion tends to become more rigid or partisan than is consistent with section 48 of the Repatriation Act. I can assure the Honourable Member that the Repatriation Act itself states clearly the philosophy behind the handling of claims and this is well known to all members of Repatriation determining authorities including Entitlement Appeal Tribunals and the Repatriation Commission and its advisers.

Opinion Polls (Question No. 3769)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Productivity, 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 1975 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 Macphee:
LP

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

  1. 1975-one, 1976-one. Conducted by Working Environment Division of the Department of Productivity prior to the formation of the Department. 1977- five. 1978- eight. 1979-five. Total-twenty.

Of the twenty, two are incomplete.

  1. (a) See table.

    1. See table.
    2. Where outside organisations were engaged the costs incurred are indicated in the table. In the cases where the surveys were made by the Department of Productivity all expenses were met from within the Department’s salary, travel and administrative votes. The duties performed in relation to the polls and surveys form a minor part of the functions carried out by the relevant areas. As no separate records were kept in relation to the performance of these tasks it is not possible to assess the cost.

Skills of Migrants (Question No. 3924)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 10 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many migrants who entered Australia during (a) 1976-77, (b) 1977-78 and (c) the period 1 July 1978 to 31 March 1979, were skilled (i) plumbers, (ii) carpenters and (iii) electricians.
  2. ) From which countries did these migrants come.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There are two sources of data on the occupation and skills of settler arrivals:

    1. Australian Bureau of Statistics data derived from occupation as stated by individual settlers on arrival. Only 1976-77 figures are available as yet.
    2. Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs data. These are based on evaluation of skills at the time of selection and hence provide a more reliable indicator of migrants’ skills than the self-description data used by ABS. However settlers from New Zealand are excluded from the figures as they do not require individual selection. DIEA figures are not readily available before 1977-78.

With this background, recorded settler arrivals of skilled plumbers, carpenters and electricians for the relevant periods were:

  1. Detailed information is available only from 1977-78 and using DIEA data. Figures on settler arrivals of skilled plumbers, carpenters and electricians by country of previous residence are as follows:

Australian Citizenship (Question No. 3814)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs upon notice, on 3 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many aliens 16 years of age and over are residen tiary qualified by virtue of 3 years’ residence in Australia to apply for the grant of Australian citizenship but have not done so.
  2. Is it yet possible to provide the same information about Commonwealth nationals from the 1976 Census (Hansard, 25 May 1977, page 1898 and 2 May 1978, page 1680).
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. ) The following table shows the estimated number of aliens 16 years of age and over who were residentially qualified by virtue of 3 years’ residence in Australia, to apply for the grant of Australian citizenship, but who had not done so as at 3 1 October 1978:
  1. It is not yet possible to provide the same information about Commonwealth nationals from the 1976 Census.

New Hebrides Lands (Question No. 3836)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Does Australia own, or has it owned, land in the New Hebrides; if so, how was it acquired.
  2. Has Australia disposed of its land; if so, when, how and to whom, and after what consultation with traditional owners.
  3. When will Australia return, or has it returned, New Hebrides territory to traditional owners.
  4. Can he say whether France or Great Britain has returned land to traditional owners; if so, when and on what terms.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) As pan of an agreement concluded in 1902 between the Australian Government and Burns Philp and Co. Ltd of Sydney, of which the greater part concerned the provision by the Company of a mail service between Sydney and the New Hebrides, the British Solomon Islands Protectorate and the Gilbert and Ellis Islands for a ten year period, the Company transferred the right of disposal of land in the New Hebrides, to which it held claims, to the Australian Minister for External Affairs. The Company thereafter acted as agents for the Australian Government in dealing with the lands.
  2. From 1969 the Australian Government began to review the transfer of the land to the New Hebrides. As no suitable Condominium authority then existed to receive the lands, discussions were held with the British authorities who agreed to establish a Land Trust Board in the New Hebrides, which would hold and use the lands in trust ‘for the benefit of the people of the New Hebrides’. The Board was set up in 1973 and on 3 December 1974 the Australian Government relinquished responsibility for its lands when it formally transferred the bulk of them to the Land Trust Board.

I might note that, separate from this transfer of the bulk of the land to the Lands Trust Board, parts of the former Australian land were transferred to Burns Philp and Co. Ltd. In 1971 two blocks totalling less than 1 acre in the town of Luganville on Santo were transferred to Burns Philp (one block provided access to its main store, the other to the company’s wharf). In 1974 two islands, totalling some 80 acres, oft” the coast of Santo Island, were transferred to the company, subject to existing leases, for tourist industry development. Other transfers of land may have occurred between 1902 and 1971 but the research required to identify each would be considerable. The transfers referred to above nevertheless cover the bulk of the land acquired in 1 902.

The Australian Government did not consult potential indigenous land owners on these land transfers (see also answer to Question 3).

  1. Questions of how and to whom amongst competing claimants the land should be transferred are matters for the Lands Trust Board. Action in this regard has been delayed for some years pending determination of general policy guidelines by a national authority and while funding was sought from the British Government for the Board to buy out the existing lease holders.
  2. The French Government has returned between 25,000 and 35,000 hectares of French state land claims to local communities, almost all on Santo Island. The land was returned through the French District Agents in consultation with the local communities concerned over the period 1973 to 1977. The British Government has held no land in the New Hebrides outside government blocks and District Agencies, therefore a question of return of British land has not arisen.

Staff Accommodation Costs (Question No. 3176)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21. February 1979:

What sums were paid for (a) hotel or other accommodation for him and his staff on official overseas trips and (b) the rent overseas of (i ) official offices and (ii ) domestic premises used by any member of his Department during the periods (A) II November 1975 to 30 June 1976, (B) I976-77,(C) 1977-78 and (D) 1 July 1978 to date.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

Please refer to the Prime Minister’s answer to question No. 3172 in Hansard of 7 June 1979.

Seizure of Foreign Vessels (Question No. 3976)

Mr James:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 23 May 1979:

  1. How many foreign vessels have been seized by the Government for fishing in Australian waters during the years 1970-71 to 1977-78.
  2. Where were these vessels seized and what were their registered names.
  3. What were the names of the owners of the vessels seized.
  4. How long were the vessels held before they were disposed of.
  5. How were they disposed of.
  6. For what price were they sold and what were the names of the purchasers.
  7. 7 ) Are there any vessels now awaiting disposal.
  8. If so, who owns the vessels awaiting disposal and where are they located.
  9. When will these vessels be disposed of.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

The honourable member will appreciate that this question requires considerable research. I will reply further when the information has been compiled.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 7 June 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1979/19790607_reps_31_hor114/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant