House of Representatives
26 September 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1537

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That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilize whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so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 Anthony, Mr Lionel Bowen, Mr Bradfield, Mr Braithwaite, Mr Bryant, Mr Connolly, Mr Drummond, Dr Everingham, Mr Hodges, Mr Howe, Mr Jarman, Dr Klugman, Mr Lusher, Mr McVeigh, Mr Macphee, Mr Neil, Mr Staley, Mr Wallis and Mr Yates.

Petitions received.

Education

To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of N.S.W. respectfully showeth:

Dismay at the reduction in the total expenditure on education proposed for 1980 and in particular to Government Schools.

Government School bear the burden of these cuts, 1 1.2 per cent while non-Government school will receive an increase of 3.4 per cent.

We call on the Government to again examine the proposals as set out in the guidelines for Education expenditure 1980 and to immediately restore and increase substantially in real terms the allocation of funds for education expenditure in 1 980 to Government schools.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gillard, Mr Keating, Mr Morris, Mr Neil, Mr O’Keefe, Mr Ruddock, Mr Uren and Mr West.

Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

That the National Women’s Advisory Council has not been democratically elected by the women of Australia;

That the Nationl Women’s Advisory Council is not representative of the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition on Australian women as Australian men do not have a National Men’s Advisory Council impose on them.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by their Parliamentary representatives without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council ‘.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Anthony, Mr Bourchier, Mr Bryant, Mr Hunt, Mr Keith Johnson, Mr McVeigh and Mr Martyr.

Petitions received.

Refugees

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

That a grave threat to the life of refugees from the various States of Indo-China arises from the policies of the Government of Vietnam.

That, as a result of these policies, many thousands of refugees are fleeing their homes and risking starvation and drowning. Because of the failure of the rich nations of the world to provide more than token assistance, the resources of the nations of first refuge, especially Malaysia and Thailand, are being stretched beyond reasonable limits.

As a wealthy nation within the region most affected, Australia is able to play a major part in the rescue as well as resettlement of these refugees.

It should be possible for Australia to: establish and maintain on the Australian mainland basic transit camps for the housing and processing of 200,000 refugees each year; mobolise the Defence Force to search for, rescue and transport to Australia those refugees who have been able to leave the Indo-China States; accept the offer of those church groups which propose to resettle some thousands of refugees in Australia.

The adoption of such a humane policy would have a marked effect on Australia ‘s standing within the region.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bourchier, Mr Falconer, Mr Jarman, Mr Keith Johnson, Mr Roger Johnston and Mr Wallis.

Petitions received.

Unemployment

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

That, as it is clear that unemployment is a long term problem in Australia, the Government should extend to the unemployed the same assistance as is given to any other disadvantaged member of the community. There is an urgent need to alleviate the financial hardship and emotional stress that the unemployed are suffering.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

  1. . That the Government adopt positive policies to reduce unemployment.
  2. That the basic Unemployment Benefit be raised to at least the level of the poverty line as calculated by Professor Henderson.
  3. In line with other Social Service additional income awards, and in order to encourage work creation schemes and the fostering of initiative and self respect, that the $6 per week additional income limit be raised to at least $20 per week.
  4. That the financial penalties above the earning of $20 per week, assessed on a monthly basis, be calculated at the same rate as other Social Security benefits.
  5. That the Commonwealth grant subsidies to state governments so that the unemployed can be granted transport concessions in order that they are not penalised in job seeking.
  6. That pharmaceutical and medical concessions be granted to the unemployed equivalent to those received by other Social Service beneficiaries.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Kerin, Mr Leo McLeay and Mr West.

Petitions received.

Marine Radio Licence Fees

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 oppose the increase in marine radio licence fees for the following reasons:

  1. 1 ) Radios are an essential part of safety equipment.
  2. Marine radio users save the government millions of dollars in search and rescue.
  3. Increased licences will deter the boating fraternity from purchasing and using radios for their own safety.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the government will reconsider the increased licence fee and also consider a reduction for pensioners.

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

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 1 978-79 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 reply solely on the pension or whose income other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a crual blow to their expectations and makes a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

  1. 1 ) restore twice-yearly pension payments in the autumn session.
  2. raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

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

Petitions received.

Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of electors of the State of Queensland respectfully showeth:

That the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act 1977 should immediately be repealed because:

It provides unfettered power to Ministers to suspend, stand-down and dismiss Commonwealth Government employees and places them in a markedly disadvantageous position as compared with all other Australian workers.

Its use places Commonwealth Government employees in direct conflict with the Government as it circumvents the arbitration tribunals and denies appeal rights.

Its use will exacerbate industrial disputes and inflame industrial relations in the Commonwealth area of employment.

The International Labour Organisation has condemned the Provisions of the Act as being incompatible with the rights of organised labour in a free society.

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

Petition received.

Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act

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 the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act 1 977 should immediately be repealed because:

It provides unfettered power to Ministers to suspend, stand-down and dismiss Commonwealth Government employees and places them in a markedly disadvantageous position as compared with all other Australian workers.

Its use places Commonwealth Government employees in direct conflict with the Government as it circumvents the arbitration tribunals and denies appeal rights.

Its use will exacerbate industrial disputes and inflame industrial relations in the Commonwealth area of employment.

The International Labour Organisation has condemned the Provisions of the Act as being incompatible with the rights of organised labour in a free society.

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

Petition received.

Vietnam

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned call upon the Australian Government to immediately restore the economic and material aid to Vietnam that was abruptly halted by Prime Minister Fraser in February this year during his statement to the nation concerning the aggressive invasion by China of Vietnam.

We are of the view that Australia should assist, by every possible initiative, to encourage the peaceful settlement of disputes between the two countries.

The action of the Australian Government in ending aid for restoration in Vietnam following the devastation and great damage done during the Vietnam wars can only harm relationships between our two countries.

Better relationships between all countries in our region are needed to promote the conditions for the restoration and maintenance of peace and stability.

We the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately restore all forms of aid to Vietnam such aid to be made retrospective to the period when the aid was halted;

We call for a joint parliamentary committee to visit Vietnam as soon as possible to examine the war damage and to negotiate increased, improved Australian aid to Vietnam.

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

Overseas Students

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned, citizens of Australia, and overseas students, respectfully showeth our deepest opposition to the introduction of discriminatory fees for overseas students.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that fee policy on overseas students be revoked in view of the following:

  1. Financial implications and impact on the matriculation overseas students.

The matriculation students came to Australia under the impression that they would receive free education. However, this sudden imposition of fees will cause immense hardship to the students and their families. Many students will have to return to their home countries as they are unable to meet the fees. These students on returning home, will not be accepted by any local tertiary institutions as the Australian Higher School Certificate or the Matriculation Statements (HSC) equivalent are not recognised by their home governments.

These students will be deprived of any chances of further education.

Those applicants to study in Australia in 1980 (e.g. students in Taylor’s College, Malaysia) are caught in the dilemma, either to bear the extra financial burden or to give up further education totally.

  1. Aid to Developing Countries.

The majority of overseas students studying in Australia came from the developing countries. Most of them did not have the opportunity to seek any advanced education owing to the poor and extreme shortage of educational facilities in their home countries. These developing countries need trained and tertiary education person to help in meeting the challenge of technological development and to contribute to the economy of the countries. Australia, as a developed country, has a moral responsibility to assist the developing countries.

  1. Discriminatory effect of the introduction of fees.

By the introduction of fees it would mean only a few students from rich families would be able to come to study in Australia. Students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds would be deprived of the opportunity to obtain higher education. Thus making education a privilege, not a right.

  1. Interchange of Cultures.

Overseas students have made a tremendous contribution in promoting better understanding and friendship between the people of Australia and the developing countries. The overseas students have provided the Australian public with the opportunity to learn and study the customs, life-style and different cultures of these various developing countries. Further, overseas students have made valuable contributions towards research and development in their post-graduate studies.

  1. Positive Form of Aid.

Providing educational opportunities to overseas students is the most effective and positive form of aid to developing countries.

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

Royal Commission on Human Relationships

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

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

  1. Have been widely condemned for its support of unAustralian, anti-family, anti-child behaviour and morals such as incest, promiscuity, abortion, pornography, homosexuality, prostitution and brothels, etc.
  2. Have been strongly criticised by the medical profession for the absence of any medical practitioner on the Commission or on its staff of 31 persons, and for the C Commissioners action in rejecting or ignoring relevant medical evidence.
  3. Have been discredited as irresponsible in adopting a new definition of the family, i.e., ‘a varying range of people living together in relationships of commitment’, which has effectively confused the real meaning and intentions of the Report where it refers to the ‘family’.

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Australian Parliament will:

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

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

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

Petition received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

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

  1. Australia’s Aboriginal and Islander peoples have not been compensated for the loss of their traditional land, social and cultural independence and self-respect.
  2. Australia lags behind other nations with white majorities in providing a Treaty of Commitment to its indigenous peoples giving them: a defined proportion of national income for a defined period freehold title to traditional land, waterways and seabords, control over related resources and over the introduction of alcohol and other alien cultural influences in their regions.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will take urgent steps to concur with the wishes of a majority of electors at every polling booth in Australia at the 1967 referendum byresumption from the States of the major traditional Aboriginal land areas and reserves and former reserves as at 3 1 . 3.78, to become federal Crown land pending prompt determination of freehold title for Land Trusts and eventually for defined community co-operatives.

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

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 Dr Everingham.

Petition received.

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully say we are concerned about the lack of public participation allowed in the decision making of the Broadcasting tribunal.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament take immediate steps to dismiss the present members of the tribunal, replacing them with:

  1. Janet Strickland, Chairperson

    1. One elected representative from Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations (FACTS)
    2. One Elected Representative from all public lobby groups who are requesting improved television standards
    3. One elected representative from organisations whose members work in the television industry.

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

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 citizen 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 expliotation 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.

National Health Scheme

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

  1. 1 ) It is our belief that at the next sittings of the Parliaments it is the intention of the Government to increase the $2.50 NHS patient contribution.
  2. We the undersigned strongly object to the Government taking this action.

We therefore do ask the Government of Australia not to take the action that is believed intended.

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

Petition received.

Pre-school Education

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

  1. In South Australia Pre-School services are becoming increasingly inadequate.
  2. The development of adequate services has been curtailed by reduced Federal Budget allocations to Pre-Schools in the last two years.
  3. Projected cuts for 1979-80 will cause further deterioration of the quality of services offered.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government increase its allocation for Pre-School education immediately to enable the provision of adequate pre-school services in South Australia.

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

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 ‘ (see also the Report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs ‘Aboriginal Health’ 1979);

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 the 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 paramedical roles, and as fully qualified nurses, doctors and social workers;

Providing increased health education for Aboriginal people in ways that are acceptable to them.

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

Petition received.

Television Services in Gippsland Region

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, the petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

  1. That the television reception of Channels 7 and 9 in South Gippsland has been obliterated by the G.L.V. 10 translator located at Foster North transmitting through Channel
  2. That grave concern is being felt in the community for the future reception of Channel 0 when alteration to its frequency occurs.
  3. That any further alteration in frequency should not be imposed on a section of the community which is continuing to suffer from previous alterations made to television reception.

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

Petition received.

Commemorative Stamp

Petition to the Honourable the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; Petition.

The humble petition of the undersigned residents of the Northern Territory, South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales showeth; that we are distressed and concerned by the refusal by Australia Post to issue a commemorative stamp upon the 50th Anniversary of the Association of Apex Clubs.

Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will do all in its power to have the Commonwealth Government take immediate action to guarantee the reconsideration of the application.

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

Petition received.

page 1541

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1541

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Mr Les Johnson having addressed a question to the Minister for Housing and Construction-

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is out of order. It asks for an opinion. The Minister is not obliged to answer a request for an opinion. I call the honourable member for Macquarie.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Could I rephrase the question?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have called the honourable member for Macquarie.

page 1541

QUESTION

OIL PRICING POLICY

Mr GILLARD:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Can the Minister for National Development advise the House what effect the Government’s oil pricing policy has had on Australia ‘s oil reserves?

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

– I thank the honourable member for Macquarie for that question which is obviously a very important one. Recent announcements have been made by the producers of Bass Strait oil which will be of interest to the

House. Certain reserves were announced by those companies last year. A total of 1 70 million barrels of oil has been added to the reserves of the Cobia field in Bass Strait. At West Kingfish 1 10 million barrels of oil have been added to the reserves making a total of 280 million barrels of oil. Liquefied petroleum gas reserves went up the equivalent of 18 million barrels, making a total of 298 million barrels. This year, following the announcements by producers, evaluations of crude oil reserves have been increased by 337 million barrels and the LPG reserves by the equivalent of 22 million barrels.

Over the last two years, there has been an increase of 657 million barrels of oil. These reserves have been declared mainly in the Fortescue field and the Flounder field, which is an old discovery, and have been declared commercial as a result of our pricing decisions. In addition, minor increases in production were announced for the Tuna, Marlin and Snapper fields as a result of pricing decisions. I have been advised by West Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd that it now has a second recovery project at the Barrow Island field. This program, which involves the drilling of 2 1 wells, is currently in progress and has already resulted in the discovery of additional recoverable oil. About $4m has been spent on that project.

I think that one of the most important and dramatic ways I can demonstrate what has happened in Bass Strait is to make the point that over the last 10 years Bass Strait producers have produced about 1.3 billion barrels of oil. They have now said that they have available slightly more than 1.3 billion barrels of extra oil. In other words, we now have in front of us the equivalent in extra reserves of the oil that has been produced over the last 10 years. There are four reasons for this that we can identify. First of all, we have improved geological and engineering knowledge of the fields. The other three reasons are directly related to our pricing policies. Secondly, the existing fields have automatically increased their reserves because they can now produce for a longer period. Thirdly, additional exploration work in the fields has taken place as a result of those pricing incentives and has extended the flanks of the Cobia and West Kingfish oil fields. Fourthly, new exploration has taken place which again was stimulated by the Government’s pricing incentives in 1977 and has resulted in the discovery of the Fortescue field. It boils down to the fact that this country faces a much safer and more secure future with oil supplies from all our existing fields. The reason that has been achieved is the Government’s pricing policy.

page 1542

QUESTION

HOUSING

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I direct my question to the Minister for Housing and Construction. In formulating the Government’s welfare housing policy, what maximum proportion of a person’s disposable income does the Government assume is reasonable to spend on housing?

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

– The honourable member for Hughes has asked a very interesting question. The percentage of a person’s income which he or she spends on housing must be, of course, a matter for his or her individual judgment, based on the needs of his or her family and the way it wants to spend its money. People have different desires in life. Some see housing as vitally important and want to spend much more than others would spend on their accommodation. It comes back to an individual choice.

I turn from welfare housing and refer to the private housing sector. The honourable member for Hughes will appreciate that lending institutions apply a certain test to people seeking to borrow funds for housing. Most lending institutions apply a test for repayments of about 25 per cent of a person’s earnings. These days in most cases they include the earnings of wives which is assisting more families to get into houses. The point I want to make is that this Government wants people to be able to get into either rental housing or their own homes. This means that we must endeavour, as we are endeavouring, to contain costs as much as possible. There is no doubt that the value of the savings that people put away to get into a house is not being eroded now as it was eroded during the period of the honourable member’s own government between 1972 and 1975. We are doing very much better than his government managed to do in those days.

page 1542

QUESTION

TASMANIA

Mr GOODLUCK:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

-I ask the Prime Minister once and for all, prior to the historic Cabinet meeting in Tasmania, whether Tasmania is being treated fairly by federal policies or whether its morale is being decimated by unnecessary Press statements and statements by a particular minister and the political upheavals occurring there at the moment.

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

-Quite clearly, the political problems that the Tasmanian Government now has flow from its own inefficiencies. I am quite certain that the Tasmanian Government would not want an election now. No doubt it will pursue any course to avoid a subsequent election as a means of rectifying what probably is a serious situtaion. The Budget brought down by the Tasmanian Government has demonstrated very plainly indeed that all the scare talk of a few weeks before was false. In fact it was sheer and utter hypocrisy. It is quite plain that the very great increase of 13 per cent or 14 per cent in general revenue grants from this Government to all the States, including Tasmania, has enabled most States, and certainly Tasmania, to introduce constructive budgets which contain some tax concessions. I do not believe that there were any significant increases in charges in the Tasmanian Budget that would have been diffiucult for the people of Tasmania. In other words, it was a pretty easy Budget for the Tasmanian Government to introduce. It was a Budget containing concessions.

Against that background, how are we to judge the statements that Mr Lowe made during the election campaign about the terrible effects of what was done at the last Loan Council meeting? His statements appear hollow, empty and utterly false. It ought to go on record again that this Government has provided positive policies for Tasmania, having in mind the special difficulties of Tasmania, and the fact that it has no road link with other States, something which I sometimes suspect Tasmanians regard as an advantage. Tasmania has commercial disadvantages which we well know of. Freight equalisation for Tasmania will cost about $60m. It has been of enormous help to Tasmanian industries in being able to get into markets in other States on equal terms for perhaps the first time in history.

Then again there is the establishment of the Antarctic base and the Maritime College. The only new tertiary institution being established round Australia happens to be in the State of Tasmania. There has been special support for the apple industry. There has been special support for the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd, which has been fully and amply justified by the return to profitability of a great decentralised mining centre. That has fully justified the judgment of the government of the time in providing particular assistance to that company. The fact that it has returned to profitability must give great heart not only to the company but more particularly to the employees of that company who would have been foremost in the Government’s mind in providing that assistance. It is a remote community, totally dependent upon that mine, and the social upheaval to the working men and women and their families would have been very great if that support had not been forthcoming. In this Budget funds have been made available for the commencement of the new bridge. There are also funds for the development of Port Arthur as a great tourist resort, funds for the development of a fishing centre and funds for further development of forestry programs. About $ 1.5m is being made available for special decentralised programs which, for some reason, seem to have come under criticism from members of the Australian Labor Party in this Parliament because they do not hold any decentralised seats and therefore basically cannot qualify for decentralisation grants in their own areas.

All these things demonstrate the very real concern for Tasmania and the concern to make sure that all Tasmanians can share, and share on equal terms, with other Australians in the policies of the Commonwealth and in those programs to the advantage of Tasmania. This is the first time in the history of the Commonwealth that any government has adopted that kind of approach. There is a task force of Commonwealth and State officials which meets. I believe that the task force is working well. It reports to my colleague the Minister for National Development, who reports directly to me and the Federal Cabinet gets -

Mr Young:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The Opposition would be quite happy for the Prime Minister to make a ministerial statement after Question Time if he wants to say something on Tasmania. He should not interfere with the rights of members at Question Time. The question did not seek any specific information; it just gave the Prime Minister an opportunity to do a bit of carpetbagging.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I have very nearly finished, Mr Speaker. I conclude on this note: The Minister for National Development reports directly to me. There are regular reports to the Cabinet on the development of the Callaghan program in relation to Tasmania. We welcome very much the opportunity to hold a Cabinet meeting in Hobart. I think it will be the first time that a mainland Prime Minister has had a Cabinet meeting in Hobart.

Opposition members- Oh!

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Members of the Australian Labor Party are a little disjointed. I can well understand why they are a little disjointed, but they may as well get used to it.

page 1544

QUESTION

HOUSING

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Is the Minister for Housing and Construction aware that, according to the Real Estate Institute of Australia, in June 1979 the most common rent level for a twobedroom, unfurnished house in Sydney or Melbourne was $60 a week? Does the Minister acknowledge that an average wage earner with a dependent spouse and child and with a weekly take home pay of $150 would pay 40 per cent of that income on housing? What hope can the Minister give to a family paying such high rentals and trying to save to buy a house?

Mr GROOM:
LP

-The honourable member’s question really relates to the rates of inflation in this country. I think it is worth while recalling the impact of the policies of the Labor Government when it was in office between 1972 and 1975 and the disastrous impact that those policies had on the housing industry, on rent levels in Australia and on the opportunities for Australians to obtain suitable accommodation. Between 1972 and 1975- during the period of office of the Labor Government- interest rates soared 4 per cent.

Mr Keating:

– I take a point of order. This Minister was asked a specific question within his ministerial responsibility. He has held that office for two years and we are entitled to an indication of Government policy as it relates to the questionnot this tirade we get as to what happened before 1975.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr GROOM:

– If investors are to invest in rental accommodation and they must borrow funds, they want to pay an appropriate rate of interest in borrowing those funds. It assists them in obtaining finance to construct rental accommodation if interest rates are at reasonable levels. I remind the House that between 1972 and 1975 interest rate levels soared in this country. For example, in the housing area the rise was over 4 per cent. We have a situation where month after month young couples -

Mr Keating:

– I take a point of order. If this -

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Keating:

– If this Minister refuses to answer legitimate questions we will use all of the Standing Orders available to get answers.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Blaxland will resume his seat. Honourable members on my right will remain silent. I warn the honourable member for Blaxland -

Mr Keating:

– You would be better warning them.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I warn the honourable member for Blaxland that if he interjects again or talks while I am speaking I will name him.

Mr GROOM:

– Interest rates soared during the period of the Labor Administration. Another major impact on the cost of accommodation is the increases in the cost of building materials. Again in the period 1972 to 1975 we saw -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Minister to answer the question in relation to current affairs.

Mr Innes:

– It is about time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Melbourne will remain silent. The Minister has already set the historical base and I ask him now to come to the point of the question.

Mr GROOM:

-Mr Speaker, I just wanted to make a comparison between a 22.9 per cent increase in the cost of building materials up to the year ended January 1975 -

Mr Keating:

– You are incompetent. Sit down.

Mr GROOM:

– Compared with the financial year that we have just seen concluded of 9.6 per cent -

Mr Innes:

– I take a point of order. Mr Speaker my point of order goes also to the issue of relevance. You have already advised the Minister to deal with the current situation, which he ought to be dealing with in answering the question. He is deliberately disregarding your instructions to him.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr Innes:

– Why don’t you tell him again?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will not tell the honourable member again.

Mr GROOM:

– In addition this Government is concerned about those wanting to obtain rental accommodation in the welfare housing area. A current fact is that we have provided $100m in grant money to the States- that is grant money which the States will not have to repay- so that the States can provide rental accommodation to those people most in need in the community. Included in that $ 100m is an amount of $30m provided for pensioners, an increase from $14m in the last financial year. Under the Housing Assistance Act we are providing for the first time an amount of $20m by way of grants.

Those grants have been provided to assist Aboriginal people within the community who want to obtain rental accommodation. So all those matters show genuine concern for those who need accommodation and, in particular, those who want to rent accommodation. I am sure that this Government’s record is a good one, and again, I remind the House that it is very much better than the record of the previous Government between 1972 and 1975.

page 1545

QUESTION

HUME HIGHWAY

Mr BAUME:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I refer the Minister for Transport to his recent announcement that the New South Wales 1979-80 national roads program included continuation of work on the south western freeway section between Sydney and Mittagong, in my electorate, involving an expenditure of about $18m. I ask the Minister Does the completion date of late 1980 represent a speeding up of the project against New South Wales Government forecasts of 1981 as a completion date? Does this mean that national highway 31, between Liverpool and Mittagong, will be built to full freeway standards by the end of next year? Does the Minister expect any substantial reduction in fatal accidents on this section?

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

– The section of highway between Liverpool and Mittagong has seen considerable progress over the last two or three years. No doubt this is due to the increased funding which the Commonwealth Government has been able to make available to assist in development. In fact, I am informed that when that section is completed there will be some 65 kilometres of four-lane carriageway in that area. I am advised that that is 1 5 kilometres shorter than the present Hume Highway route. I am also advised that the travelling time between Liverpool and Mittagong will be halved. In addition, I am informed that there will be a saving of some $4m in motor car and motor truck costs. That demonstrates the value of the national highway program which the Government is supporting so strongly.

As to the question of the completion date, let me assure the honourable member that funds have been made available to New South Wales at a rate to ensure completion of the work by the end of 1 980. 1 do not know why suddenly there is talk about 1981 being the completion date. I will certainly take that up with the State Minister for Transport to ensure that there are no misunderstandings about that matter. I repeat that the funds have been made available at a rate to ensure completion by 1980. As to road accidents, the construction of divided carriageways will certainly reduce the prospects of head-on collisions.

We look forward to a reduction in the number of road accidents on that stretch of road.

page 1545

QUESTION

HOUSING

Mr HOLDING:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

-Is the Minister for Housing and Construction aware of the fact that if a single income family with one adult on average earnings and a dependent spouse and two children was able to save even 25 per cent of disposable income it could accumulate only $2,500 in 1978-79? Is the Minister also aware that the medium price of a home in Sydney increased by $15,000 to $62,000 in the financial year ended June? Does the Minister acknowledge that such a situation makes it impossible for young home seekers to acquire a deposit for house purchase? Is the Minister therefore concerned at the increasing deposit gap? If so, what action does he propose to take to enable young families to acquire a home?

Mr GROOM:
LP

-Today must be my day. This financial year the Government has provided $75m under the Home Savings Grants Scheme. In last year’s Budget we provided $20m. So that is an increase of $5 5 m. That money will assist many young married couples and young people who want to get into a home to bridge the deposit gap. Of course the deposit gap is not as critical as it used to be a few years ago because these days people can obtain a higher percentage of the value of a house by way of a loan and often an insured loan. There are many instances of young couples borrowing 90 per cent to 95 per cent of the value of a house. The Home Savings Grants Scheme is one which honourable members opposite, when they were in government, decided to abolish. We believe it is a very valuable scheme. We want to see it continued, and that is why we are providing additional funds in this financial year. The important point is that more homes are now being constructed in Australia. Commencements rose by 1 1 per cent in the second half of the financial year 1978-79. It is true that that percentage varied between one place and another and between one State and another. There has been a problem in Victoria. Commencements have been flat there. I concede that. But generally building activity has been very good. Certainly in Sydney, according to many people in the real estate industry, we have seen almost a boom. Confidence is building up and certainly that has an effect on prices. But that has a spin-off for the home building industry because as prices for established houses increase and demand increases, thereby new houses become more competitive. Again, we are seeing many more new houses being constructed in

New South Wales. That is a very good thing for the industry and for employment in that State.

So generally the Government is doing a great deal for young home buyers. The Home Savings Grants Scheme continues with increased amounts. The Government is keeping the cost of housing down and is restraining interest rates. Of course interest rates are controlled by market forces and cannot be kept down artificially. But they are being restrained and they are very stable compared with what they were during that disastrous period between 1972 and 1975. The Government’s record is a good one and the Government stands by it. It is satisfied with the way its housing policies are working; these policies are working very well.

page 1546

QUESTION

LOCUST PLAGUE

Mr FISHER:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

-The Minister of Primary Industry will be aware of an impending threat of a locust plague throughout many inland regions of Australia in coming weeks. Can he say what action the Government has taken to implement a control campaign through the Australian Plague Locust Commission to cope with this impending outbreak?

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

– The Government has constituted the Australian Plague Locust Commission because so often these plague locusts breed in one State and spread across into other States.

Mr Bourchier:

– Like the Labor Party.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– That is true-like the members of the Opposition. The difficulty with the control under State responsibility is that when a plague moves across State borders there is obviously no continuity of effort in trying to ensure that the swarms are either sprayed or controlled in any constructive and collective way. The objective that the Australian Plague Locust Commission has set itself is to co-ordinate with all the States and to try to ensure that, in coordination with plans that are undertaken by the State authorities, there should be acrosstheborder control mechanisms introduced. This year there are very real fears for a major swarm of locusts, and subject to the outcome of the season, it is likely that we will be in a position at some time during the course of the next two months when across much of Australia’s best wheat land there could be a very significant plague with all the consequences that that would place on those who grow crops in those regions. I believe the control, co-ordinated as it is, is doing all it can in terms of availability of spray, availability of personnel and availability of aircraft. It is hoped that as a result of that, the extent and severity of the plague locust threat can be contained. Whatever is done, it is unlikely that it will be possible to contain it altogether but the Government is doing all it can, in co-ordination with State departments, to ensure that the maximum control procedures possible are implemented to protect Australia’s crops and the wellbeing of those in the affected areas.

page 1546

MINISTRY

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

-I remind the Prime Minister that at the time of the dismissal of Senator Withers he very properly stated:

The community rightly demands a high standard from the Ministers of the Government. The judgments on Ministers are more exacting and sometimes more harsh than the judgments which might be passed on those outside the sphere of public life. If these high standards were not upheld, people’s confidence in government, a confidence which is fundamental to Australian democracy would be undermined.

Is he aware that a report tabled today in the New South Wales Parliament alleges that the Federal Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, forged signatures on company statements and devised an elaborate system of transferring large sums of money -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I want to make it clear that the fact that a report has been tabled in another parliament does not alter the Standing Orders by which I, and the rest of the House, are bound, namely, that comments critical of the character of a member of this House can be made only by substantive motion. I cannot permit those sorts of words to be used in a question or I will have to rule it out of order.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, on 25 October last year, in circumstances quite analogous to the present one, you ruled:

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.

That is an exact quotation. You ruled that in relation to a question which I asked the Prime Minister about the conduct of a Minister. It seems to me that there is a glaring inconsistency between your ruling then and what you are proposing now. I suggest that confidence in the Chair is a matter of great importance to this House and that that confidence rests on a respect for the consistency of rulings from the Chair, among other firm foundations. I put it to you directly that it would be quite inconsistent for you to rule now that the question I am putting to the Prime Minister is out of order. You have, by precedent, allowed a question of an exactly similar nature. More than that, the matter goes to the heart of the credibility of the Government and the standing of the Government in the public regard. This is a crucial matter. Of course, if necessary we will move a substantive motion, but I think that the Prime Minister, who has sought to -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman may make a point of order but he may not debate an irrelevant issue.

Mr Hayden:

– I put it to you that we should view this matter on the basis of the Prime Minister’s conduct in the past, conduct which it would seem to me you approved of. He pretended that he had a monopoly on virtue and ethical conduct.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is not entitled to use those words.

Mr Hayden:

– This is a matter that goes to the very heart of public virtue and ethics.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the honourable gentleman to resume his seat. I have ruled that the Standing Orders render out of order a question which contains terms which are critical of the character of a member of the House. The only way that such words would be in order is if they are part of a debate on a substantive issue directed against that member. I have so ruled and I adhere to that ruling. I ought to say also that I ruled that a question could be asked of the Prime Minister concerning a Minister. That ruling is correct and I adhere to it. A question may be asked of the Prime Minister concerning a Minister but offensive words may not be included in the question. I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I put the question to the Prime Minister in these terms: He is aware of a New South Wales parliamentary report tabled today concerning the Minister for Primary Industry. I know that because I saw him across the table reading the telex from Australian Associated Press. In those circumstances, I ask him whether -

Government members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I ask honourable gentlemen on my right to remain silent. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to refrain from comment in asking his question. He is entitled to ask for facts in his question but he is not entitled to suggest answers or to impute motives. I ask him to comply with the Standing Orders.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Has the Prime Minister seen a report about the New South Wales parliamentary report? As he declared quite forthrightly in this House on an earlier occasion, does he still hold full confidence in the Minister for Primary Industry?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-One of the charming things about this Opposition is that throughout the inquiry that has been conducted over a very lengthy period into the affairs of my colleague by Mr Finnane under the direction of Mr Walker and the New South Wales Labor Government -

Mr Cohen:

– That is outrageous.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– It happens to be correct.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I will ask the right honourable gentleman to resume his seat. I ask honourable gentlemen on my left to remain silent during the answer, just as I called upon members on my right to remain silent during the asking of the question.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– It is interesting to note that throughout a very lengthy inquiry conducted into the affairs of my colleague by Mr Finnane at the direction of Mr Walker and the New South Wales Labor Government, there has been a very close liaison between the office of the Leader of the Opposition in this Parliament and some people in New South Wales about evidence part heard, part introduced and part debated in this Parliament. Quite obviously, if the Leader of the Opposition has particular evidence about a report which I am advised has been tabled in the New South Wales Parliament within the last 20 minutes or so, clearly he has got that evidence from sources which are not available to me.

Mr Young:

– On the telex.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-If the honourable gentleman is basing his question merely on a telex of a news report, I suggest that he show a little more patience.

page 1547

QUESTION

DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH WEST SHELF

Mr COTTER:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Can the Minister for Trade and Resources inform the House of progress in the development of the North West Shelf project, which is in the electorate of Kalgoorlie? What percentage of the production of the shelf will be exported? Could the project proceed without this export content?

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

– In August 1977 I made a statement in this House on the Government’s decisions about helping to facilitate the development of this enormous project in Western Australia. The central element of the Government’s decisions then was the giving of approval for the export of 53 per cent of the then known reserves in the three fields of North Rankin, Angel and Goodwin. This amounted to an export of about 6lA million tonnes of liquefied natural gas per year. There had been lengthy discussions with the companies on arriving at this level of 53 per cent. The companies pointed out that it was absolutely necessary to get this level of exports for them to be able to guarantee the viability and the economics of the project. If the companies could not enter into long term contracts selling this quantity they could not borrow the money for them to be able to develop the project. The latest estimate of the cost of the project is $4,000m. A tremendous capital-raising performance is required for them to be able to develop the project. Of course, if the project is not developed, Australia will not get the benefit of the liquefied petroleum gas and the condensate, which would be of great value to local industry. If this project goes ahead, it will give a tremendous lift to industry in Australia and will help our export performances.

The decision then of the Government enabled the companies to go ahead with a more detailed definition of the field and the engineering requirements to see whether it was a feasible project. I believe that they are now getting to the stage where that work is nearly completed. The companies will be required to enter into negotiations, particularly with the Japanese, for large contracts so that they can borrow the money to proceed with the large scale development. Unfortunately, the Australian Labor Party has taken a turnabout in its attitude to the project. Recently, the Opposition’s spokesman for energy- the honourable member for Blaxlandsaid at an Australian Labor Party energy conference in Western Australia that a greater percentage of the gas should be reserved for Australia and that the amount of exportable gas should be reduced by one-third. If that were to happen, the project would be struck dead. It would not go ahead. We would be back to the stage we were at during the three years in office of the Labor Government when nothing happened with the North West Shelf. Australia’s largest development project -

Mr Uren:

– I raise a point of order on two grounds. Firstly, Question Time is for questions without notice and this question is not a question without notice. My second proposition is that the Opposition would give the Minister time to make a statement after Question Time. Further, the replies today to questions have been lengthy. I ask to you, Mr Speaker, to request the Ministers to shorten their replies.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order in the first two points raised. As to the third point, I think the Deputy Prime Minister has taken less time so far in answering this question than other Ministers have taken to answer questions.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I can well imagine the sensitivity of the Australian Labor Party because one only has to remember its performance during its period in office when not one major project got under way. This is the biggest project likely to take off in Australia. But at the moment announcements coming from the ALP, such as that made by the honourable member for Blaxland, throw confusion into the minds of the Japanese as to whether they ought to lend this enormous amout of money or get into long-term contracts. One of the things I will be doing within the next 10 days is visiting Osaka in Japan and talking with the utilities there. I will be reaffirming the determination of the Australian Government to see that this project goes ahead. There will be none of the nonsense that we hear from the Australian Labor Party which has only hindered the development of so many projects around Australia. If the Labor Party wants to keep up with its present policy then I ask it to explain why it committed itself in the last two years to the Government’s policy. I have here a brochure that was put out by the joint venturers.

Mr Keating:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I will debate with the Minister if he wants to make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr ANTHONY:

– I was referring to the brochure which has been published by the joint venturers. It was circulated throughout Australia and around the world. It has the photographs of four people, namely, myself, the honourable member for Blaxland, Sir Charles Court and the honourable Ron Davies, a Labor member from Western Australia. We are all shown as being committed to the project. Indeed, the words of the honourable member for Blaxland are quoted. He said:

In July 1 977 the Labor Party approved the principle of gas exports and this is now a clear plank in the National Platform. When the Government finally announced its policy with respect to the North West Shelf venture in August, I responded on behalf of the Opposition by positively supporting the project in a manner that I hoped would be conducive to its ongoing development and completion.

I have backed the North West Shelf venture and the gas export commitment that goes with it . . .

Yet two weeks ago at a major conference he said that the commitment of 53 per cent ought to be reduced by a third. In other words, he wants the whole project to be delayed. He is obviously pleased to see confusion being put in the way of the Japanese. If he has a change of attitude, as he is trying to express here today, I would like to hear a personal explanation from him. I had hoped that up to this point there was a bipartisan policy between the Labor Party and the Government on this project. Mind you, it has been bipartisan only since we have been in office and got the project going. Of course, while the Labor Party was in office it was like uranium and everything else- nothing happened.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I ask honourable members on my left to remain silent and not continually to interject. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to draw his answer to a conclusion.

Mr Scholes:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Today you have ruled that a member cannot reflect on the character of another member. By misquoting the statement of the honourable member for Blaxland and attributing to him statements which he has not made, the Minister for Trade and Resources has quite clearly reflected on the honourable member’s character, based on false information.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If any Minister reflected upon any member I would stop that. But I believe that what is happening here is that a political point is being made. There will be opportunity for the honourable member for Blaxland to make an explanation if he chooses to do so.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I am not reflecting on any personality. I believe that this is a matter of great national importance and that the differences between the Opposition and the Government should be known. The point I am wanting to make is that I will be in Japan in a few weeks’ time. I believe I have a tremendously important mission to persuade the Japanese to enter into long term contracts to enable this gigantic project to go ahead. It is yet another project which we have been able to get off the ground after Labor’s three years in office when it did absolutely nothing.

page 1549

MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRY

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) will withdraw and I ask him not to use terms of that kind in the future.

Mr Neil:

– I withdraw.

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving: ‘This House is of the opinion that the Minister for Primary Industry should be immediately suspended from his ministerial appointment and from duty in this House. ‘

A most critical situation has arisen, easily the most serious scandal to fall upon any parliament operating under the Westminister system.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will need to put his motion in writing.

Mr HAYDEN:

– It is, and it is seconded.

Mr Sinclair:

– I suggest that there is no need for the honourable gentleman to proceed with this motion. The Government will accept the motion and he can proceed with it. We will be quite prepared to grant him leave.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the House has indicated that if the Leader of the Opposition seeks leave to move a motion leave will be granted.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I seek leave to move a motion. Leave granted.

Mr HAYDEN:

– For several years now it has been the endeavour of the Parliament -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable gentleman to move his motion.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I move:

This House is of the opinion that the Minister for Primary Industry should be immediately suspended from his ministerial appointment and from duty in this House.

It is necessary to move this motion because a most serious scandal has now erupted upon the Australian scene.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I raise a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Prime Minister has raised a point of order.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I thought you were going to allow us to debate it. You have already been intimidated by the facts.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– If the Leader of the Opposition has seen and read this particular report he certainly has the advantage over the Minister concerned, he has the advantage over me and I suggest over every member on the Government side of the House. These reports were tabled in the New South Wales Parliament within the last hour. Unless the Leader of the Opposition had them at an earlier point in time, unless he had them before they were tabled in the New South Wales Parliament and unless he has secretly been given them by Mr Wran, he does not know what is in them beyond a couple of scrimpy Press reports. I suggest only that the honourable gentleman is moving a motion on the basis of reports which he has not seen or read. He has no basis therefore for moving the motion, unless of course, the Labor Government in New South Wales has grievously mishandled the procedures and given him copies illicitly and improperly.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman has made a point, but it is not a point of order. I cannot uphold the point of order because it does not relate to the debate.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker, I agree that it was not properly a point of order, but it was a point that I would have thought the Leader of the Opposition would have properly taken into account because he has not seen the report which he is trying to use as a basis for this motion. If the honourable member wants to go ahead and move the motion on that basis, not having read the report, and not knowing what is in it, he reveals himself for what he is.

Mr HAYDEN:

– May I respond on two points? The first one is that the Minister concerned, the Minister for Primary Industry, stated to the Parliament that he was happy for this debate to proceed. The second fact is, however, that the document to which the Prime Minister refers is now a public document and is available in Sydney. A member of my staff purchased a copy of the document in accordance with proper procedures available for any member of the public. The Prime Minister is querying whether I am aware of what is in the report. Of course I have not read a 700-page report, nor has the officer. But let me give you one quotation from page 26, section 2 of the first interim report.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Before the honourable gentleman proceeds, I would like to see again the terms of the motion.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Shall I read them out again?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I would like to see the motion please.

Mr HAYDEN:

-You want a debate and you suddenly run scared. You are covering up. Because the Fraser family fortune was made on a swindle with the Victorian Railways does not mean you have to cover up on everyone.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The House will come to order. I ask all honourable members to remain silent for a few seconds while I read the motion. The Leader of the Opposition has moved a motion, having been given leave to do so.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Mr Speaker, I speak with leave of the House. I speak with the approval of the Minister for Primary Industry. It is a curious fact that now the Prime Minister and other Ministers seek to silence what should be proper debate on the greatest scandal ever to befall this Parliament.

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Bourchier:

– It is just a technical point. The matter has been fixed since I rose to raise the point of order. The clock has been adjusted. It was not going.

Mr HAYDEN:

– For several years now the Parliament has been trying to extract the facts related to the Sinclair case. The Sinclair case, very simply, consisted of a series of allegations based on widespread reports about impropriety in private companies with which the Minister for Primary Industry was associated. On each occasion when we have sought to raise this matter in the Parliament there has been a determined and, I must confess, successful effort by members of the Government, spearheaded by the Prime Minister, to silence proper debate, to prevent the functioning in this Parliament of proper procedures, designed to establish whether in fact impropriety of a serious nature has occurred. It involves one of the most senior public office bearers in this country, the Minister for Primary Industry, who currently happens to be the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is an incredible situation that the Prime Minister should seek to halt debate on this matter. What sort of standing will this country have internationally when the Minister for Primary Industry is the subject of the most serious findings imaginable; that he is the central person involved in the greatest scandal ever to befall this Parliament? How much confidence can there be in the farm community when the Minister for Primary Industry is the subject in what can only be described, apparently on the findings of this report tabled in the New South Wales Parliament today, as a swindle, as a succession of swindles?

Mr Neil:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is seeking to rely on a document or a report. He should vouch for its authenticity. He stated that he has no report in his possession. He is relying on a report over the telephone. I put to you, Mr Speaker, that he is not in any position to vouch for the authenticity. He is getting information over the telephone. He could be quoting things inaccurately or out of context. I submit that he has no right to quote in this House from a report which he is not able to vouch for.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no requirement for the honourable gentleman to vouch for the authenticity of what he alleges. Whether it is true or false will be judged according to the events.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Indeed, Mr Speaker. You go to the heart of this issue. I am staking my standing, my reputation, on what I am stating to this Parliament. Let me make it clear to the Government that its reputation will in no way be saved subsequently -

Motion (by Mr Fife) proposed:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

Mr Young:

– You gave leave for him to speak.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Opposition members- Resign, resign.

Mr Young:

– He has to withdraw his position. It’s not on. You gave leave. You had your turn. Just get out. It ‘s not on.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Young:

– Read the report. You give leave and then walk out on it.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Young:

– Well tell them they gave leave. Don’t defend them.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind the honourable member for Port Adelaide that the Opposition is pursuing a parliamentary procedure in the form of moving a substantive motion against the Minister for Primary Industry. If the honourable member wishes to participate he ought to comply with the great principles of the Parliament and the great principles of the Parliament -

Mr Young:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I point out that under the Standing Orders I am obliged to put the question once it has been moved. No amount of noise from my left will prevent me from doing so because I am the servant of the House. The Leader of the Opposition and the Manager of Opposition Business have recourse to other procedures under the Standing Orders. I am bound by the Standing Orders. The honourable gentleman knows that. That outburst of noise will only lead to a flood of letters to my office complaining about the behaviour of the House.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I propose to proceed under the Standing Orders.

Mr Young:

– I wish to raise a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-If the honourable member wishes to raise a point of order I will hear him.

Mr Young:

- Mr Speaker, there has been no denigration of the principles of Parliament by the Opposition. We are not on trial. As suggested by the Government, we asked for leave to move a substantive motion. Leave was granted after consideration of that request by the Government. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden, spoke by leave for approximately two minutes and then the Government changed its mind, having granted leave and having heard what the Leader of the Opposition had begun to say. The Government is continuing to cover up. The principles of Parliament are being destroyed by the Government, not by the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I wish to speak to the point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The right honourable gentleman wishes to speak to a point of order. Unfortunately, I have found that there is no point of order. Does the right honourable gentleman wish to raise a different point of order?

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, on a point of order. In terms of the leave that was contested as having been granted to the Opposition, I wish to explain the circumstances of the motion that has been moved by my colleague. I believe that it is important -

Mr Scholes:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Corio will resume his seat. The honourable member for Port Adelaide claimed that he wished to raise a point of order. In fact, he went much further that making a point of order. His remarks related to the motion moved by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. The Leader of the House, having indicated to me that he wishes to make a point about why the motion was moved, I am prepared as a matter of indulgence to hear him on that point.

Mr Sinclair:

– The honourable member for Port Adelaide just said that the Opposition is not on trial.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not want the matter debated during the explanation.

Mr Sinclair:

– I am not debating it; I am explaining it. The honourable member for Port Adelaide has just said that the Opposition is not on trial. By implication he is suggesting that -

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. You, in extending indulgence to the Minister for Primary Industry, said that he should not canvass the point. This has nothing to do with an explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. When I granted that indulgence to the Leader of the House I expected an explanation as to why the motion was moved, but the honourable gentleman is defending a point. I withdraw the indulgence. The question is: ‘That the Leader of the Opposition be not further heard ‘. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden)

Ayes……… 72

Noes……… 31

Majority…… 41

Mr SPEAKER:

-I did not say that. I said that there are procedures under the Standing Orders to which the Leader of the Opposition or the Manager of Opposition Business could have recourse. If the honourable gentleman has a point of order, he should make it.

Mr Scholes:

– My point of order is that there are no procedures if a motion of this nature is supported by people who are prepared to gag -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order arises.

Question put.

The House divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I second the motion. The Government is obviously trying to cover up the corruption within it- Sinclair, Lynch, the Beggs family, Withers, Garland -

Motion (by Mr Fife) put:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

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

AYES: 72

NOES: 31

Majority…… 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-Justice demands that some explanation be given by the Government of the affairs that have taken up so much time of the Parliament over the past two years. The people sitting in the galleries representing the Australian people demand to know from this Government what is going to happen.

Motion (by Mr Fife) put:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

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

AYES: 72

NOES: 31

Majority…… 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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

- Mr Speaker, I would like to indicate to the House that the Government is prepared to facilitate a debate tomorrow on the motion that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden).

Mr Hayden:

– You were prepared to debate it before and you backed down.

Mr FIFE:

– We are not prepared to allow the debate to go on today when honourable members have not had an opportunity to peruse and consider the contents of the report that has now become known as the Finnane report. To proceed with the debate on the motion that has been moved today by the Leader of the Opposition without honourable members having had an opportunity to peruse and consider the report that has only quite recently been tabled in the New South Wales Parliament would do this House and this Parliament no good. Indeed, it would be a great reflection on this Parliament and it would -

Mr Scholes:

– How long would you leave a Customs officer working after he was found to be in trouble? How long would a Customs officer in your Department last? Not five minutes. He would not get a day’s stay.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Corio. He should know that his behaviour should be better.

Mr Scholes:

– I apologise.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I accept the apology and expect that there will be no repetition of the behaviour. I call the Minister.

Mr FIFE:

– If for no other reason but in the interest of justice, it is the correct thing to do to wait until the report that is referred to as the Finnane report is available for the perusal and consideration of all members of this House.

Mr Young:

- Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, to the suggestion -

Motion ( by Mr Fife) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr Young:

- Mr Speaker, on a point of order, a suggestion has been made by the Government seeking our agreement -

Mr SPEAKER:

-No, a suggestion has not been made by the Government. As I heard it, what the Minister said was that he would facilitate a debate on this subject tomorrow. He made no suggestion and he has now moved that the question be now put.

Question put-

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 71

NOES: 31

Majority…… 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bendigo is calling ‘Mr Speaker’. Does he wish to make a point of order?

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 31

NOES: 71

Majority…… 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1556

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving that this House is of the opinion that the Prime Minister’s behaviour in preventing discussion of alleged forgery and other serious illegal behaviour by the Minister for Primary Industry and Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs is grossly improper and reprehensible and that he is accordingly censured by this House for his scandalous behaviour.

Mr Speaker, it is necessary for me to move -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will need to put that motion in writing.

Mr Neil:

-I raise a point of order. This motion is a reflection on the Chair and on the House. It was this House, pursuant to your rulings, Mr Speaker, that defeated the last motion. It was not the Prime Minister; it was the House. Accordingly, this motion is a direct reflection on the proceedings of the House and on your rulings.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not uphold that point of order.

Mr HAYDEN:

-The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has been party principal to a cover-up on the Sinclair affair ever since it was first raised in this Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is now speaking to the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. He is not permitted to debate the substance. What he can debate is the reason the Standing Orders ought to be suspended. I ask him to confine himself to that.

Mr HAYDEN:

– It is necessary to make that introductory comment to make the point of how important it is to suspend Standing Orders to allow a debate to proceed in this Parliament in relation to the behaviour of the Prime Minister. The behaviour of the Prime Minister this afternoon clearly evidences that he is determined to conceal and cover-up as much as he can on this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will confine himself to why the Standing Orders should be suspended.

Mr HAYDEN:

-The only way in which this matter can be raised in the Parliament is for Standing Orders to be suspended. We witnessed a little time ago the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair)- the central character in this whole scandalous affair; the most serious scandal ever to fall upon this national Parliament, probably the most serious to fall on any parliament in the Westminster system- agreeing that debate could take place and within a matter of minutes, not half way through the discussion as was suggested by one of my colleagues, arranging for the debate to be gagged- to be gagged because the issues arising are too red hot; the truth is at last coming out. The Prime Minister is involved in this, buried up to his earlobes in this whole seedy effort to conceal -

Mr Neil:

-I raise a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is now talking about alleged issues. I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order 169.I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that you should disallow this motion because it is the same in substance as the last motion that was put.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not hold that it is the same in substance. Before the Leader of the Opposition resumes speaking, I ask him to confine himself to the reasons Standing Orders should be suspended.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Mr Speaker, you yourself pointed to the fact somewhat earlier in Question Time that if I wished to raise this matter in discussion in the House it would be necessary for me to move a substantive motion. The options are few. In fact, in the circumstances only two steps are available. One is to move that the Standing Orders be suspended. If that is agreed to the second step is to proceed to a substantive debate. This matter is not going to go away tonight, tomorrow or next week. It is incomprehensible that the Prime Minister has allowed himself to be wedged into a corner through behaviour which clearly indicates to the observing public that he wants to suppress discussion on this matter. The responsible behaviour of any Prime Minister in such circumstances would have been for him to have said that this is a very serious matter, he would consider it immediately, he would terminate Question Time, he would withdraw to his suite and in company with the Minister for Primary Industry and with legal advice he would give serious consideration to the matter and make a determination. That is the behaviour of a sensible, responsible and concerned Prime Minister. But the Prime Minister did not do that. No, he embarked on an exercise designed to try to mislead the Parliament and to bury all discussion.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will return to the terms of the motion, that is, why the Standing Orders should be suspended.

Mr HAYDEN:

- Mr Speaker, as you pointed out earlier, if we are to discuss this matter there will have to be a substantive motion and the only way to achieve that is to move the suspension of the Standing Orders. There is no alternative. It would be sensible of the Government to allow a debate to proceed. We know that the Prime Minister has a lot to hide. The Minister for Primary Industry has a lot more to hide. It is a scandalridden government. There have been more resignations, more dismissals, more withdrawals from the Ministry of this Government than there have been from any government in the history of this country.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition is now debating the issue. Return to the question of why the Standing Orders should be suspended.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Mr Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Fife) put:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

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

AYES: 71

NOES: 31

Majority…… 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– I second the motion. Australia will be at a standstill until this matter is cleared up. We demand an explanation from the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), who should stand up and defend himself in this Parliament.

Motion ( by Mr Fife) put:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

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

AYES: 71

NOES: 31

Majority…… 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

- Mr Speaker, I speak in support-

Motion (by Mr Fife) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 71

NOES: 31

Majority…… 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

AYES: 31

NOES: 71

Majority…… 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1559

AUSTRALASIAN REGIONAL CONFERENCES OF PRESIDING OFFICERS AND CLERKS OF THE PARLIAMENTS

Mr SPEAKER:

-I present the following reports of the Australasian Regional Conferences of Presiding Officers and Clerks of the Parliaments: The Eighth Conference held at Apia, Western Samoa, on 20 to 23 June 1977; the Ninth Conference held at Adelaide, South Austrafia, on 13 to 15 June 1978; the Tenth Conference held at Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, on 15 to 22 June 1979. Copies of the reports are with the Clerks.

page 1559

REVIEW ON LAWS RELATING TO PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a review by the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth and the Attorney-General for Western Australia on laws in relation to public assemblies.

page 1559

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PERSONAL INCOME TAX SHARING) ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976, I present the recommendations of the States Grants Commissions for New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. Members have already received the determinations of allocations for their own States. The payments to the States for on-forwarding to local government cannot be made, however, until such time as the Act is amended to provide for the increase in the local government share of personal income tax from 1.52 per cent to 1.75 per cent. The amending Bill was introduced into the House on 22 August by the Treasurer.

page 1559

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

-I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Bonython moving that this House censures the Government for toleradng within its ranks a Minister against whom there have been findings of a gravity and seriousness unparalleled in Australian political history.

I move that motion-

Motion (by Mr Fife) proposed:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

A division having been called and the bells being rungMi Yates- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. We are now entering our second hour. I draw your attention to Standing Order 86. It states:

  1. . Should any of these questions be negatived . . if the Speaker or the Chairman is of the opinion that it is an abuse of the orders . . . of the House, or is moved for the purpose of obstructing business . . .
Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– They would not do this in the House of Lords, would they?

Mr Yates:

– I am not a peer yet. The point I raise is that we will have another negative vote after this one. This will be a positive vote, but when the vote is taken on the next vote it will be a negative vote. That will be the third negative vote. I am suggesting that the Opposition is obstructing the business of this House by moving these motions. This will be the third occasion on which one is resolved in the negative.

Mr Scholes:

- Mr Speaker, before you rule I raise a point of order that Standing Order 86 is explicit. It is within your capacity as the Presiding Officer of the House to rule that the continued use of the motion ‘That the member be no longer heard’ is in fact a repetition designed to obstruct the business of this House and to prevent this House from considering a matter of grave national importance which should be debated in this national Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Question put-

That the honourable member be not further heard.

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

AYES: 70

NOES: 30

Majority……. 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

-I second this motion. I do so because -

Motion ( by Mr Fife ) put:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

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

AYES: 70

NOES: 30

Majority……. 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the motion (Dr Blewett’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 30

NOES: 69

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1562

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Mr SPEAKER:

-Pursuant to Standing Order 18 I lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) to act as Deputy Chairman of Committees when requested so to do by the Chairman of Committees.

page 1562

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDER 399

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

– I move:

I merely wish to comment that this motion is necessary for the orderly conduct of the business of the House.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-This is the ultimate in hushing up the Opposition in its exposing of the absolute corruption of this Government.

Motion (by Mr Fife) proposed:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

Mr Young:

– Why does the Minister for Primary Industry not get up and explain his actions? That is all we ask.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide -

Mr Young:

– You can have all night to explain it. Get up and explain your actions. The Prime Minister should too.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide -

Mr Young:

– It is the ultimate insult. It is the ultimate insult to Parliament. It is absolutely disgraceful.

Mr Sinclair:

– Where is the report?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide will remain silent.

Mr Young:

– Why don’t you go and read it? You will soon see what is in it.

Mr Sinclair:

– Where am I going to get it from?

Mr Young:

– You know what is in it.

Mr Sinclair:

– I do not. Do you?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide knows that that outburst is undesirable and unnecessary. The honourable member will remain silent.

A division having been called and the bells being rung-

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Pursuant to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs having moved a motion under Standing Order 399, 1 direct your attention to Standing Order 40 1 which states:

The suspension of standing orders is limited in its operation to the particular purpose for which such suspension has been sought.

I submit that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has not stated a purpose, particular or otherwise. I would have thought that a particular purpose would involve, say, the suspension of Standing Orders in order to get a particular item of business transacted or something of the sort. But it seems to me that the -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Question put:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

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

AYES: 70

NOES: 28

Majority……. 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-This is the greatest assault on Parliament and the integrity of Parliament that has been seen in this country.

Motion (by Mr Fife) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 70

NOES: 29

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put:

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

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

AYES: 69

NOES: 29

Majority…… 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative by an absolute majority.

page 1564

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr KEATING:

– Yes, Mr Speaker. I have been misrepresented by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony). During Question Time the Deputy Prime Minister alleged that I, as shadow Minister for Minerals and Energy, had said or implied that I was not now supporting the export project relating to liquefied natural gas from the North West Shelf of Australia. I would like to quote directly from the speech I made and to which the Minister referred last week. At page 10 of the speech I said:

As far as the Federal Opposition is concerned, it supports the exports. The ALP’s national policy states quite clearly that the ALP supports exports from the North West Shelf but not more than should be allowed in the national interest having regard for domestic demand.

I went on to say:

Those who take the isolationist approach by suggesting that Australia should not export gas but conserve it would deny Australia significant economic benefits.

I went on to say further:

A project without export volumes would be that much more fragile than one with exports and may not be viable at all. With exports the project looks strong.

In talking about priorities for gas for Western Australia, I said:

What this means is that after the provision of 370 million cubic feet a day for Western Australia between 1984 and 2004, the export commitment then takes priority over further Western Australian supplies.

This may be quite a safe situation, though I feel that Western Australia’s gas priority should be more fully guaranteed.

I then said, and I want to be quite specific about this:

I believe that in the interests of Western Australia, the Federal Government and the Woodside Consortium should examine this option -

I will refer to that option; it is the option of a lower rate of extraction for export- and indicate whether an additional block of natural gas can be dedicated for Western Australia in harmony with an export project-

I put that again: ‘In harmony with an export project’- of relatively large proportions.

The Federal Opposition would be most interested in the outcome of such a study. Indeed, no political party can afford to play roulette with Western Australia’s natural gas supplies.

The Deputy Prime Minister also said that I had run out on the export commitment of the Federal Government. When I responded to the Deputy Prime Minister on the afternoon on which he made his speech on natural gas in August 1977,I said that it was for the Federal Government to demonstrate that the level of exports was appropriate. However, later on I indicated that the Opposition would support exports. Last weekend, at page 7 of my speech I said:

Well, one course worthy of consideration is to maintain the export approval of 6.7 trillion cubic feet-

That is 53 per cent of the North Rankin Trend. The Minister alleged that I said that we would not stand by the export of 53 per cent of the North Rankin Trend. It is clear that we would and it is in the speech- but build the liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant on a two trains basis instead of three trains as planned.

I went on to say:

In other words, the same total export level but with Western Australian priority for an additional 250 million cubic feet per day advanced.

The Deputy Prime Minister then alleged that this would kill the project. I say this to him: Firstly, the Opposition is asking only for an expression of opinion from the Government and from the consortium. Secondly, at the moment the consortium has a contract for 370 million cubic feet a day with Western Australia. At the moment that equals the total gas production of Victoria. If the Gippsland gas field is viable at 370 million cubic feet a day, obviously one would have to believe that 370 million cubic feet -

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman is now debating the issue.

Mr KEATING:

– I will be only another half a minute, Mr Speaker. Obviously one would have to believe that 370 million cubic feet a day plus 4.4 million tonnes, which is twice as much again from the North West Shelf in exports, plus a later 2 million tonnes to make up the full 53 per cent would be viable. I say finally that I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister does not believe that he can wreck this project by attacking me on this point because that is the possibility that his remarks convey.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman is now debating the issue. He will resume his seat.

Mr KEATING:

– Could I make just one final point, Mr Speaker, as to where I have been misrepresented. The Opposition has been completely constructive in this matter and intends to continue to be completely constructive.

page 1565

TRADE WITH DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave- This statement explains a new series of initiatives which the Government has decided upon relating to Australia’s trade with developing countries. In this context it is important to go over what is presently being done for developing countries by Australia.

It is a long-established policy of the Government to provide enlarged trading opportunities in Australia for the products of developing countries, especially those in our region. We were the first country in the world to introduce a preference scheme. We have had a scheme since 1966, long before any other country had taken up the idea. In fact, our action was so unusual that we had to seek a special General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade waiver which, at the time, many developed countries were reluctant to concede. As a result, this path-breaking action by Australia led gradually to acceptance of the concept to the point that a general waiver was given.

Since that time we have progressively modified our scheme to improve access to the Australian market for the products of developing countries. The point is now being reached where the Australian system of tariff preference covers nearly three-quarters of the dutiable items in the Australian tariff and assists developing countries to compete with developed country suppliers for an increasing share of the Australian market. That our efforts have been successful can be shown by reference to the expanding value of trade developing countries have with Australia. In 1 967-68 imports from all developing countries into Australia were valued at $A505m or 1 5 per cent of total Australian imports. In 1978-79 imports from developing countries were valued at $A2,91 lm or 21 per cent of total Australian imports. In that same period the share of the Australian market supplied by the European Economic Community and North America fell from 65 per cent to 52 per cent.

We back up all these efforts to improve access opportunities for developing countries by practical and realistic measures to help them actually sell their goods in our market. This kind of activity has been another first for Australia. The efforts of developing countries to expand their exports to Australia are supported by a Market Advisory Service, whereby the Department of Trade and Resources assists potential developing country exporters to assess the market in Australia for their goods. We maintain special offices in Sydney and Melbourne, with officers experienced in trade promotion matters, of the same calibre as those we use in our own export promotion programs. Each year we receive and assist many trade missions from developing countries which give us an opportunity to introduce exporters to potential customers and in doing this under-pin the efforts of the commercial representatives of developing countries in Australia. Special courses are run from time to time for these representatives to enable them to understand the Australian commercial system and government procedures.

As well as these forms of assistance Australia is among those countries which support the International Trade Centre in Geneva. As part of the Centre’s activities the Department of Trade and Resources provides trade experts to conduct on the spot seminars in developing countries for government officials on trade promotion and the running of Trade Commissioner posts. In addition, the Department of Trade and Resources conducts seminars each year in collaboration with the Department of Foreign Affairs for both government officials and private businessmen from the surrounding regions on trade development.

In October last year new ground was broken with the Association of South East Asian Nations Trade Fair in Sydney, which was financed and organised by the Australian Government. A similar display is being held in Melbourne in August 1 980, and an Australian team is currently visiting all ASEAN capitals engaged in detailed planning with their ASEAN counterparts. Active programs are now being formulated with ASEAN to promote investment by Australian firms. The Australian Government provides full support for these programs. Australian investors are, for example, able to utilise the service of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation to insure their investments. I have given emphasis to these actions by Australia because I believe they are imperfectly understood within the Australian community and I think it is important that they are drawn to the attention of the House. They are not, I believe, questions which have been politicised but are actions which this Parliament can be proud of.

In keeping with our desire to continue to do as much as possible for developing countries to expand their trade, the Government has decided that the time has come for a new round of initiatives which wfil give further impetus to our overall objectives. We have, therefore, agreed on a package of new and beneficial initiatives for developing countries which are briefly as follows: The modification of procedures under the Australian system of tariff preferences; the elimination of British Preferential Tariffs on items of interest to developing countries; an increased number of regular visits by trade officials for trade consultations; the establishment of a showroom for developing country products in either Sydney or Melbourne; and further expansion of the Australian system of tariff preferences.

Let me now explain each of these initiatives and how they will benefit developing countries. Taking first the modification of existing procedures for varying preferences available to developing countries, under existing arrangements there is provision for a developing country which becomes fully competitive with other suppliers in a particular product to surrender its preferential margin on that product. That is a necessary part of our developing country preference scheme which allows us on a continuing basis to redistribute the benefits of the scheme to developing countries most in need of help. To maintain a preference for a developing country no longer needing such assistance denies the benefit of our scheme to those still in need of a preferential margin. However, we have found that some countries which have lost the full benefit of a preference have lost their competitive edge and, in some instances, their trade has fallen excessively. What we now propose is that when the Industries Assistance Commission looks at the question of possible disruption to the Australian domestic industry it will have the option, with emerging competitive developing countries, not merely to recommend whether or not they will continue to enjoy a preference, but in addition whether they should be accorded a reduced margin of preference. In this way developing countries will continue to have preferential access to our market and ensure that they maintain some competitive edge over developed country suppliers. In the context of this new initiative let me assure the House that it is not our intention to disturb any existing policies relating to assistance for Australian industry. The purpose of the refinement I have just outlined is, as indeed is the purpose of our developing country preference scheme, to improve the competitive position of developing countries in comparison with other overseas suppliers.

On the matter of British preferences the Government has been conscious of the existence of an anomalous situation in which for certain goods British suppliers enjoyed a margin of preference over developing countries arising from the continued existence of preferences to Britain in our tariff. Developing countries have expressed concern over this situation but accepted our assurance that the question would be reviewed as soon as multinational trade negotiation considerations would permit. That time has now come and accordingly it has been decided to remove the British preference on some 500 tariff items of interest to developing countries and thereby remove an anomaly which permitted developing country products to be disadvantaged in our market. The value of the trade in these items to Asian developing countries is around $A441m. British preference will remain on a range of tariff items in which developing countries interest is not significant even though Australia’s obligations to give Britain preference ceased in February 1973.

It was intended that the preferences would gradually be eliminated in the context of our ongoing tariff review program. Had that timetable continued all British preferences would have been phased out by now. However, owing to world economic circumstances the tariff review program was delayed and some preferences still remain. They will however, be progressively eliminated in the normal course of IAC reports.

The Government considers that for the moment there are sound reasons not to proceed to immediate and total discontinuation of these preferences with Britain, given the special and valuable relationship existing between ourselves and Britain.

The third initiative I mentioned is designed to increase contact at the working level between Australian trade officials and their counterparts in developing countries. During the past two years there have been a growing number of visits by the Prime Minister, (Mr Malcolm Fraser) my colleague the Minister for Special Trade Representations, Mr Garland, and me, as well as officials of the Department of Trade and Resources, to developing countries to discuss the growth of a two-way trade and sort out bilateral trading problems. This program of close consultation is to be given impetus and an increased number of regular visits are to be made in the coming year by trade officials. The Government sees real advantage in ensuring even closer contact be maintained between trade officials so that our trade policies are better understood by officials in developing countries and realistic programs to develop their exports to us are achieved. When trade problems arise there will be immediate consultations with a view to finding mutually acceptable solutions before these problems become issues between governments and affect our trade relations. The practical effect of this initiative will be that the efforts of the Government and Ministers to improve our trade relations with the five member governments of ASEAN will be supported by an increased number of regular visits by Australian trade officials. I believe these more regular consultations on trade matters will ensure that our trade relations with ASEAN continues to improve and the trade between Australia and ASEAN continues to grow.

The fourth initiative is the establishment of a developing country showroom in Sydney or Melbourne. Many developing countries have limited or no commercial representation in Australia. By having available a showroom organised on a professional basis, further opportunity will exist for developing country exporters to obtain introductions to Australian buyers. Investigations are being undertaken as to the appropriate form and organisation of such a display room, and providing that satisfactory arrangements can be made funds will be available for work on this project in the 1979-80 financial year. A developing country showroom will provide an opportunity for all developing countries to display a wide range of goods to potential purchasers in the Australian market.

The fifth initiative is a further expansion of the scope of developing country preferences. Following a review of the Australian system of Tariff preferences for developing countries by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) and myself, details of improved access to the Australian market for certain imports from developing countries will be announced shortly. In summary, imports of an additional 66 products from developing countries will now be eligible for new or increased margins of tariff preference. In addition, in relation to the small number of items where limitations are applied to the annual level of imports that can be entered from developing countries at concessional rates, it has been decided that the limitation on quota levels could be increased on 20 quota groups, an increase which, in all but two cases, will be by a factor of 50 per cent. The new quota levels will come into effect for the quota period 1 July 1 979 to 30 June 1980. These changes are also in line with the Government’s objective of assisting developing countries to expand their exports in Australia by enabling them to compete with developed country suppliers in the Australian market.

I believe that our actions in favour of developing countries, in providing expanding opportunities for them to sell increasing quantities of their goods in Australia will stand comparison with those of any other country. Our measures, taken together, are most comprehensive and cover the fullest possible range of trade policy and trade promotion measures. Yet there is no place for complacency. We have our various measures under continuing review and will be looking for opportunities for improving them or modifying them still further for the benefit of developing countries. I can assure the House that a major plank of the Government’s trade policy will be to continue to foster mutually beneficial and expanding trade between Australia and our developing country partners, especially those in our region. I am ensuring that these initiatives receive the widest possible publicity among developing countries through diplomatic channels and, in addition, the Minister for Special Trade Representations is at present in Singapore talking to his ministerial counterpart at which time he will take the opportunity to explain fully the significance of these initiatives. He will be doing the same in Malaysia later this week. Furthermore, in October, I shall be visiting a number of countries in the region with the same intention. I present the following paper.

Trade With Developing Countries-Ministerial Statement, 26 September 1979.

Motion (by Mr Fife) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-The Opposition supports the objective of stimulating greater trade with developing countries, especially Asian countries and more especially the member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations with which we hope to build closer relationships. But the Opposition is wary about giving unqualified support at short notice to the measures announced by the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony). We need more time to assess some of them. Furthermore, as the Minister admits, some crucial decisions still have to be made by the Government concerning the giving of preferences. Until they are made there will be uncertainty in certain sectors of Australian industry. In those circumstances we of the Australian Labor Party can hardly give our unqualified support to these measures.

Let me be more specific and state, first of all, the context in which we are discussing and assessing the statement. Australia is a great trading nation in a world in which, over the long term anyway, international trade has been increasing. We have only to look at the results of the increased trade to realise that it has caused an increase in the standard of living of the people of those trading nations. More than 100 nations actively participate in world trade and one-sixth of everything that is grown or manufactured in the world is traded internationally. The old British saying of export or die has been universally adopted. There is no way that we in Australia could possibly exclude ourselves from doing just that. No matter how great or powerful a nation may be it cannot isolate itself from what is going on in the international economic system. Australia is in an economic mess. This evening in the Budget debate we will again be discussing how that situation has come about. It is not my purpose now to lay the blame, although people will not have to be too imaginative to know that much of the blame rests with the present Government.

As a nation, Australia is in a precarious economic position. The European Economic Community, with its many millions of people throughout Europe, is able to provide economies of scale which Australia, with a population of only 14 million, cannot enjoy. America, with millions of people, is able through the customs union to provide economies of scale which mean greater productivity and greater competitiveness. The industrious nation of Japan, with between

SO and 60 million people, also is able to practise scale economies. Yet Australia, with a population of only 14 million, is unable in many sectors of industry to compete. Competition is the name of the game. In some instances we need to compete against imports. But, in the context of this statement concerning trade with developing countries, we need to ensure that we are developing export markets for Australia.

We have to work our way out of the present slump. We must take advantage of every opportunity that arises. One of our advantages is our marginally lower cost of energy. Australia has supplies of natural gas and an abundance of coal. Australia also has the advantage of being able to provide skilled workers. But, as a nation with a relatively high standard of education, we are woefully short of skills due to the Government’s inadequate manpower policy. Of particular relevance in looking at Australia ‘s advantages is the advantage of our proximity to the fastest growing part of the world- the developing countries of Asia. We have an advantage in being close to that sector of the world with its enormously large population. The standard of living is growing faster in some of the Asian countries than it is growing in any other part of the globe. That is the context in which we ought to consider the Minister’s statement.

The objective of seeking to increase our trade with our Asian neighbours in particular is a good one and one which the Opposition can support. In general, we have few complaints about the objectives set out in the statement but when it comes to the means of achieving them we have to be more particular. We have to be wary and we have to qualify our acceptance of the Government’s measures because of the short time we have had to assess them. I quickly assert that we of the Opposition consider some of the measures to be extremely commendable, provided they are implemented in the spirit in which they have been announced, that is, provided they do not create sudden dislocation in Australian industries with a consequent threat to employment in Australia.

Let me deal with the five measures in turn, if only briefly. The first change deals with the modification of procedures for varying preferences in respect of trade with developing countries. This is in our view a sensible measure in the spirit of the scheme to give preferences to developing countries to the point at which they are fully competitive in an item of trade. We believe that the new procedures, properly administered, will ensure that the encouragement to the developing countries is not cut off prematurely and at the same time that adequate protection is afforded to Australian producers. I should add that Australia has an adverse balance of trade with most of the developing countries- adverse to them and beneficial to us. We can increase our trade with them and at the same time benefit the exporters in this nation only if we are prepared to be more generous in respect of importing goods from them.

At this stage I want to draw attention to what has become know in the short time since it was tabled as the Harries report- the report entitled Australia and the third world ‘. In relation to that particular matter, I think it is interesting to note that Professor Harries and his committee in that report, under the heading International Trade and Protection Policy, set out a few clauses on the subject of preferences. In clause 7 the Harries Committee stated:

Australia should continue to participate in preference schemes for developing countries, provided the benefits offered by the various developed countries are roughly equivalent.

One reason why the Opposition has to be wary of giving unqualified immediate support to these measures is that the Minister’s statement does not tell us whether that particular recommendation has been adhered to. Did we in any way have negotiations with other developed countries to ensure that they too were bringing in measures roughly the same as this particular measure? I do not know of the consultations, if they have taken place. I am not now referring just to consultations with the developing countries which will benefit from these measures, but to consultations with other developed countries as recommended by the Harries Committee report.

The second measure is that of British preferences. As the Minister said, Australia no longer has any obligation to preserve preference for British goods. By this action we are abolishing preference on 500 items of interest to developing countries. These preferences will eventually be phased out in the course of the Industries Assistance Commission reporting. Equally they could be phased out now. I am rather intrigued at the way in which the Minister has glossed over this point, except that without that extra time to assess the measure I must confess that I would rather it be done in the context of the IAC reporting. The Minister in his statement said:

The Government considers that for the moment there are sound reasons not to proceed to immediate and total discontinuation of these preferences with Britain, given the special and valuable relationship existing between ourselves and Britain.

Broadly, the Opposition would agree with that statement. But surely it is up to the Government to tell us what its good reasons are for taking this position. There are two considerations involved here: Firstly, how abolition would affect British industry; and, secondly, how it would affect Australia, especially so far as inflation is concerned.

What worries us about waiting for particular IAC reports is that in certain areas we may wait for years and years for the IAC reports in those particular areas. To that extent it is not beneficial to developing countries for Australia not to have done something about abolishing the preferences with Great Britain. However, in other cases, it is very important that we should see the IAC reports first so that we know there will not be too much disruption to our own industry. The third measure in this package is increased frequency of visits to the Association of South East Asian Nations countries by trade officials. In the Opposition ‘s view this measure is overdue. When I talked about certain of the measures being commendable I was referring to this one in particular. We have said so often that trade relations with ASEAN are at an unacceptably low level. Overall relations with ASEAN are in disarray. They are unco-ordinated and on too many occasions in conflict. So this new initiative must not be allowed to exacerbate the situation.

However, we are a bit concerned to note that it is the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland) who has the particular carriage of negotiating in this area at this time. He has made an awful mess of our negotiations with the European Economic Community countries. I can only hope that he has learned from the mistakes he made in the way he went about his negotiations in Brussels and with the European countries and that he will not be confronting countries in the way he did in Europe. I hope he will be carrying out negotiations far more successfully with our ASEAN neighbours. The fourth measure is the establishment of a developing country showroom. This is an imaginative concept which should be of great value to the smaller developing countries. Similarly, the expansion of the scope of the developing country preference scheme is a natural and sensible evolutionary step. A great deal more effort needs to be put into our overall relations with ASEAN, but as a small step this is a worthwhile beginning. The fifth measure was the expansion of the system of tariff preferences. This is the area which I referred to earlier where more details are yet to be announced. We have just been given the promise in the Minister’s statement that these details will be announced shortly. In the statement the Minister said: . . . details of improved access to the Australian market for certain imports from developing countries will be announced shortly.

I find that statement highly unsatisfactory. Why on earth did this statement not await the negotiations so that we could be given details now of that particular announcement? The statement relates to 66 products and, in 20 cases, to products which are the subject of quotas. All the statement will do is to create enormous additional uncertainty in industry generally, not just in the area of those 66 products, because we do not know which products are involved. I hope that the Government will quickly announce which particular products are involved so that there is not uncertainty generally. Lastly, the reason for these measures is to increase trade. I have already stated how the Opposition believes in that increased trade. But when it comes to the developing countries, the Opposition believes that we should assert a hope that it will be the people of the countries themselves who will benefit from these measures. Too often it has been merely the trans-national companies, using the low wage employees of these countries, which take the profit without passing on the benefits to the people concerned. I hope that the Government, in its dealings with these nations, will say that one of the qualifications it will make in allowing this greater preference to developing nations will be that the benefits of the preference will be passed down the line to the people themselves.

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

Debate (on motion by Mr Bourchier) adjourned.

page 1570

WANT OF CONFIDENCE

Notice of Motion

The Clerk:

– Notice has been received from the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) that at the next sitting he will move:

That the House no longer has confidence in the Prime Minister or the Government because-

The Prime Minister has failed to require the resignation of a Minister against whom serious charges have been made involving forgery and misappropriation of funds; and

The Parliament cannot support the continuation of a Government in office which clearly is not prepared to require that Ministers maintain proper standards of conduct.

Mr Scholes:

– I ask leave to proceed forthwith with the motion which is a censure motion of the Government.

Leave not granted.

page 1570

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Reports

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, 1 present the reports relating to the following proposed works:

New terminal complex at Coolangatta aerodrome, Queensland; and

Darwin patrol boat base at Larrakeyah, Northern Territory.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

page 1570

TRADE UNION MOVEMENT

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER-Mr Speaker has received letters from both the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) and the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by Standing Order 107, Mr Speaker has selected the matter which in his opinion is the most urgent and important, that is, that proposed by the honourable member for St George, namely:

The necessity for the Government to re-affirm the rule of law for the trade union movement particularly in view of building union attempts to destroy the sub-contract system.

I therefore 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 DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Before calling the honourable member for St George, I suggest that it might meet with the approval of the House if the chair is resumed at 8 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 to 8 p.m.

Mr NEIL:
St George

-At the outset I would like to commend the large number of Government members who supported this discussion when it came before the House a short time ago. Their action was in stark contrast to that of members of the Labor Party, not one of whom rose in his seat to support a discussion on one of the most important issues facing Australia today. (Quorum formed). As I was saying an overwhelming majority of Government members stood in their places to support discussion of this extremely important matter of public importance. In contrast, not one member of the Labor Party stood to support the motion that the National Parliament should discuss this matter. Another stark contrast is the fact that members on this side of the House wish to discuss issues and not be involved in the gutter-type tactics of personality attacks that so many members of the Labor Party have indulged in today and at other times.

There are two reasons for my raising this matter of public importance. The first is that at the Australian Labor Party biennial conference in Adelaide a once great party, which had the admiration of many Australians in the past but over which the trade unions had a mortgage, sold out the Left. Ever since that time, when the Labor Party was strangled by the Left, swallowed up by the Left, the Labor Party has been owned lock, stock and barrel by the Left. Since the Australian Council of Trade Union Congress a few weeks ago the ACTU itself has become owned lock, stock and barrel by the Left. The bitter irony is that what happened at the Labor Party congress happened by default. As described by Mr Hawke, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), in a gutless sell-out, simply packed up his bags and gave in to the Left in order to obtain some miniscule, immediate, apparent political advantage. If, by some mischance- we know it would never occur- there were ever to be another government under the so-called banner of the Labor Party, every member of this House in the Labor Party, bound by the decisions of that biennial Congress, would prove to the people what we know they are- the pawns and stooges of the Halfpennys, the Hartleys and the Carmichaels of this world. I would just like to quote one media reaction to what happened in Adelaide. That article appeared in the Australian of 18 August. It stated that at the next election: . . . Bill Hayden will be done like a dinner- for he has made the greatest mistake of all for an Australian Labor leader: He has done a deal with the left- and what the left giveth the left . . . taketh.

We all know they will have to pay out to the Left. The major piece of policy in relation to the trade unions that was decided at that conference was simply that the trade unions should be free of all government and judicial interference. They have set the trade unions above the law. They have opened the way for labour anarchy, for blackmail, for criminal action, for the law of the jungle, for complete lawlessness. A new despotism, as it is termed, has taken over. Industrial gangsterism would be the order of the day if that Labor Party policy were ever brought to fruition. It is vitally important that the Government reaffirm to the people- I reaffirm it on behalf of Government members- that this Government will consider, at all times, that every person and every organisation in this country is equal before the law and that no organisation is to be above the law. That particularly applies to trade unionsIn the recent past we have seen, according to very in-depth recent studies, that violence, while not yet commonplace within the union movement, tends to be an increasing part of the trade union scene. Those words were included in an article by Mr Alan Reid in the Bulletin of June of last year. I will return to a detailed treatment of that policy in a moment.

The second reason for raising this matter- it is linked with the first- is that the trade union movement, having been given the green light by the Left in New South Wales and recently in South Australia, has set about trying to demolish the building industry in Australia. We all know that for many years past building unions have done their best to sabotage the building industry. They know that it is an extremely important industry and they know it has an extreme multiplier effect on the economy. They have gone out of their way to commit sabotage of a physical nature, to commit industrial warfare on the building industry and to bring it to its knees. Now they are trying to destroy private enterprise in the building industry. They are trying to force unionism and unionisation on the whole of the building industry in Australia, and particularly in New South Wales and, until recently, in South Australia. We all know that the building industry operates in a very great measure upon subcontract activity. Most major contractors, particularly for ordinary houses, use subcontractors. They use subcontractors who are experienced and knowledgeable. Many subcontractors often work on the one building site, and have thenown employees and sometimes subcontract further. The unions are trying to abolish the entire subcontract system and, by a centralised enforced system -

Mr Innes:

– Lies, lies, lies.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! I ask the honourable member for Melbourne to withdraw that remark.

Mr Innes:

– I will withdraw.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Melbourne will rise as he withdraws.

Mr Innes:

– I withdraw.

Mr NEIL:

– By a centralised enforced system, the unions are attempting to get rid of all subcontractors in the building industry and to ensure that the prime contractor has to treat every single person under him who has anything to do with the job as an employee. That, in fact, will destroy thousands and thousands of small businesses. It will mean that every subcontractor in the building industry in Australia today will no longer be an independent businessman. He will be an employee of a particular employer and the employer will be open to union blackmail within the whole range of his employees. The unions will then be free to order stoppages, to go on strike and to enforce their sabotage and blackmail throughout the entire building industry.

In recent years the unions have been able to destroy much of the development in Sydney and Melbourne, particularly in relation to large office blocks and other similar projects. What they have not been able to do has been to take over the vast area of dwelling construction conducted in Australia. They have set their sights on trying to take it over. They want it in their grip by hook or by crook so that they can in fact nationalise the whole of the dwelling construction industry in Australia. That is what they are all about. That is what they are trying to do. In Western Australia the unions brought in piece rate claims. In New South Wales there is an unjustified and costly inquiry into the subcontract system. In South Australia they tried to amend the Industrial Arbitration Act. Fortunately, by the good sense of the people of South Australia, the Labor Government was kicked out. One would not expect the new Government to have a bar of that policy.

It is extremely important to note that the unions tried to get their way in the industrial commission and they failed. Mr Justice Alley of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has already said that the unions have sought to get the Commission to do indirectly what it has no power to do directly, namely, prescribe conditions on matters which do not pertain to the relationship between employers and employees. They have lost their case but they are still trying by every means possible, including industrial blackmail, to try to destroy the viability of small builders in Australia. All the employers would be liable for long service leave, payroll tax, workers compensation and all the administrative costs that go with them. This would increase overheads dramatically at a time when we are trying to get inflation further under control, particularly in the building industry. It would reduce initiative and it would drive off most of the self-employed workers. Productivity would nose-dive.

The Government parties stand for independence, enterprise and freedom. The Australian Labor Party and the unions oppose independence, freedom and small business. The building industry uses Australian labour and Australianmade materials- steel, bricks, cement and glassware. The unions are trying to attack the very basis of a great Australian industry. They would attack employment opportunities, training opportunities, apprenticeship opportunities and the opportunities for young people to work in the building industry. They are striking at the construction industry, which is one of the main engines for leading the economic recovery. They are doing that out of their ideological determination to bring a great Australian industry under the banner of socialism. My colleague the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) will deal in more detail with this and other policies of the trade union movement.

I conclude my remarks by reminding honourable members of what happened at the Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress. There was a sell-out to the Left. The two ACTU vicepresidents are now left-wingers and the swollen ranks of failed people who have gone into the Parliamentary Labor Party are apparently to be increased by Mr Hawke, if he can manage the trick. He is another person who has failed in his chosen calling and who wants to flee to the Parliament. He took over the ACTU from Albert Monk. Mr Hawke then took the ACTU to the Left. He presided over it and the Australian Labor Party during the time of the disastrous Whitlam Government Now that the Left is finally on top of him and has strangled him he has given up and wants to flee to the Parliament.

The other matters that I would briefly go through are, firstly, what was described by Mr Hawke as the gutless sell-out and, secondly, what was described by Mr Wran as a hotchpotch of a policy. The Australian Labor Party’s major policy has nothing to it. It has no policy on the economy. It will develop one with the understanding and co-operation of the trade union movement. It is a pawn of the Left. The Trade Unions would be immune from any penalties, but the penalties would still apply to the employers. Again, it would be a pawn of the left. There would be no judicial interference with the trade unions. They would be above the law. Again, it would be a pawn of the Left. Political strikes would be recognised. Again, the Labor Party would be a pawn of the Left. The closed shop would be encouraged. Again, it would be a pawn of the Left.

One policy that would have made Mr Curtin turn in his grave is the policy that the Labor Party would prevent the Defence Force from ever being involved in any industrial dispute. That is the rare and ultimate sanction available to a Government. Labor governments used the Defence Force in 1949 in the coalfields and when Ermolenko was flown out of the country by the Royal Australian Air Force. If the Labor Party hands over the ultimate sanction to the left wing, the country will be finished. The country under Labor would be completely and utterly dominated by the Left, by communists, who stay in the Labor Party only to give themselves cover. They will not have the opportunity.

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

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-A little earlier in the day I asked the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) who would be raising the matter of public importance. He said: Brown sugar’. I said: ‘Whom do you call “brown sugar”?’. He said: ‘The honourable member for St George’. I said: ‘What do you mean by that’? He said: ‘He is raw and unrefined’. Certainly, that is what we have heard tonight. The honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) has given forth with 15 minutes of absolute nonsense. Let us look at the terms of the matter of public importance. It refers to the necessity for the Government to reaffirm the rule of law. All afternoon we on this side of the House concerned ourselves with the law. Let us examine some of the comments that were made this afternoon about the telexes which came to this Parliament and which necessitated a look at the law. A report tabled today in the New South Wales Parliament alleges that a certain person in this House forged signatures on company statements and devised an elaborate system of transferring large sums of money between several family companies without the knowledge of his fellow directors.

Mr Killen:

– I raise a point of order. This is a very blatant ploy to try to defeat the Standing Orders of this House. What the honourable gentleman has said has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the matter of public importance before the House. Mr Deputy Speaker, if he trespasses upon your natural instinct, I invite you to take the proper course of action. What he has accused me of saying is absolute nonsense. I have not spoken to him. More’s the pity. I could possibly have swept him to some point of emancipation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide is not maintaining relevance to the matter before the House. He has almost persuaded the Chair to believe that he is contravening the Standing Orders in making a reflection on a member of the House. I trust that the honourable member will desist from carrying out what would appear to be his intention. I require him now to address himself to the matter before the House.

Mr YOUNG:

– My intention is to draw an analogy between the standards set by this Government and the accusations made by the honourable member for St George about who upholds the law in this country. The fact is that when one refers to the more sensitive spots of this Government- the performance of some of its senior Ministers- all of a sudden the law is not that important; all of a sudden one can bypass the law. In this matter of public importance we are talking about the trade union movement. This is an area in which the Government wants to kick the can. It does not want to talk about anything else. That senior Ministers forge documents is no longer the business of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide is contravening the Standing Orders in speaking of other circumstances with which all honourable members are familiar. There can be no doubt that the honourable member is intent on reflecting on a member of this House. I require him to desist or he will have to resume his seat.

Mr YOUNG:

– I do desist from making any mention of any member of this House, but it does make a mockery of the standards which this Government says it adheres to when on the one hand it initiates a debate about the trade union movement because of the inquiry being conducted by a former conciliation commissioner into the subcontract system of the building industry in New South Wales and calls upon the Government to reaffirm the law- whatever that means, insofar as the Federal Government is concerned- and on the other it does not take any notice of the law in some other aspect of its administration. I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the analogy has to be drawn. This Government does not stand for law and order. It stands for can kicking. It stands for deceit. It stands for dishonesty. It stands for all the worst features of the worst government that this country has ever seen. We will hear a lot more about this tomorrow. But let me go further on this matter. If the Government is serious about the matter which has been raised in New South Wales it would not have one of the most junior of its members, who is looked upon on his own side as being some sort of semi-ratbag, raising a matter of public importance about what is going on in New South Wales; it would have a Minister doing so.

Mr Killen:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order which has two aspects to it. The thoroughly gratuitous and offensive remark made by the honourable member concerning the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) is the first aspect. My second point relates to the persistence of the honourable member in dealing with something which has no connection whatsoever with this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-I uphold the second point of order and I ask the honourable member for Port Adelaide to be relevant to the matter.

Mr YOUNG:

-It is relevant to say that the Government must be looked upon as giving this matter a very low priority when it does not have someone from the ministry moving the motion. Yesterday we heard the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) tell us how concerned he was about what was happening in New South Wales. But today we have a very junior member of the back bench of the Government moving the motion. The Government is not serious about this matter. A second illustration to be drawn is the fact of the very superficial stand that the Government has taken on this issue. Has the Federal Government gone before the inquiry and put in a submission? No, it has not. The Government’s case is so poor and it has so little evidence and so little reason to answer the allegations that have been made by the witnesses who have gone before that inquiry that the most powerful body in this country- it has more people to do research for it than any other organisation- the Federal Government of Australia, does not have a sufficient case to go before that committee of inquiry in New South Wales to substantiate its case. On those two points the Federal Government has a very poor case. In addition to that it just does not know what it is talking about.

Let me read to the House section 88F of the Industrial Arbitration Act of New South Wales. The principal section of the Act regards as unfair, harsh, unconscionable and against the public interest if the remuneration received by the person performing the work is less than that which would be received if such person were employed under the award. The inquiry is conducted by a person who is not under any challenge from any side, whether it be the housing industry or the trade unions. Are the people working in the New

South Wales building industry working under a scheme which is now described as body hire? Are they working under this scheme and receiving far less than they would receive if they were working under an award? Another point that has to be made is that there is absolutely no evidence at all- there is not one skerrick of evidence- that any trade union in the building industry in New South Wales has come out against the contract system in that State. The rhetoric and the ranting of the honourable member for St George did not put that point forward at all, and nor will the next speaker for the Government. The unions have gone before the inquiry. The evidence is there. It can be made available to the Government. The unions are not against the contract system but they are against body hire. They are against a system where people in New South Wales are being forced to work under conditions in which they are earning up to $ 100 a week less than the award rates. That is what is happening in New South Wales. If honourable members would like to see what is happening in New South Wales I shall show them by reading from the Australian Financial Review of January this year, which states:

At six o ‘clock in the morning the group of men standing on the vacant allotment near the corner are looking a bit anxious, standing straight in their working gear, ready for work.

As the organisers look them over they fall silent. The next few minutes determines whether they have a job for the day, or whether they will have to trek home for another day in front of the television with only the dole money to keep the household running.

The organiser tells them how much work there is for the day, and then goes down the line of labourers, picking the ones he wants.

Catching his eye and looking fit are crucial. A nod will mean round $50 in cash at the end of an eight-hour day doing labouring work on a building site.

In most cases tax will not be paid. The article continues:

It means the difference between barely existing on the dole, with unpaid bills and an edgy wife, and plenty of cash in the wallet and all the other advantages of semi-regular income.

This is body hire- a practice which has been mushrooming in Australia ‘s depressed building industry.

This is body hire, it is not subcontracting as the honourable member for St George would try to have the House believe. That is the argument that is going on before the inquiry. I invite the Government to use its intelligence, or the remainder of it, to go before that inquiry and argue against the case that has been put by people who are concerned. Let me read the letter that has gone out from the Labor Council of New South

Wales, which is co-ordinating the trade union submissions. That letter states:

The current inquiry into the Nature and Terms of Employment in the New South Wales Housing Industry being conducted by Mr G. A. Burns, former NSW Conciliation Commissioner, is creating widespread public interest.

Employer organisations such as the Housing Industry Association, the Master Builders’ Association and other like organisations, are conducting a publicity and petition campaign on the question amongst sub-contractors, using the builders and their supervisory personnel as the main organising force.

They are accusing the Trade Union Movement and the Labor Government, of seeking to restrict the freedom of the individual, besides claiming that the unions are out to abolish the contract system in the cottage industry.

It is for that reason that the Labor Council of New South Wales is writing to each State Labor member of Parliament to put the facts right and to seek your continued support for the efforts of the trade union movement to protect contract workers within the housing construction industry of this State.

The position of the uade unions in the building industry is that they are not opposed to the contract system within the cottage industry, but they are seeking to have amendments made to the New South Wales Industrial Arbitration Act, which will give legal protection to the contract workers from those unscrupulous builders and developers who are grossly exploiting them.

Such amendments to the Act would help to bring to an end a position where contract workers, whilst being treated as independent contractors and paid a price per unit, metre, for their work, receive up to $100 per week less than that of a building tradesman working on an award basis.

Now honourable members would think that if there were any decency left on the Government benches, it would have delved into this inquiry. If the Government felt strongly about this matter it should have gone before the inquiry and put its views forward. Let me read to honourable members a letter from the Building Workers Industrial Union because it seems, in the mind of the honourable member for St George, to be the main culprit. Obviously from the import of his speech the honourable member for St George is in the pockets of some builder in New South Wales. The letter states:

Dear Sir,

In the interest of those who want to see a healthy and viable cottage construction industry that serves the interest of the consumer and at the same time gives a just financial return to those who carry out the construction, we consider that- all those associated with the cottage industry are entitled to know the two main opposing viewpoints being put forward before the current inquiry into the cottage industry. Accordingly, we request that a BWIU representative be permitted to address your meeting to be held at the Blacktown Civic Centre on 20 August-

That is a meeting of the New South Wales Division of the Housing Industry Association. The letter goes on to state that in return the union is prepared to allow a speaker from the Housing Industry Association to come before the Building

Workers’ Industrial Union to put its views. The letter continues:

We seek permission to address your meeting because we believe that the HIA is grossly distorting the submissions that the BWIU has presented to the inquiry. We direct your attention to an example of what we regard as two irresponsible and contradictory statements recently made by spokesmen of the HIA.

For example, your Mr David Sellars in the Daily Mirror of 10 July 1979, said that housing costs, as a result of the BWIU proposals, would be increased by 25 percent. This statement was subsequently contradicted and disowned by Mr KirkbyJones, who on Channel 7 on Wednesday, 15 August 1979, stated that the union proposals would increase costs by 10 percent.

Both these statements are false and their conflicting nature must raise in peoples minds, … a grave doubt about the credibility of statements made by the HIA in respect of this inquiry.

In respect of the freedom of the individual, we would point out that the BWIU is not seeking to deny freedom of a subcontractor to negotiate a contract price, provided such contract price does not violate Section 88F of the Industrial Arbitration Act, which regards as unfair, harsh, unconscionable and against the public interest if it provides a total remuneration less than a person performing the work would have received as an employee performing such work.

The whole presentation of the Government’s case through this junior back bencher has been a farce. If the Government were serious about the matter it would do two things: The Minister would make a statement so that we could debate the matter and the Government would go before the inquiry, if it had sufficient evidence, to refute the allegations that have been made by the unions. No one in this country is going to allow a system of employing people, or body hire as it is now termed, in which people are paid far less than the award wages which have been won by the unions in the particular industry.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr BURR:
Wilmot

– I congratulate the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) for bringing before us this very important matter of public importance that people throughout the country are very concerned about. Before I start the main body of my speech I point out that I have been advised by the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Birney), in answer to the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), that in New South Wales the body hire rates are $50 a day tax free. That works out at $250 a week tax free, or the equivalent of $310 a week before tax. Yet the honourable member for Port Adelaide said that these people are being paid $100 a week below award rates. I do not think that anybody in Australia would accept that that is a measly rate of pay. I point out to the honourable member for Port Adelaide that the main substance of this matter of public importance is the need for the Government to reassert the rule of law over the trade union movement. Not once during the whole of his speech did the honourable member for Port Adelaide refer to bringing the trade union movement under the control of law.

I do not know whether he inadvertently failed to refer to the rule of law and the need for the trade unions to be brought under it or whether he acceded to the accusations made by the honourable member for St George that the left wing of the Labor movement has taken over control of the Australian Labor Party and was simply not prepared to buck the left wing of the Labor movement by accusing it in this place of being above the law. The honourable member for St George brought forward this matter because of resolutions that were passed at the Adelaide conference of the Labor Party. As the honourable member for St George pointed out, those resolutions are binding on all members of the ALP parliamentary party. They cannot avoid them. If ever they are unfortunately given the opportunity by the Australian people to be back in government these policies must be brought into law by those people who are dictated to by the left wing of the Labor movement.

An important section of the resolutions that the honourable member for St George pointed out is that an ALP government would recognise the rights of unions to regulate their own affairs in a democratic way free from government and judicial interference. I remind the honourable member for Port Adelaide that ‘free from judicial interference’ must and can only be interpreted as placing the unions above the law. That is the sort of legislation that the ALP would introduce as part of the law of this land. What sort of laws would the ALP place the union movement above? What sort of actions that anybody else in the community can term only as criminal actions is it prepared to allow unions to get away with? I remind the honourable member for Port Adelaide that one of the well known members of the trade union movement, Mr Pat Clancy, is reported as writing on this subject in his own Building Workers Industrial Union newspaper, the Socialist. A newspaper article states:

Internal union violence has taken two main forms- firstly intrusion of professional gangsterism, including deliberate marking out and gunning down of a union official’, says the Socialist. ‘The second form has seen increases in bashing incidents when some unionists have been seriously injured in internal union conflict . . . ‘

That is the sort of action for which the honourable member for Port Adelaide and other members of the ALP would exempt the unions from any form of judicial action. What other actions do we hear of from other members of the union movement? Mr Terry Gordon, Federal Secretary of the Painters and Dockers Union- I am sure most of us are familiar with some of the actions of that particular union- in giving evidence before Commissioner Sweeney when he was inquiring into allegations of illegal payments paid to maritime unions said: ‘We catch and kill our own’. That is the sort of action that the ALP chooses to endorse. I turn to a responsible reaction from one union that mostly would be considered to be on the left wing side of the Labor movement. Mr Ted McBeatty, who was the New South Wales secretary of the Transport Workers Union, in February 1975 wrote:

If a union is taken over by an organisation that is not prepared to work within the system, not prepared to observe the iawful acts of society, that union can organise a form of anarchy and capture the imagination of people who might be trying to wreck society.

That is the sort of action in relation to which the ALP is very purposely choosing to put the unions above the law. The Australian community will not tolerate any organisations being above the law of the land and it is high time that the Government exerted its influence to make sure that laws within Australia are properly observed. But the ALP would not have that observance of the law if ever it became the government of this country. I also remind the House and people who might choose to read Hansard that some of these actions and the scenario for them go well back before the present trade union officials came to office. Mr Lance Sharkey, who in his day was a well-known communist leader, in his book The Trade Unions in 1942 had this to say:

Communists must be the best trade unionists . . . giving a lead on all problems of the trade unions and lead the fight for the economic demands of the workers; in short, be the best fighters on the job and during strike periods.

At the same time, politics must be introduced, linked with the union ‘s problems.

All strikes have political significance.

If an economic strike bears the nature of a spontaneous outburst, it does not thereby lose its political significance. If a strike which has purely economic demands as its point of departure is from the very beginning consciously directed along the line of combining it with the political struggle, it yields maximum effects.

That was the scenario laid down in 1942 by Lance Sharkey, the well-known communist, that is very purposely followed by trade union leaders today. Those sorts of actions are endorsed by the ALP and by honourable members opposite. I think they should take a good hard look at those policies they are endorsing. As the honourable member for St George said, a once very great party has now gone down the mine because it has been dominated by those on the left wing and communist side of politics. I am very surprised that such a well-meaning and thoughtful man as the honourable member for Port Adelaide would sanction the actions of these purposeful agitators who would seek to destroy our society.

The same thing is happening in Tasmania too. It makes me very much ashamed to say that that State could be dominated by the left wing of the Labor Party or by the left wing of the Labor movement. I am rather ashamed to think that the Tasmanian people were not farsighted enough to recognise what might happen when they went to the polls a short time ago. If we were fortunate enough to see another election in that State the result would be very much different. Since that election it has become well known that Mr Lowe has appointed a number of left wing ALP sympathisers to senior positions in his own Government. Also, directions have gone out from the Premier’s Office and from the Tasmanian Government to the effect that sub-contractors who are not members of an appropriate union cannot and will not be employed on government jobs.

As the honourable member for St George said, sub-contracting has always been a part of all government contracted work in housing, in the building industry generally, road construction and other work. But the ALP Government in Tasmania by Cabinet decree has instructed its departments that a person who is not a member of a trade union cannot be employed on a government job. I remind the honourable member for Port Adelaide that that is in direct contravention of section 132A of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I am sure the honourable member for Port Adelaide is familiar with that particular section. A situation exists now where a State government has given instructions to its own departments in contravention of Federal legislation. I do not think that we have yet seen the last of this. I remind the House that it is well known that the Adelaide conference was dominated by the Left wing of the union movement. It forced policies on the ALP. Given the opportunity, the ALP will introduce legislation into this place to make the laws of this country a sheer mockery. It would give those people who want to tear down our society an exemption from the law. That will be the future of the ALP.

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

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-Once again we have heard an outburst from people whose ideology is further to the right than that of Ghengis Khan. They have illustrated the deception, deceit, dishonesty and double standards that this Government’s policies stand for.

Mr Young:

– They tell lies too.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Young:

– I withdraw.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Melbourne and caution him about the use of words that the Speaker has indicated as being unparliamentary.

Mr INNES:

– Let us examine the matter of public importance brought before the Parliament. Government supporters talk about the necessity for the Government to reaffirm the rule of law. What they are reaffirming is a law that applies only to one section of the community. The law that has governed the operation of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission since its inauguration has been based on the two processes of conciliation and arbitration. Conciliation has played as big a part in industrial relations as arbitration. The honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) did not refer specifically to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The Government should come clean. It wants to perpetrate on the Australian work force a system of compulsory arbitration. The four unique elements of compulsory arbitration are these: First, the parties are forced to appear before a tribunal, either because the tribunal so ordains or because one of the parties seeks an arbitrated settlement; second, a settlement is determined by the tribunal without the parties’ prior agreement to accept and abide by that determination; third, penalties are imposed for non-compliance with the determination; and, fourth, the penalties imposed are implemented and fines collected. That is the sort of law that the Government wants to perpetrate on the unions in this country. The employers, those who exploit individuals and those who do not even pay award rates, are to be allowed to run scot free. There is to be a law for one section of the community which does not apply to other sections.

This debate has thrown up the whole question of conciliation and arbitration in this country. The Government ought to be cognisant of one point. Any attack on the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the spirit of what has been said by Government speakers this evening brings about the wrath of the individuals who work under the system. The Bruce-Page Government was brought down by the sort of attack that honourable members opposite have made, not only tonight but also as pan of the union bashing process which they have carried out ever since the Government came to office. The Government wants to bring the unions within the area of common law. It wants to destroy the application of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It wants to apply the common law to unions. That is what it attempted to do in the Australian Postal Commission dispute. Any obligation on employers under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act would be set aside. That is what the Government is all about. It wants to restrict the ambit of the trade union movement in this country so as to destroy it. It wants to produce tame cat unions. It wants to stand over those who, in very difficult circumstances, do their best to represent the people who form the unions. We are talking about the application of vicious penal codes that would bring the trade union movement to its knees. The Government should hearken to a note of warning. This action was tried in the 1960s. It led to the gaoling of a trade union official when he gave effect to a decision of his own organisation. What the trade union movement told the Government then is what it will say in the future. I hope it will continue to say it. It said: ‘We will not pay the fine. You come and get it. If you gaol every trade union official in this country we will not bow to that suppression. Those are the tactics that Hitler adopted in Germany. They are the tactics of other totalitarian dictatorships. They will not work in this country. ‘

I now address myself to another aspect of this so-called matter of public importance. As my friend the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) has said, the Government produced the lowliest back bencher in the place, who would not have enough brains to give himself a headache, to bring forward a matter of public importance which should have been handled by the responsible Minister. I want to refer to the attack, a fabrication, made by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) yesterday. He came into the Parliament and accused the Building Workers Industrial Union of attacking the contract system in the building industry. The public stance of the Building Workers Industrial Union in the current New South Wales inquiry into building subcontracting has been to support the continuation of the contract system.

In his outburst the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) quoted another genius, the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Birney), who said that people working under the body hire system were better off than individuals working under the award. The sworn evidence to the inquiry of some contract workers has revealed that their average income is $280 for an average of 48 hours per week, out of which they have to pay $50 a week for expenses such as supplying material, petrol, power tools, equipment et cetera. Out of that sum they have to allow a further $72 a week for sick pay, annual leave, public holidays and wet weather. This leaves $158 a week. On the other hand an award worker gets $230.50 for a 40-hour week plus all conditions and has no expenses. Of the witnesses 90 per cent said that their rates were not freely negotiated. Forty per cent said that they had been coerced into signing agreements to pay long service leave premiums to the Builders Licensing Board. One said that his name had been forged. Fifty-five per cent said that they had not been paid for work which they had performed. Some witnesses stated that their rates had not been adjusted for three years.

I had something to do with the building industry when representing the Electrical Trades Union of Australia before tribunals in this country. People were going bankrupt because of the pressures applied by master builders. People were left lamenting after spending years in the service of an employer who was not able to pay their long service leave. Weeks of back pay were never recovered. They were the losers. If individuals are thrown on to the open market and not brought within State or Federal laws it is a prescription for disaster. A number of witnesses at the New South Wales inquiry said that many skilled tradesmen are leaving the industry. This will create serious problems for home seekers who want quality workmanship and homes built on time. One witness stated that he was forced to sell his house and move after he was blacklisted for asking for the proper, agreed rate.

Because of this damning evidence the Housing Industry Association and the Master Builders Association are now making outrageous statements attacking the building unions and distorting the evidence presented in the inquiry. The Housing Industry Association has issued contradictory statements. On 10 July 1979 Mr Sellars of the Housing Industry Association said that housing costs would go up by 25 per cent if the submissions of the Building Workers Industrial Union were implemented. On 15 August 1979 Mr Kirkby- Jones of the Housing Industry

Association said that they would go up by 10 per cent. This shows that wild guesses and irresponsible statements are made not only by Government supporters in the debate this evening but also by individuals who want to perpetrate on people who earn their livelihoods in the contracting section, as well as other sections of the building industry, on wages which are below the standards prescribed by the tribunals of this country.

The real position is that housing costs will not alter at all as a result of the unions’ submissions unless the State Industrial Commission decides that the rates paid are less than the total value of the remuneration paid to an award worker, which is in conformity with the law as stated under section 88F of the Industrial Arbitration Act. The statements of the Housing Industry Association and the Master Builders Association are an admission that the rates paid are less than what the law prescribes. This matter of public importance, like all the matters of public importance that emanate from the other side of the House, is a phoney. As far as the law is concerned, all the Government wants to do is stand over the unions and bring workers to their knees. That will never happen. This matter of public importance is a phoney, as the evidence before the tribunal indicates.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. The discussion is concluded.

page 1579

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1979-80

Second Reading (Budget Debate)

Debate resumed from 25 September, on motion by Mr Howard:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr Willis had moved by way of amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘whilst not opposing the second reading, this House condemns the Fraser Government for presenting a budget which-

reduces the real living standards of Australian families;

will increase unemployment to the highest level in the nation ‘s history;

3 ) facilitates and stimulates the recent fresh outbreak of inflation;

ensures that economic growth will be well below the nation ‘s productive capacity;

fails to introduce an effective job creation program, particularly for the young;

savagely reduces the allocation of funds for job training and re-training program;

will be responsible for the highest level of tax and total revenue collections in the nation ‘s history;

forces State and local governments either to reduce their services or increase their charges, and

9 ) intensifies the lack of credibility of the Prime Minister and his government and adds to their long list of broken promises.

Mr JULL:
Bowman

-Last night when this debate was interrupted I was discussing some of the changing factors in the work force of 1 979 and the implications of the Budget in that respect. I would like to continue within those parameters. Approximately 900,000 people are now employed in part time work in Australia. That, in fact, is 60 per cent more than there were in 1 972. In March 1978, almost 80 per cent of the part time workers were female and over 60 per cent were married. The inevitable trend towards part time employment raises a number of problems for our community, one of which must concern the employer who, in some cases is faced with the task of transferring wages and conditions applicable to a full time 8-hour day system to one which entails a greater degree of flexibility in hours worked and in times worked. The question of penalty rates is but one area that needs urgent reconsideration. Workers ‘sick leave, annual holidays, superannuation, trade union membership and eligibility for social security employment benefits are all factors that need to be discussed if we are to acknowledge that there is an ever increasing place for part time employment.

A number of factors are associated with this and other alternative work patterns and it is vitally important that there be greater public awareness, discussion and understanding. We have been relatively reluctant to enter into any serious debate about alternative working patterns. Apart from the odd comment about shorter working weeks, there is a prevailing sense of belief that there are enough 40-hour a week jobs in the community to accomodate a labour market when the economy picks up. I am afraid that I am now less inclined to hold these expectations, not in any doomsday sense, but rather taking into account circumstances that have become evident over the last two decades.

We as a nation, are undergoing enormous structural changes in our industries. Our manufacturing industry is decreasing in its prominence as a major employer of labour. This has been evident since 1 954. According to the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, job opportunities for younger people have been deteriorating in relation to those for the total work force. Married women now constitute a much bigger section of the work force than ever before. Indeed, I believe that since the Second World War, we have been experiencing a gradual fundamental shift in the expectations of all

Australians. I do not for one minute suggest that this change has completely taken over. But I do believe that there is evidence to suggest that unless we are aware of its presence and take account of it in our manpower studies, we could risk implementing and encouraging programs which have limited long term value.

It has been my observation that the immediate post-war period has been notable for a pent-up demand for goods and services. A high birth rate and the increasing costs of raising children, a growing emphasis on consumer luxury items and the need to make the future secure instilled into the Australian work force the need to work harder to increase productivity, to earn more money and generally to concentrate on the material side of life. Indeed, Australia’s great economic and social advances during the period are evidence enough of the tremendous importance which those expectations have had on this nation’s development.

However, a number of the forces which stimulated development in those years are now moving in the opposite direction. Our birth rate has declined to a critical level and so child rearing does not contribute the same economic significance in the family budget as it once did. Many of the essential services that consumed a large slice of the family budget are now taken for granted- hospital services, dental services, and so on. But some evidence seems to indicate that younger workers, older workers and women tend to prefer shorter hours to additional incomes. There seems to me to be a trend towards increased leisure rather than increased work.

I for one do not subscribe to the argument that a government alone should be the social innovator for the community. Rather, I take the view that governments have a responsibility to work with the community to develop together the social and economic basis of our society. Therefore, it is my contention that if we are eventually to overcome our unemployment problems, we need to encourage discussions and actually seek the views of the community on those labour trends which are likely to have an influence on the number of jobs that are available in the work force. The problem that presents itself cannot be overcome simply by ignoring trends which at present may seem to us to be too far removed from our traditional work patterns.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– You have been reading my speeches.

Mr JULL:

– I do read the honourable member’s speeches and I am afraid that we do tend to agree on a number of issues. I am glad that the honourable member agrees with me on this one. Issues such as the need for increased leisure hours, early retirement, a shorter working week, job sharing programs and flexible working hours affect the number of jobs available. If our high unemployment persists, we may have to consider implementing some of these ideas. For example, work sharing or the spreading of work programs has only but recently received some degree of serious discussion in the nation. Yet there are overseas advocates of such labour initiatives who claim that reduced work time has not only proved to be an effective short term weapon against unemployment but also involved less deficit financing than standard employer incentive work programs and, in some instances, even less than the amount of money which is currently spent on unemployment benefit. As well, as has been the experience in other countries, work sharing spreads the impact of an economic downturn and is less likely to lead to a cutback in consumer spending. Certainly some of the arguments of those advocates do appeal to me, especially if they can be found to reduce the hardship that unemployment causes. But I, like a number of other members of this House, would like to hear the community’s view on the issues.

There is no doubt that high juvenile wages have been but one significant factor contributing to youth unemployment. Coupled with the number of trained married women already avail1 able in the labour force, many employers are hesitant to employ on such high wages young people with little work experience. I wonder whether young people would be prepared to take a cut in wages if it could be proved to them that by doing so employers would be prepared to give other young people jobs. Would employers be prepared to hire more young people if juvenile wages were lower? I believe that it is on this sort of question that we should be asking the community to give us its views.

There has been, I believe, a good deal of wasted effort in the field of unemployment. Many of the unemployment rallies held in the capital cities are really only sounding boards for various political groups. They do not do anything to identify the areas that could lead to an increase in employment opportunities. Indeed, they positively hinder such discussions by sidetracking the public on short term political ends. There has been enough politics in unemployment. No one political party can be solely blamed for the present situation, and I believe that it is about time that we as a Parliament realised just that. Industry structural changes and social changes which have largely led to unemployment have been evolving gradually over the last decade. The Budget does not attempt to hide the fact that many problems remain to be solved. But if we are to solve these problems, then I think that we have to appreciate, as I stated earlier, that the Budget must be interpreted by the Australian people as being more of a working agreement between the Australian community and the Government rather than a document designed to cure all ills, irrespective of the action or desires of the rest of the community.

In the remaining minutes, I would like to concentrate on a particular aspect of the Budget. It is an aspect on which I would like to congratulate the Government for its foresight and, indeed, its dedication.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– You must have looked pretty hard.

Mr JULL:

– No, it was quite easy because for the first time an Australian government has recognised that there is such a thing in this country as the tourist industry. It is to these ends that I would like to make a few comments. Over the past two years I have been involved in a major parliamentary committee which has been looking into the problems of the tourist industry. At last there seems to be a realisation of the tremendous contribution that tourism can make to our country and, indeed, to those employment problems that I was speaking about before. The fact that there has been a 98 per cent increase in the funding of the Australian Tourist Commission and the fact that there has been the introduction of a depreciation allowance on new hotels and motels will contribute certainly to an expansion of that industry with the consequent benefits that that can bring. These benefits are tremendous.

The House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism found that if we could encourage overseas tourists to this country the employment benefits would be immense- in fact so immense that people just did not believe the figures which were issued by that Committee. Those figures have been studied and now have been analysed by the Bureau of Industry Economics. They indicate that for every extra 25,000 overseas visitors coming into this country, another 1,400 jobs will be created. These are tremendous figures. Of course there are also the indications of what labour opportunities there will be for increased activity in the domestic market. Those figures, which once again have been approved by the Bureau of Industry Economics, show that for every extra $ 10,000 that is spent in the domestic tourist industry another 1.2 jobs are created. I was pleased to see that the Government recognised this and, in the funds allocated to the Australian Tourist Commission, made provision for $500,000 to be spent over the next two years on domestic tourism in this country. I believe that that particular campaign is already under way.

One of the recommendations- it is interesting because the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar), who is at the table, is responsible for this particular area- that was not accepted by the Government was the ultimate purpose for which the departure tax should be used. The Select Committee on Tourism recommended that the money that was collected should go to the promotion of tourism. Even though that was not collected in substance, it would seem that a great percentage of the money that has been collected will now be used for tourist promotion and in assisting the domestic tourist industry. Consequently I now have no gripe with the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs regarding that particular aspect of the Committee ‘s report.

But it is important that all Australians realise the tremendous benefits, financial and in terms of employment, to be gained from tourism. One would hope that the industry in Australia would be ready to handle the increased flow of overseas tourists as they are starting to arrive. This is already happening. For the first time in more than a decade, in the month of June this year, the number of foreign arrivals in Australia exceeded the number of Australians who were departing this country for an overseas holiday. That would give an indication that the new international air fare regime was working. I, for one, have certainly been a critic of that regime because I think we can get even more out of it. It is heartening to note that the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) has already told the House that he will be reviewing again the whole situation of charter flights into and out of Australia in April next year. Of course, the flood of tourists which these charters can bring in, and the money that those people can bring in, really is quite spectacular. I am pleased that the Minister for Transport will undertake that particular review.

The fact that we seem to have turned the corner and actually have more people coming into the country than going overseas is an indication of how the Government’s policies have started to work in regard to tourism. When one thinks of the amount of money that so many of those tourists do spend one can see the effect that it can have on our economy. In a recent survey it was indicated that the average German tourist travelling overseas- disregarding the amount of money he spent on his air ticket and his accommodation- spends something like $A136 a day. That is a tremendous amount of money. If some 20,000 or 30,000 Germans came into Australia for a week or two at a time, and each spent $136 a day, one can imagine just what effect that would have on our economy.

Obviously one of our big markets is going to be New Zealand. It is our closest market and is a traditional market. There is an interest already in the North American circuit, as to the number of Americans who are visiting Australia. The figures are very encouraging. We must never forget the effect that Asia can have. If one looks at the movement of Asian travellers at the moment one sees that there are some remarkable figures coming through. It is obvious that the Japanese are the biggest travellers in the world, but there are some other trends starting to emerge of which Australia should be taking advantage. I refer to the movements of the Koreans and the Taiwanese who at the moment are travelling overseas in bigger and bigger numbers. The Taiwanese Government has now given its local residents permission to leave the country on holiday for up to three months at a time. These people are looking for places to go. There are a number of things that would attract them to Australia- especially our casinos. It would be well worth our while to investigate that particular market further. The Singaporeans are travelling more and more, and even the Thais are starting to move into the area of overseas holiday travel. It is obvious that there should be a very close examination of that market also to see whether we can take advantage of it.

Tourism is more than just economics or job opportunities. Tourism plays a very real diplomatic role. Although I do not profess to enjoy or to acknowledge the Russian philosophies, there is a sign at Moscow Airport which is a very telling one indeed. It reads something like this: ‘International tourism is the international passport to goodwill, peace and understanding’. There is a lot of truth in that particular statement. If we could get that sort of philosophy into the minds of all Australians and they would accept good naturedly the visit of overseas tourists to this country, I am sure the rub-off could be very good indeed for all people in Australia. In that respect I would like to congratulate the Government, and especially the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) for the tremendous effort that he has made in recent months to make Australia part of that world tourist scene.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I wish to support the amendment moved last week by the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis). I would like to speak to three or four areas covered by this amendment in reply to what Government speakers have said. I wish to speak firstly on the question of employment. The Government keeps on emphasising and making the point- which to some extent may be truethat during the last part of the Labor Government’s term of office jobs decreased and that this caused unemployment. Let me point out to honourable members what did happen from November 1972 to October 1975, the three years of the Labor Government, and compare that with what happened from November 1975 to June 1977 under the coalition Government. Let us look at total employment figures. In November 1972 this figure was 4,521,000 and by October 1975 it was 4,737,000, an increase of 216,000 people. Those people got jobs during those three years of the Labor Government. Since the coalition Government has taken over the employment figures have increased from 4,737,000 to 4,770,000, an increase of only 33,000. It is obviously insufficient to cope with the extra 80,000 to 100,000 people coming onto the job market each year. That is the reason for the huge increase in unemployment since the coalition Government took over.

The Government keeps on talking about private and public employment and it implies that public employment is a bad thing. If we look at what has happened between October 1975 and June 1977 in regard to the increase of 33,000, it will be noticed that under the coalition Government there has been an increase of 87,000 in the public employment sector and a decrease of 44,000 in the private sector. It is only because of the increase in the public sector that there has been any increase in employment at all. During the almost four years that the coalition government has been in power, private employment has decreased by 44,000. Even between mid- 1974 and October 1 975 in which the Government refers to a loss of 155,000 jobs under the Labor Government- this is not true- there was a decrease of 62,000 jobs in civilian employment, as it is called. The position peaked at 4,799,000 in June 1974 and went down to 4,737,000 in October 1975. I repeat that over the whole of Labor’s period in office there was an increase of 216,000 jobs. There was a huge increase in the number of women who entered the work force during that period. I think it was about 200,000. So much for the situation of employment.

Let me now deal with the matter of taxation about which this Government used to claim that it felt very strongly. The Government used to claim- I think it still claims in a hollow sort of way- that it is a low tax government. I emphasise again that it is an extremely high tax government. Taxation has increased by a very large amount since this Government came to power. The Taxpayer, a journal of the Australian Taxpayers Association which is an independent organisation and one which usually supports the Liberal Party stated:

Don’t swallow the line that the 1 ‘A per cent surcharge has been dropped. For the 1 979-80 income year assessments, the rate will be 1 .07 per cent. It will be a little over 7/ lOths of last year’s full rate. That gives the lie to official statements that it goes from December; 5/ 12ths of 1 Vi per cent is .623 cents in the $. That means that the government whacked up the tax rates by almost half a cent, and effectively lifted taxes for most people by nearly 3 per cent by that means alone.

Without any tax indexation, every person whose income rises by 9 per cent will face a massive increase in the effective tax rate. The lower-incomes fare the worst in percentage terms.

When trying to gain power, Mr Fraser attacked increases in tax which were made by stealth. He complained bitterly that when incomes went up the tax was increasing twice as fast. Seems the bad old days of tax are back, because with incomes rising by 9 per cent, the total tax take leaps by over 1 8 percent.

I emphasise that that journal states that incomes will rise by 9 per cent and the total tax take will leap by over 1 8 per cent. The journal continues:

This Budget provides for $3,830,300,000 in extra taxes and that’s not the end- the crude oil tax has jumped 430 per cent in under two years with an extra $2,000m going to Canberra through your local petrol pump. But instead of being a true Budget, the figures ignored obvious price rises which will occur this year, and the revenue may jump another $400m.

I don’t know whether some Parliamentarians are dumb at figures, but some might have difficulty running a pie shop. The way some have tried to rubbish our Budget analysis casts serious doubt on whether Australia is getting fair value from some people keeping seats warm in Canberra.

That is the editorial comment at page 255 in the September 1979 issue of the Taxpayer. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a reply from Mr Risstrom, the Association’s secretary, to a speech made in this House by the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume).

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

REPORT MADE TO MEMBERS ON COMMENTS MADE UNDER PRIVILEGE IN PARLIAMENT

Federal Back-Bencher’s Attack and Our Factual Reply

According to a press release issued by Mr Michael Baume, M.P., he made what he termed a “strong attack” in Parliament on our Federal Secretary just one week after the

Budget. Unfortunately for him, he was incorrect on almost every point he raised and he might have avoided making such a political blunder had he at least checked with us on the real facts- or even read his mail.

His comments came towards the end of a lengthy Budget debate, and when he found the press had not reported his speech he issued the press statement in the hope of getting some coverage. We thank him for sending us a copy.

His remarks were directed specifically at Eric Risstrom, but of course one would reasonably regard them as being against the Association.

He said that we had failed to submit any recommendations to the Government on tax changes before the Budget.

The facts: The Association conducted its Annual Conference in Melbourne (and it was opened by the Victorian Premier) during March. The proceedings were reported in the press, and through the media, and details were in this journal- which is posted to every federal Member of Parliament, including Mr Baume.

The whole of the 24th March issue was devoted to our detailed submissions.

The Conference Chairman, Peter Walker, and Eric Risstrom, met the Treasurer in his office in Canberra during May.

Eight matters were highlighted in those discussions- the second on the list being government promises on the abolition of the ‘A% surcharge and the restoration of tax-indexation.

Mr Baume also said we should have made a submission before the Budget along the lines of the one made after the Budget- recognising that Eric Risstrom was sufficiently confident of what would happen in the Budget that he prepared a computer program on its consequences. He went on: “He prepared a program expecting it to happen so that after the event he could say how terrible it was. “

The facts: This Association is always in a position to act quickly. The program was prepared (in under a quarter of an hour) on the afternoon of the Budget and final adjustments were made only after receiving officially the Budget details.

The computer program enabled us to analyse personal tax liabilities taking into account any or all of these factors; I / Any rate of tax-indexation, or none; 2/ Any projected degree of wage rises (we based published figures on a 9% increase because the Treasury expected that to be from 9’A% to 10%; 3/ Any level of indexed tax rates, or differently-based rates; 4/ Maintenance of a 3-step scale, or some change to a scale with more steps.

It is ludicrous of Mr Baume to say we should have lodged such a detailed analysis before the Budget. Until 21st August, we didn’t know what was likely to happen.

Mr Baume said we had made no attempt whatever to influence the Government.

The facts: Mr Baume received (and doubtless should have read ) the submissions we discussed with the Treasurer. We left with Mr Howard some additional copies to be passed on formally to Mr Baume ‘s committee.

If the Treasurer didn’t pass on those copies to the Committee as requested, then Mr Baume should take up that matter with Mr Howard himself.

Mr Baume said Eric Risstrom made no approach to the Treasurer . . .

The facts: Apart from the pre-Budget deputation to Mr Howard, Eric Risstrom went to Canberra during July to see Mr Howard.

Mr Baume accused us of having objected in 1976 to the introduction of personal tax-indexation, and he quoted from our journal.

The facts: The quotes and the original articles didn’t object to the principle of tax-indexation, but merely drew attention to features of the type of scheme (and the way it was immediately watered-down) that was introduced. Admittedly, later we did learn that (although the fixing of the rate of indexation was to be administrative and not subject to any form of appeal), annual rates of tax would come before Parliament.

Our general comments on need for tax changes

After the May mini-Budget, in which the Treasurer virtually asked Australians to accept deferment of a decision on what should happen to personal tax rates, we pointed out in journal editorials and in the media the need for taxindexation to be maintained- and how taxes would rise if those promises were not honoured.

We highlighted at every opportunity over recent months the need for the I 14% tax surcharge to be dropped, and for personal tax-indexation to be restored.

Association is always alert

Mr Baume ‘s illfated and unfounded attack on us doesn’t intimidate the Association. No matter which party is in power, we shall continue to look objectively at tax measures and comment fearlessly.

Mr Baume didn’t attack the accuracy of our figures, or the validity of our conclusions. He couldn’t. In fact, earlier in his speech he admitted that personal tax was rising this year.

If a government focuses attention on just one facet of their decisions or their policies, government members should not be alarmed and overly defensive if others do their own sums and dig out the real facts.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-On the question of taxation let me give some examples of the increases in tax. Taxable income of $4,000 in 1978-79 was taxed $35.84. The same income in real value this year will be taxed $154.43. Taxable income of $6,000 last financial year was taxed $705. This year the same income in real value- in other words, updated by 9 per cent- will be taxed $875.36, which is an increase of $170. Nobody can argue that a family with a taxable income of $6,000 can afford that sort of money. Last year a person with a taxable income of $10,000 would have paid $2,045 in tax. This year a person on the same income will pay $2,317, which is an increase of $272 or about $5 a week. That is a huge increase in tax revenue for the Government.

The Government has continuously increased the amount of money that it collects from petrol. The increase this year is $2,000m but the Government is not giving any reduction in taxation in exchange for that increased revenue as it did last year. It has withdrawn the 40 per cent subsidy paid for the first $20 on medical fees. People are paying more tax but getting less in return from this Government. I emphasise that this Government is an extremely high tax government. It is a government which has been unable and unwilling to some extent to do anything to increase employment because as I pointed out earlier, the number of people in employment increased greatly and at a much faster rate during the three years of Labor Government between November 1972 and October 1975 than it has since 1975. They are the important points as far as tax is concerned.

Revenue from crude oil has gone up by 430 per cent in less than two years. The revenue estimates are based on current prices so the revenue will be very much higher. I would like to deal with two very minor and peripheral issues and criticise a Minister and also some people in the Department of Foreign Affairs. The other day a document, which is a reasonable document in toto, dealing with the Third World was tabled. That document contains a map. I am sure that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar), who has been to Europe, will agree that what is shown on that map is a Third World country, namely Malta, is in fact Sicily. Whoever drafted that map is unable to distinguish between Malta and Sicily. I think that neither the people of Malta nor the people of Sicily would be terribly impressed by that mistake. I also refer to a document dealing with news reports of relevance to migrants which was produced by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The document quotes from part of a speech given by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) at the 64th National Congress of the Returned Services League of Australia. The speech defends- and quite justifiably so- the proposition that eligibility for service pensions should be extended to ex-servicemen from Allied countries. The Minister in referring to people who are not eligible said:

Many of them may not have fought directly for Australia 30 or 40 years ago- indeed many of them were not alive then. But they are now Australian citizens or, at least, Australian residents. They deserve to be treated equally.

People are eligible for the service pension at the age of 60, so it is very difficult for them not to have been alive 30 or 40 years ago. If people were not alive 30 or 40 years ago, they must have taken some special growth hormones to become eligible now for the Service pension. The Opposition supports the particular changes introduced. We think they were introduced belatedly because promises were made some time ago that these improvements would be made in the benfits or eligibility for Allied ex-servicemen.

My final point is an important one so far as the honesty of this Government is concerned. As I have said before in this House, it is a dishonest

Budget in the sense that the bad things in the Budget- for example, the abolition of the 40 per cent medical benefits rebate for the first $20, the increase in hospital fees, and the increase in prescription charges- all came into operation on 1 September for a total of 10 months of this financial year. However some benefits available in the Budget, including the reintroduction of sixmonthly indexation, do not come into force until May 1980. So they will be available for only two months of this financial year.

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

Mr BURR:
Wilmot

– I have considerable pleasure in supporting the Budget. The Budget brought down earlier this year by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) is a most responsible one. It provides many of the things that the Australian people thought appropriate for the economic circumstances that the country is facing. An indication of how good the Budget has been is the acceptance by the people of the country in giving their support to it, by both individual members and the business sectors of the community. The fundamental strategy of the Budget is to keep the inflation rate in Australia below the inflation rate in those countries with which we trade and compete on the international markets. That fact needs to be remembered by our good friends on the opposite side of the chamber.

The economic conditions prevailing now are similar to the conditions in 1973 with an increase in oil prices causing an upsurge of inflation in the United States, Japan and Europe. If Australia is to maintain a competitive advantage on the international markets, it is vitally necessary that our inflation rate be kept below that of other trading countries. Policies that were pursued by the Government in 1973 allowed the Australian inflation rate to rise substantially above that of other trading countries; that in turn caused us to lose substantial international markets, which in turn led to a severe depression in a considerable number of Australian industries. There is no way that Australia can avoid the impact of an increase in worldwide inflation, but if Australia’s inflation rate can be kept below that of other trading countries we will protect our international markets and, by so doing, will protect the jobs of a large number of Australian workers.

It may be argued that an increase in government spending would create a short term improvement in the unemployment situation. That policy is very freely advocated by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) and other honourable members on the opposite side of this chamber. However, it should be remembered that if a government is to spend more money, it must raise that money by either increasing taxation- which in turn would fuel inflation- or by borrowing money on the money market, which would increase interest rates and consequently lead to an increase in the inflation rate. It needs to be remembered that increasing inflation will lead to an increase in unemployment. It may be true that such a policy of creating jobs would improve the job situation in the short term but it would create only an illusion of prosperity and when the impact of inflation and the loss of export markets took effect, without doubt there would be a substantial increase in unemployment that would take years to recover from.

We need to remember in this place that those policies were pursued in 1973-74 by our predecessors and Australia is still in the process of recovering from them. The present Government saw the disastrous consequences that the previous Government’s policies had at that time and it is quite determined not to pursue such irresponsible policies in the present circumstances. I am sure that the Government has the support of the majority of members in this place in the policies that are now being pursued. I think it is true to say that the most urgent concern in Australia at the moment is unemployment. We on this side of the chamber are concerned about unemployment, despite the statements that are made by our friends on the opposite side. The Government is not heartless when considering the unemployment situation. But we do maintain that it is necessary to keep some sense of balance, some rational thinking, when the subject of unemployment is being debated. It is not true to say that governments are the only ones responsible for unemployment. In fact, a former Treasurer in this place, the Honourable Frank Crean, recognised the fact, when he held that high office, that one man’s pay rise was another man’s job. That was a responsible attitude taken by him at that time. It should be remembered by his Labor colleagues in this place now, because without doubt wage increases are a major contributing factor to unemployment.

However, I think it would be wrong to assume that wage increases are the only factor contributing to unemployment. During the course of my speech I would like to look at a number of factors that contribute to unemployment. First let us look at wage increases and the effect that they have on unemployment. I congratulate Treasurer Crean for having the foresight to acknowledge and to publicly state that one man’s pay rise is another man’s job. I support that statement and I am quite sure that my colleagues on this side of the chamber would support it. Unfortunately, his common sense did not flow into the Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress that has just been concluded. It was that Congress which very purposely passed a resolution to the effect that the wage earners in this country should be entitled to automatic cost of living increases and also that their unions should have the right, on top of that, to have collective bargaining with their employers.

If we follow the assessment of Treasurer Crean and assume that there is a correlation between rising wages and unemployment, then the policies being advocated by the ACTU can have the effect only of substantially increasing the number on the unemployed list. The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) made a statement to the House earlier this session in which he said that the policy adopted by the ACTU is one of the most irresponsible and greedy policies that have ever come before a body of people in this country. I support the Minister in that statement. It can be seen that people who have a job are very purposely adopting a very greedy attitude. Quite frankly, I would doubt that the numbers in the rank and file of the trade union movement would share the view being expressed by their trade union leaders at that Congress. Without doubt, if the policies that were advocated by the ACTU Congress were adopted by any government in this country, those policies would lead to a substantial increase in the number of unemployed. I think it is hot air that we hear from a number of trade union leaders when they express concern for the unemployed in this country but at the same time pass policies that would lead to a very substantial increase in the number of unemployed.

It also needs to be remembered that during this decade the number of people in full-time occupations in Australia has risen substantially. In May 1970 the full-time work force in Australia stood at 5.464 million people. By August 1979, approximately nine years later, the number stood at 6.415 million. That is an increase of roughtly one million people during the 1970s. I think that figure is very often forgotten by people when considering unemployment. There has been a substantial increase in the number of people in the full-time work force. Even during periods when unemployment has risen there has been a consistent and steady increase in the number of people in full-time work.

It is also interesting to note that during the 1970s the number of married women in the fulltime work force has risen from 17.3 per cent to 21.2 per cent. They number 448,000. In other words, during the 1970s an additional 448,000 married women have entered the work force. It can be assumed that they have taken a lot of jobs that otherwise would have been available to the young and single unemployed. I do not want to put forward views as to the correctness or otherwise of married women holding jobs but I think that in assessing unemployment the community needs to take that fact into account and to make a very careful assessment as to whether there should be two wage earners in the one family when others are on the unemployment list or whether full-time work should be limited to one wage earner per family. Personally, I think such limitation has a lot to commend it but I leave it to the community to make that assessment.

The community also needs to assess the other factors that without doubt contribute to unemployment. These can be put roughly into the category of those things that cause an employer to employ, say, a married woman in preference to employing a young, single, unemployed person. That brings into question whether the standards of discipline in the community are satisfactory for people to reach the requirements that employers are looking for; whether such things as the educational standards are up to the prerequisites of the employers and whether other factors, such as full adult pay for 1 8-year-olds, are having the effect of precluding quite a number of young people from being eligible for employment. It is my assessment that the policy of paying full adult wages to 18-year-olds contributes very heavily to employers turning to mechanisation rather than employing 18-year- olds, most of whom have been out of school for only one year. Policies adopted by government and by trade unions need to recognise that people leaving school at the age of 17 years need to be given a proper period of training before they can contribute in any meaningful way to the productivity of the firm that is employing them. It is most unreasonable to expect employers to pay full adult rates to people who are not properly trained. I advocate strongly to the trade unions and to government that we should revert to the policy of paying junior rates to young people up to the age of 2 1 years. I think that in itself would be a major influence in getting many young unemployed people back into the fulltime work force.

I mention also the Government’s generosity towards Tasmania. I think it needs to be recognised by members of this House and by the people of Tasmania that in this Budget, to my knowledge for the first time, the Government has made special mention of, and special allocations to, a particular State. I cannot recall that having been done before in a Federal Budget. The Federal Government recognised the special difficulties that are faced in Tasmania by making specific allocations to help the economy and to develop the State. I congratulate the Government for doing that. I also thank it for the generosity it has shown to Tasmania.

The honourable member for Bowman (Mr Ml) mentioned in his speech the potential of the tourist industry in Australia generally. The Federal Government certainly recognised that potential in the allocation to Tasmania. I thank the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) for some of the statements he has made in his capacity as the Minister responsible for tourism and particularly for the allocation to Tasmania. This Budget year $400,000 will be provided to the State Government on a $2 to $ 1 basis for the restoration of Port Arthur. The commitment extends over a seven-year period. It can be expected that over that period a major restoration program will be completed at Port Arthur. Without doubt this will have a major influence in attracting more tourist business to Tasmania. That will be a major contribution to the Tasmanian economy.

I also thank the Government for other commitments that were made in this Budget. An amount of $32m was provided for a second bridge over the Derwent River. I am quite sure that my colleague the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) would also thank the Government for making that commitment. Also $6.3m will be provided for the Antarctic base at Kingston. We know how hard the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has worked for that project. We now see it coming to fruition with the allocation that was made in this Budget. Also, $5.5m will be provided for the Launceston General Hospital, which is in the electorate of my colleague, the honourable member for Bass, the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman). A sum of $9.3m is provided for the Maritime College. That $9.3m will be shared between the facilities in the electorate of Bass and the facilities in my electorate. These allocations to help the economy in Tasmania indicate a recognition by the Government of the needs of Tasmania and the preparedness of this Government to support that State. I also thank the Government for the contribution it has made annually by way of freight equalisation. That policy has had a great effect in stabilising secondary industry in Tasmania. Without a shadow of doubt a number of industries in Tasmania would have gone bankrupt during the depressed years from 1975 to 1977 had it not been for the freight equalisation contributions that were made by this Government. I thank the Government very sincerely for that policy and for the contributions that will be made to Tasmania in this Budget year.

In the few minutes remaining to me I should like to make some suggestions to the Government that could be given consideration for next year’s Budget. It might be a little presumptuous or even a little premature to make suggestions at this stage about next year’s Budget, but I have written to the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) about matters that could be included in the better health program that he is currently preparing. I congratulate the Minister for preparing a better health program. I think he recognises the needs of the Australian community. I think all of us in this country are concerned about the escalation of health costs. The better health program is designed to introduce a program of preventive medicine that will not only improve the health of the nation but will also have a substantial effect in reducing health costs in this country.

I put it to the Minister that one of the ways in which preventive medicine and a better health program could be introduced is by encouraging sport and recreation. All of us need to recognise that if a high degree of physical fitness in the community could be encouraged it would without doubt have a substantial effect in reducing health costs and the demand on health services. It would also increase productivity in industry and reduce the number of workers compensation claims. It would have a much greater effect than simply providing the more obvious things of enjoyment and recreation in the community. I put it to the Minister for Health that among the things that need to be considered in his better health program is the reintroduction of the Commonwealth assistance for leisure facilities. Such a program was introduced by a former Minister for Tourism and Recreation, the late Honourable Frank Stewart. It was one of the better programs introduced by the Labor Government. I think there is much to commend its reintroduction. It did much to encourage the provision of facilities in the local community. The Commonwealth provided a one-third contribution towards the capital cost of the facilities. That amount was matched by a one-third contribution by the State governments, which left only a one-third share to be raised by local contributions. That did a lot to encourage local committees to provide facilities. I think that its reintroduction by the Federal Government in next year’s Budget has a lot to commend it.

Along with the need to provide more facilities, I feel that there is also a need to provide more recreational officers both to encourage the use of those facilities and to encourage participation at the local community level. As we know, recreational officers are employed by State governments, but I strongly recommend to this Government that it provide more money to the States in next year’s Budget so that more recreational officers can be employed. I also suggest to the Government that a media campaign be introduced supplementing the ‘Life. Be in It.’ campaign. We all know the success that the ‘Life. Be in It.’ campaign has enjoyed. But I think that if we introduced a media campaign using well known sporting identities, such as Tracey Wickham, John Newcombe and Denis Lillee, it would have the effect of encouraging more people both to participate in those sports and to maximise their own performances when they compete in those sports. I strongly recommend that to the Minister for Health.

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

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

-We are debating and being asked to approve this Budget at a time when the House is at a particular disadvantage because it is a Budget that has been introduced by a government over whose head a large cloud exists. A large cloud hangs over the head of this Government. Yet it is this Government which is asking this House to approve the passage of its Budget. It is fundamental to the principle of the Westminster system that the Executive retains the confidence of this House in order to survive. From time to time, of course, the Executive asks this House to approve certain measures. On this occasion, the House is being asked to approve the passage of the Government’s annual appropriation.

The House must be able to feel that it is in a position to trust that Government. It must feel that it is in a position to expect the Government to discharge with complete integrity the responsibilities which are placed in it by this House. We must have confidence that the Government will not misappropriate the funds which this House agrees to appropriate for the purposes of running this country. Yet, we find that included amongst the membership of this Government is a Minister who has been found by a quasi-judicial inquiry to have engaged in conduct which would render him quite unsuitable to be a member of any government and to be a Minister in whom this House would be expected to have confidence. The point is that this Parliament must expect the highest standards of propriety to be observed by the Ministers and the Government. Yet right at this moment we have in the Ministry of this Government a man whom it is doubtful that we can say- in fact it is very doubtful indeed- has observed the highest standards of propriety. These standards of propriety -

Mr MacKellar:

– I raise a point of order. It is out of order for any honourable member to cast doubts upon or impute any motives to any other honourable member other than by way of substantive motion.

Mr Dawkins:

– Speaking to the point of order, I have not named anybody. I have just said that this Ministry, because of its membership, is not a Ministry in which this House can have confidence. If I cannot express the view that it is important for this House to have confidence in the Ministry and if it is not correct for me to say that it is important for the Ministry which is responsible to this chamber to observe the highest standards of propriety, I really wonder what it is all about.

Mr MacKellar:

– Speaking to the point of order, the honourable member did not use the term ‘Ministry’. He mentioned in fact, a member of the Ministry. Rather than take the broad generic approach, he in fact mentioned a member of the Ministry. The recent events of this House are so fresh in our minds that it could not be suggested in any way that there was any doubt in the honourable member’s mind as to the person to whom he was referring. Therefore I submit that his remarks are out of order.

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

-I would suggest to the honourable member for Fremantle that he should not refer to an individual member of the Ministry. If he is referring to the Ministry collectively it is another aspect. I would ask the honourable member to be careful about how he handles that aspect because it is correct that, without a substantive motion, a member cannot attack the credibility of another member of the House.

Mr DAWKINS:

-I think it is important for us, at all times, to be conscious of the importance of requiring a Ministry that is responsible to this House to act with the greatest possible propriety. In fact, I am not the only one who has set that standard. Indeed, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has said that this Ministryindeed any Ministry- must observe the highest possible standards of integrity and propriety. Therefore, if we are to use the Prime Minister’s own standards, before we approve any measure which is put before us, especially when we are asked to approve a measure which involves the appropriation of enormous sums of money, it is necessary for us to look at the Ministry as a whole to see whether it is acting with total propriety. I think that in looking at that Ministry as a whole we are entitled to look at each individual Minister to see whether the conduct of each individual Minister is of such a standard as would persuade this House to appropriate large sums of money for disbursement by those individual Ministers.

In recent times, we have had the precedent of the Prime Minister seeing fit to stand down four Ministers during the term of office of this Government. First of all we had the instance of the sacking of Mr Garland. Subsequent to that we had the sacking of Mr Lynch. In that case his sacking was clearly as a result of personal impropriety in relation to his own private business dealings. Subsequent to that, we had the suspension of Mr Eric Robinson and subsequent to that we had the sacking of Senator Withers. Now, once again, we have in scandal-ridden Government another Minister who is under a cloud. Indeed, I think it is important, if we are to look at the propriety of the Government as a whole, for us to look at the standards which those Ministers individually set for their own conduct, including conduct in relation to their private affairs.

This House is being asked to approve the expenditure of approximately $10.5 billion. If this House is to agree to the proposition that it should pass Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) and thereby approve the expenditure of $10.5 billion and, if we are to say that that money should be appropriated in such a way that Ministers in charge of departments are able to disburse it in certain ways, I think that we should have absolute confidence in those Ministers. We ought to be assured that those Ministers will not engage in any misappropriation. As a case in point let us refer to the Department of Primary Industry. We find in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) that the Department of Primary Industry will receive $160m to spend. Quite naturally that will be placed in the control of the Minister for Primary Industry. I think we have to be persuaded that that Minister will not engage in any misappropriation of those funds.

Mr MacKellar:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I submit that the honourable member is quite clearly going beyond the terms of your ruling made earlier during his remarks. He is now referring quite specifically to a Minister of the present Government. He is inferring motives to that Minister -

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Implying. You are inferring.

Mr MacKellar:

– Implying motives or behaviour to that Minister which quite clearly go beyond the terms of your ruling. I ask you to bring the honourable member back to order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage:

-I must once again remind the honourable member for Fremantle of the rulings which have been given repeatedly from the chair. In effect, the first ruling which was given by Mr Speaker is quite definitely borne out by the Standing Orders, namely, that one must not refer to an individual member of the House in a derogatory manner or in a manner which affects that member’s integrity. However, I make the point that under Standing Orders it is possible to refer to a government or a ministry collectively. Although Mr Speaker has requested on a number of occasions in recent times that references to the Opposition or to the Government on a collective basis should be restrained. I ask the honourable member to please take note of that.

Mr DAWKINS:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) protests too eagerly. My reason for referring to the Department of Primary Industry had nothing whatever to do with the Minister for Primary Industry, but rather to a precedent that was established within that Department only recently. It was alleged that two officers in that Department were engaged in some form of misappropriation. When this matter was drawn to the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry he stood those two officers down pending inquiries. I have been informed that as a result of the inquiries and as a result of those allegations being proven, the services of the two officers, engaged in that misappropriation of funds, were dispensed with by the Department of Primary Industry. To me that seems a perfectly proper course of action. What we have to be sure of is that that sort of practice is applied by the Government in every conceivable instance. In other words, whenever there is an allegation of misappropriation of any kind then quite clearly it is the responsibility of this Government to stand down those officers or people who are responsible for that misappropriation, at least until such time as the charges are disproved. If of course the charges are not disproved then there is only one action available. It is the action that was taken by the Minister for Primary Industry on this occasion, and that is, to dispense with the services of the officers who were found guilty of misappropriation of funds made available to the Department of Primary Industry. In that case it appears that the Minister behaved quite properly.

Let us say- taking a quite hypothetical casethat it came to our attention that a Minister engaged in some form of misappropriation. What should be the attitude of this House at that time? Surely we should call for that Minister to be stood down. The point is that if in that hypothetical case it were shown that some misappropriation had taken place and that our assumed Minister had been the ultimate beneficiary of that misappropriation- say, in the order of $700,000- we would expect that Minister to be stood down until such time as those charges were either proved or disproved.

Mr MacKellar:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is quite a shallow effort by the honourable member to denigrate a member of the Ministry. The figure mentioned by him quite clearly points to a particular individual. Mr Deputy Speaker, I again ask you to bring the honourable member back to order. If he feels so strongly about this matter, why does he not do the decent, proper and manly thing and move a substantive motion rather than taking recourse to this cheap and snide way of attacking a man?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Order! I remind the Minister that it would not be in order for the honourable member for Fremantle to move an amendment. The only way to move a substantive motion at this point in time would be to move an amendment to motion for the second reading of the Bill, because an amendment has already been moved by the honourable member for Gellibrand. In the first instance I make the point that the honourable member could not do that. I say to the honourable member for Fremantle that he is flying very close to the wind. I ask him to make sure that his remarks do not transgress beyond the rulings I have already given and which are quite clearly covered at pages 367, 368 and 428 of May’s Parliamentary Practice. I will not go into the details of that and take up the honourable member’s time.

Mr DAWKINS:

– The Minister challenged me to move a substantive motion. I remind him of the events earlier today when the Government resolved, as a result of using its majority, that it would remove any possibility of any member on this side of the House- in fact, any private member in this chamber- moving to suspend Standing Orders in order to move a substantive motion. As well as that, my colleague the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) has given notice of his intention to move a motion which censures this Government over -

Mr Scholes:

– I sought leave and it was refused.

Mr DAWKINS:

– That is right. He gave notice of his intention to move at the next day of sitting a motion to censure this Government in relation to the impropriety of the Minister for Primary Industry.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr DAWKINS:

– Let me explain, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has challenged me to do the manly thing. I am telling him of the way in which his government prevented anyone on this side behaving like anything else but a eunuch, to use his expression. The point is that the honourable member for Corio has given notice of his intention to move a motion to censure this Government. Before the suspension of sitting for dinner he gave the Government an opportunity to grant him leave to proceed with that motion. That leave was denied. I prepared an amendment to the second reading of the Appropriation Bill which would have been to remove all words after that and to say that this House was of the opinion that this Bill should not be further proceeded with while the Minister for Primary Industry continued to hold office.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! That amendment would be out of order at this point of time.

Mr DAWKINS:

-I realise that, but I am just explaining to the Chair and to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that it is not as a result of my shirking my responsibility or of my wanting to cloak my speech behind an illusion that I have not so moved. The point is that the forms of the House prevent me from moving in the way in which the Minister challenges me to move.

Mr MacKellar:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member has suggested that the Government is preventing such a motion being moved. The Government quite clearly said this afternoon that tomorrow it would accept any substantive motion when people have had a chance to look at any reports which may by then be available.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr DAWKINS:

– Surely there is no more important a time to put this Government under the microscope, to challenge its propriety than when we are debating the appropriations. On this occasion we are giving the Minister for Primary Industry $ 160m and this is the Minister we cannot trust.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will not make a personal reflection on the Minister at this point of time without a substantive motion.

Mr DAWKINS:

-AU right, but it is all very well for the Minister to say that we can do it tomorrow. We have known about this situation for two years. In fact the former Leader of the Opposition -

Mr Bourchier:

– Do you have any proof? You said two years. You had no proof.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Bendigo will please remain silent. I ask the honourable member for Fremantle not to refer to that particular matter because it cannot be done without a substantive motion.

Mr DAWKINS:

-I am just refreshing the memory of the honourable member for Bendigo. Late in 1977 the then Leader of the Opposition asked certain questions about the conduct of the Minister for Primary Industry. It was only a couple of days after that -

Mr MacKellar:

– I raise a point of order. I have to rise to a point of order because the honourable gentleman is quite flagrantly disregarding your advice to him. He is a member of your own party -

Mr Scholes:

– He is reflecting on the Chair.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is the Minister reflecting on the Chair?

Mr MacKellar:

– Not in any way, shape or form. All I am asking you to do, Mr Deputy Speaker, is to make certain that this honourable gentleman adheres to your ruling.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I have made the point very clearly to the honourable member for Fremantle and I have asked him to abide by my ruling, which is not being assisted by the honourable member for Bendigo bringing in certain matters or by the Minister himself referring to certain matters, because that automatically invites retaliation. I ask the honourable member for Fremantle to abide by my ruling.

Mr DAWKINS:

-I am going to persist to this extent and I am not going to transgress your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. The important point which this House has to keep in mind is the question of the propriety of the Ministry and the question of its accountability to this Parliament and to this House. It is not good enough for any Minister to come in here and say ‘We are not interested in the propriety of Ministers tonight. Maybe we will give some consideration to it tomorrow’. We are concerned about the propriety of this whole Government now. I have only one opportunity to speak on the Appropriation Bill. If this House is to leave until tomorrow its opportunity to question this Government’s propriety, honesty and the allegations of scandal that means that I am essentially prevented from taking part in that discussion as it relates to the Appropriation Bill. The Labor Party is concerned about giving $ 10.5 billion to this Government to spend. We cannot trust this scandalridden Government and we certainly cannot trust the Minister for Primary Industry.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw that last remark.

Mr DAWKINS:

-I withdraw it.

Mr Scholes:

– I seek leave to move a motion which stands in my name which is a censure on the Government. I seek this leave because the Minister has clearly said that we should use the proper forms of the House to debate this subject matter. It is clear that the Government does not intend to allow us to debate this matter or even to debate the Budget properly. I ask for leave to move the censure motion that stands in my name. I think that that motion tests the integrity and the honesty of the Minister who has challenged us to do this and who is now trying to run away from the challenge that he made.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Is leave given?

Mr MacKellar:

– No, leave is not given.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

Mr MacKENZIE:
Calare

– Unfortunately tonight we have seen the debate on the Appropriation Bill used by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins) to take the opportunity to cast aspersions, to slander, to make scurrilous remarks and implications about an honourable member of this House. I ask the honourable member whether he has documents in his possession. Does he have a copy of the report or a list of charges made that he is referring to?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Calare is transgressing in precisely the same way as the honourable member for Fremantle. I ask the honourable member not to proceed in that vein.

Mr Dawkins:

– He is also an undischarged drunk.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark.

Mr Dawkins:

– I withdraw.

Mr MacKENZIE:

– I am simply reminding the honourable member for Fremantle that there will be an opportunity to debate the matters that he has raised when we have full access to the documents so that we and the Opposition will be in full knowledge of the matters.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable member for Calare to proceed in the debate on the issue in question.

Mr Scholes:

– That is not the way your people proceeded.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Corio will remain silent. The honourable member for Calare will please make sure that he addresses himself to the debate and not to other matters without a substantive motion.

Mr MacKENZIE:

– I shall return to the subject of this debate, which is the Budget. I would like to refer to the amendments moved to Appropriation Bill (No. 1), namely, that this Budget reduces the real living standard of Australian families, that it will increase unemployment to the highest level in the nation’s history, that it facilitates and stimulates the recent fresh outbreak of inflation, that it ensures that economic growth will be well below the nation’s productive capacity, that it fails to introduce an effective job creation program and so on. I find those remarks and those amendments most interesting because the response to this Budget has been one of overwhelming acceptance by the Australian community. It might be interesting to Opposition members present that the critical response to this Budget in my electorate has consisted of two telephone calls and two letters. On the contrary, there has been an overwhelming response in a positive fashion to the benefits that this Budget has brought in, largely to the containment of inflation under difficult circumstances.

Most people realise that inflation is the greatest problem that faces this nation. They well remember the levels of inflation that they experienced in past years. I would remind honourable members present that when this Government took office inflation was of the order of 14 per cent. This Government has been able to contain that level of inflation to a figure below 9 per cent even in the difficult circumstances. This level, of course, is below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average, which allows us to take part in the world community in exports and trade with a very definite advantage. The response to the measures taken in the welfare area has been overwhelmingly good. Pensioners remember only too well what inflation meant to them when they saw their pensions being gradually eroded by higher and higher inflation, and they welcomed enormously the increased limits for the receipt of pensioner health benefit cards. In previous circumstances they would suddenly become ineligible, through a small addition to their income for those cards and face additional hundreds of dollars in hospital and medical fees. Likewise in the veterans’ area very real benefits are extended to those who have served our nation well in past years, either our own servicemen and women or those that served with us. Tourist operators, motel ownersagain in my area- exporters and local government all recognise the tremendous benefits from this Budget, including a 24 per cent increase in untied grants to local government.

For the first time in many years of Australian history a government has very purposefully gone out to minimise tax avoidance. I remind this House that the previous Labor Government has had an absolute zilch record of taking tax avoidance measures and introducing legislation to counter tax avoidance. Suddenly it has become a matter of great concern to the Opposition. Suddenly there are many people recognising the degree of tax avoidance in the community, but that is only as a result of this Government ‘s taking the measures and biting the bullet to try to do something genuine about tax avoidance. Can the Labor Government name one measure that it brought in in its term of office to try to reduce tax avoidance? Another measure that I believe has been very widely and well received by PA YE taxpayers is the increase in the limit from $400 to $1,000 before provisional tax becomes assessed. That has been very well received by people who are in receipt of wages, who may have some investments or some property and who can now get that advantage of another $600 increase in limit before they become eligible for provisional tax.

I turn now to industrial relations. In the last few months we have seen a most interesting move. There have been many examples of a rank and file revolt against the dictates of the more militant sectors of the union movement. In my area there have been many examples of demands from the shop floor for rank and file members to determine their course of action in the event of disputes, go-slows and strikes.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Where?

Mr MacKENZIE:

– At the Email Ltd plant in Orange, for example. Does the honourable member know what happened at the Conkey and Sons Ltd abattoir at Cootamundra? He does not. Does he know what happened at the Blaney abattoir where members of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union stood up against their shop stewards and representatives from Sydney and said: ‘We want to work. We want to continue with our jobs. We understand the difficulties that our employers are going through and we do not wish to be told, by people who are paid to come here, that we should go out on strike and not be paid’.

There are tremendous benefits in this Budget in the area of support for the various States. I find it interesting to see in today’s Press that members of the Wran Government have been hailed as financial wizards because they have been able to bring in their fourth Budget with no significant increases in charges or taxes. I wonder where the additional revenue is coming from- the sort of revenue that allows them to provide an extra $50m for welfare housing, a 24 per cent increase in funds for youth and community services, a 34 per cent increase in other welfare areas and a 55 per cent increase for pre-schools. There are to be increases in the education area. The New South Wales Government will be employing another 450 teachers in secondary schools and 300 in technical colleges. It is providing 20 per cent more funds for corrective services and 20 per cent more funds for hospitals, despite the screams and howls of complaint about so-called Federal Government cutbacks. Yet only a few commentators have drawn attention to the fact that the Commonwealth’s tax sharing formula has been largely responsible for providing the additional revenue that the New South Wales Government now has at its disposal. The Sydney Morning Herald editorial of today pointed out that New South Wales Government revenue has been increased by $407m. Of that, $203m has been accounted for by the Commonwealth’s tax reimbursement formula. The editorial states:

As a result, total Federal funds (including borrowing authorities) available to NSW this financial year will be about $300m more than in 1978-79. That is a rise of nearly 7.S per cent. So, allowing for inflation, the real cut in federal support for NSW is only of the order of 1 .5 per cent- which, incidentally, is about the same as the real increases expected in the NSW Government’s revenue from stamp duties, payroll tax and mining royalties plus savings from reduced public transport losses.

So Mr Fraser has been more ‘generous’ to the States than the Wran Government gives him credit for.

A similar situation exists throughout Australia. State governments have not had to increase their charges or their taxes. This is largely as a result of the tax sharing formula that the Commonwealth Government has extended. Look at the figures for New South Wales where there was an inflation rate of 8.2 per cent for the financial year 1978-79. Yet, there has been a 14 per cent increase in untied grants to the New South Wales Government for it to spend in any area it wishes. Mr Wran’s claims are most interesting. He is claiming considerable credit for keeping the jobless figures down in New South Wales. On his own figures Mr Wran admits that there are 30,000 more jobs in New South Wales.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Well, you blamed Corcoran for putting them up in South Australia. You make the rules to suit your case.

Mr MacKENZIE:

– What happened in South Australia? Mr Wran claimed the credit for those jobs. He said that this was due to the action of the New South Wales Government and that it was responsible for holding down the unemployment level. Mr Wran made this announcement after the Bureau of Statistics showed that the New South Wales jobless figures had dropped by 11.1 per cent, more than twice the national average. Yet only in April 1976 New South Wales genuinely had the highest unemployment rate in this country. More than 6 per cent of the work force in New South Wales was unemployed at that time compared with the Victorian figure of 4 per cent or the national unemployment rate of 5.2 per cent. At that time Mr Wran disclaimed any possibility of his being able to do anything about unemployment. He said:

As a State government we do not possess the economic powers which determine the level of business activity, of unemployment or inflation. All the weapons of economic management lie in the hands of the Federal Government.

As the article from which I quoted points out so rightly, it depends on when you talk to Mr Wran as to whether he takes the credit for the unemployment and inflation situation or blames the

Federal Government. He cannot have it both ways.

Other matters in the Budget that I would like to mention relate to rural policy. The Opposition has claimed that cutbacks in rural policy have been severe and disastrous. I have not had one complaint from the rural sector about these items. Let us look at what the Leader of the Opposition was proposing in a rural policy speech and platform- the same one, I might add, that he has used in four or five different places in recent weeks. He spent very little time on any of the areas of positive rural policy that the Opposition would be prepared to bring in. He spent a considerable time talking about rural poverty, education in rural areas, decentralisation, and the quality of country school buildings, but very little time talking about a direct agricultural policy. He did mention four matters but offered no explanation whatsoever. The first was a regional income insurance plan. I wonder whether any members on the Opposition benches can explain to me what a regional income insurance plan is? Secondly, the Leader of the Opposition talked about annuities for low income farmers, which I presume are welfare handouts for low income farmers. Thirdly, he talked about provision for household support on the farm in cases of temporary financial hardship- another handout approach which the rural community is not interested in. Finally he mentioned the provision of more flexible repayment terms for rural loans. I would indeed welcome that policy but I would also welcome some detailed explanations as to how these policies would be implemented.

What is in the speech in terms of marketing policy? What is there in terms of export policy or fuel policy? It was the Opposition spokesman for primary industry in another chamber who not so long ago said that farmers, even at time of harvest and sowing, should not be entitled to a priority when diesel fuel supplies are scarce. I find that very hard to reconcile with his support in overcoming many of the things that he finds so difficult, things which he desires to change within the rural scene. No mention is made in the rural policy speeches or statements of the Leader of the Opposition concerning any financial measures that he might introduce to make rural incomes more stable, to expand markets or to develop further our trading opportunities with other countries. It is a welfare type approach to rural policy.

Education is one area which has received a lot of comment and criticism as a result of this Government’s policies. I remind people in the Australian community that there has been a very significant increase in the funds being made available to schools throughout Australia. For example, schools throughout Australia are generally comparable in standard with any of those in Western world countries. In the last three years there has been a massive improvement in pupil-teacher ratios in Australian government schools. During the same three years school population figures have dropped by 3 per cent. The number of teachers employed has increased by 12 per cent. In that time funds have increased by 1 7 per cent, even accounting for inflation.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You should not speak about education. Why don’t they tell the truth?

Mr MacKENZIE:

– Is the honourable member saying that we should continue to pour more and more money into education in the face of declining enrolments? Is he saying that taxpayers should be spending more than the $1,000 a year per head which they are now spending on education? The major issue is not whether they should pay more but whether they are getting value for the money they are spending at the moment. Many people are questioning the proposition being pushed so widely that the expenditure of more and more money is the only answer to quality in education. Commonwealth expenditure on schools has increased enormously in recent years. In 1972-73, $96m was allocated to schools. By 1978-79 that sum had risen to $743 m, an increase of nearly eight-fold. Yet Australia’s population growth is slowing down rapidly and fewer and fewer children will come into our schools. Government school numbers are starting to decline, perhaps for the first time in Australia ‘s history. On the other hand, enrolments in non-government schools are more stable and in many cases are actually increasing. Most non-government schools are still well behind their government counterparts in resource targets. We should remember that 79 per cent of students attending government schools receive 88 per cent of all public funding whereas 2 1 per cent of students in non-government schools receive 12 per cent. I believe that it is high time that we recognised that there are major differences between States. The States readily blame all education problems on the Federal Government. Yet it is interesting to note that there are wide disparities between the States in their contributions to education. For example, why is it that capital expenditure in Victorian schools is $ 1 50 a head when the equivalent figure for New South Wales is 15 per cent less or $127 a head? The same principle applies to other areas, such as pre-schools. If there are disabilities and disadvantages within schools in certain areas they are not the result of federal cutbacks. They are the result of a declining commitment by State governments to meet their constitutional responsibilities to provide secondary education for the children in their States.

I wish now to express some concern about another area of the Budget. An amount of $62.5m has been allocated under the two Acts responsible for the provision of aged persons homes and aged persons hostels. That $62. 5m will be used entirely for the completion of existing approved projects. It is certainly an increase from the previous year’s allocation of $52. 7m, but only $10m has been made available for new projects in the next financial year, 1980-81. That I believe, is a serious situation. Many communities have made great efforts to raise funds in order to build aged persons accommodation for people within their areas. Some relief may be provided by rationalisation through hospitals so that long stay patients are treated as they would be in nursing homes. Some relief may be provided by the encouragement of private nursing homes. I believe that a broader view should be taken of the expansion of home care services. Tax incentives could be provided to encourage families to retain their aged relatives within their own homes. Other concepts, such as granny flats and temporary accommodation that have been examined in other countries could be examined in Australia.

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

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– It is with pleasure that I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis). I will pass one constructive observation on the remarks of the honourable member for Calare (Mr MacKenzie). I find it very odd that the honourable member should denigrate the Australian Labor Party’s achievements in education between 1972 and 1975. He was not a member of the Parliament in those days but for his information it was our government which, with the support of his party and in defiance of the Tories opposite, was able to get the Schools Commission legislation on to the statute book after 23 years of Liberal decline and neglect. I think that the honourable member ought to do his homework. He has certainly failed in that respect. It is obvious that he was not a member of this Parliament between 1972 and 1975.

The overall effect of the Budget is to reduce the living standards of the great majority of the population. According to the Budget Papers, prices will increase by more than 10 per cent while wages will increase by 9 per cent to 91/2 per cent. In other words, prices will rise more than wages and the real purchasing power of ordinary people will obviously fall. There will also be an increase in taxation for most Australians. The Budget assumes that the pay-as-you-earn taxpayer will pay 15 per cent more in taxation this year than he paid last year. Wages will rise, as indicated in the Budget Papers, by 9 per cent to 91/2 per cent. Clearly people will be worse off. Not only will their real wages be reduced but also their real disposable take-home pay will be further reduced by an increase in the proportion of their income that they pay in tax. This is compounded by the crude oil levy, which is a massive sleight of hand by this Government’s propaganda machine. It is a tax by stealth. The Federal Government is to collect $2, 500m in taxes from motorists and the consuming public.

I agree that this nation is plagued with the twin problems of inflation and unemployment. However, the measures of this Government with its supposed intention to cut inflation have, by virtue of the inflation rate during its period of office, provided the strongest argument against its policies. Let us examine the basis of the Government’s thrust. The Government blames and has consistently blamed inflation on the union led wage push. I ask honourable members opposite- I would like an answer- how one can account for the too often overlooked anomaly which occurred in 1950. In that year excessive inflation emerged. In fact, it was the highest in this country ‘s history.

Mr Birney:

– What was it?

Mr JACOBI:

– It was 25 per cent. That was in the Menzies era. But the concurrent growth in wages was small. I would like an answer to that point. I hope that 1 can develop the thesis tomorrow that inflation is not caused by a wage push.

Mr Scholes:

– It is Government incompetence.

Mr JACOBI:

– I do not know about that. There are forces in the community other than wages that cause inflation.

MrAldred-Suchas?

Mr JACOBI:

– The honourable member ought to look at the corporate sector and those who control the wealth. After all, most ordinary wage earners are not in the gratuitous position of being able to manipulate the money market. Their sole task in life is to make ends meet. They have very little excess, or fat, to speculate on the money market. Those are the people to whom we ought to direct our attention in the course of fighting inflation. As I said, 1950 had the lowest wage increase ever recorded and yet the highest inflation rate.

Let us look at some of the ideological hangups of this Government. The inflation burst of 197 1-72 was, it is true, caused by a combination of wage push inflation and imported inflation. The Government has a fixation with wage push inflation. During the Labor Government’s term of office the then Opposition rubbished, obviously to good effect, the notion of imported inflation. A very distinguished American economist, Harry Johnson, explained the mechanics of the transfer of inflation throughout the world at that time but this explanation was discredited by the Tories opposite. It is now acceptable, of course. They are now in government They find, oddly enough, that they are inflicted with the very same disease. I hear no interjections from honourable members opposite. They have gone silent all of a sudden.

Mr Martyr:

– We respect you.

Mr JACOBI:

-I am grateful for that. In 1975 this Government’s campaign reflected the simple belief that if people threw out Labor and turned on the lights all would be well throughout the land. It did not happen in 1975. It did not happen in 1 977. It has still not happened and it is not likely to happen if current policies remain. Let us take another look at the distortion of Tory ideology. Honourable members opposite claim to head a free enterprise non-interventionist government.

Debate interrupted.

page 1596

ADJOURNMENT

Australian Birth Rate: Abortion- Social Service Benefits- Ethnic Radio Service- Education

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr MARTYR:
Swan

-Tonight I would like to speak to the House about a matter which is very serious, both for the nation and for the city of Canberra. Yesterday, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) stated that most people did not appreciate how population growth has slowed down in Australia. He stated that last year there were 50,000 fewer live births in Australia than there were seven years ago. Live births peaked in 1971 and they have been declining ever since. He said that this trend had enormous implications for education, service industries and domestic consumption in the years ahead.

I personally believe that a major contributing factor to the decline in five births in the past seven years has been the ready availability of abortion on demand since around 1972. I acknowledge that there are other factors relating to the changing composition of our population, but about 80,000 deliberate abortions in Australia each year, are having a major impact on our population statistics. Just think: In 1978, there were 225,000 live births and probably about 70,000 to 80,000 abortions where innocent, defenceless, unborn babies were torn to shreds by vacuum machines operated by our very own death merchants. One in four babies conceived in Australia is deliberately destroyed by the abortion industry.

Most abortions in this country are carried out in the private abortion clinics where enormous profits are made by the doctors who undertake this despicable work. The three major abortion institutions are Dr Geoffrey Davis’s Population Services International (Australasia) Ltd, in Sydney, Wainer and Bayliss’s Fertility Control Clinic in Melbourne, and the Preterm Foundation in Sydney. The PSI and Preterm made an attempt to set up in Canberra during 1976 and 1977 but were prevented and have been prevented since by the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance introduced by this Government following a massive outcry against private abortion clinics in the national capital. That Ordinance prohibits private abortion clinics by confining abortions to hospitals run by the Capital Territory Health Commission. I notice that Sir William Knox, the Health Minister in Queensland, has announced that the Queensland Government intends to introduce similar provisions and to close down a private clinic in Brisbane which has been established by Dr Peter Bayliss, a co-proprietor with Dr Bertram Wainer of the Melbourne-based Fertility Control Clinic.

One thing that I can say about the proabortionists is that they do not readily take no for an answer. Honourable members will remember the unsuccessful attempt made by Senator Ryan in the other place in November last year to disallow the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance. Her move was clearly defeated and I congratulate those members of the Opposition in the Senate who crossed the floor to help defeat her move. Similarly, I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition in the Queensland State Parliament who has called for the closure of the new Brisbane clinic and who, for his efforts, has had charges levelled against him by another member of the Australian Labor Party and has been abused on Australian Broadcasting Commission radio by Senator Georges ‘ secretary.

As far as the people associated with Preterm are concerned, they are not prepared to take no for an answer. They are canvassing in this capital for support from Canberra general practitioners for an application to Dr Elvin, the General Superintendent of the Woden Valley Hospital for space at the hospital for an abortion clinic. I have in my possession a copy of the letter which they are sending to GPs. They state:

We have two doctors already trained and some considering training at the Preterm Foundation in Sydney.

Later they state:

If you would also be interested in training at Preterm would you ring any one of us and we will contact you when the clinic goes ahead.

They certainly sound confident. For those who do not know much about the Preterm outfit, let me enlighten them. Preterm was established in Sydney in June 1974. In 1975 Preterm had a fire which put it out of business, unfortunately only temporarily. It was not properly insured so a generous Department of Health- under a previous Federal Government, the Labor Government- gave it a grant of $80,000. This more than adequate grant paid for the fire loss of $ 1 4,290 and so in the next financial year Preterm was able to show net assets of $86,525. Earlier it had problems about registration in the Australian Capital Territory so it received assistance from another friend in the previous Labor Government. I wouldlike to quote from a frank speech by a Preterm official, but I do not have enough time tonight so I will do so on another occasion. But the evidence is quite clear that Senator Murphy, as Attorney-General at the time, was very much in favour of what Preterm was trying to do.

The essential thing that I am trying to convey here tonight is that these death merchants, having once been rejected by the Government, are trying through the back door to do their foul work in the Woden Valley Hospital. I want the people of Canberra and indeed the people of Australia, through any publicity that may come from what I am saying tonight, to understand that I want this national capital free of this sort of evil which flourishes in every other capital city. I think that the day will come, if we can keep this evil out of Canberra, when people will realise what an evil abortion is, and what a dreadful thing it is doing to the population in this country and will take the steps and have the leadership in this capital to stop it.

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

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I would hope that the remarks of the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr) would ensure a favourable hearing for the matter I have to raise tonight and which I think is an unfortunate matter because it deals with those people who have not taken that method of terminating pregnancies and have had children whom this Government is determined to discriminate against. For a number of years, there has been discrimination in most laws of the States and the Commonwealth of Australia against children born out of wedlock. Over a period- not a very long periodmost of those discriminations have been removed. Unfortunately, some still exist and they are the result, I believe, of a lack of application to the anomalies which exist in various forms of legislation.

Tonight I wish to raise three particular matters- two dealing with children- which I hope the Government will look at. I hope it will adopt a consistent approach in respect of those people to whom it pays benefits. The first matter I raise is the situation of a war widow who, after the death of her husband, has a child. Under the existing law, that woman is not eligibile for payment in respect of that child by way of an additional payment to her war widow’s pension. If she were in receipt of a civilian widow’s pension, she would be eligible for such a payment in respect of that child. But because of the differences between the repatriation Acts, and veterans affairs and social services legislation, she is denied any payments in respect of that child. Thus the child itself is denied any assistance from the Government. That woman cannot make a claim under social security legislation in respect of that child because, in assessing the child ‘s entitlement to assistance, the amount of her war widow’s pension is counted as income. Thus assistance is denied on the basis of her receiving a war widow’s pension. What is left to a woman who is entitled to a war widow’s pension because of the death of her husband through war-caused injuries is that she must forgo her war widow’s pension and claim a social security pension in order to obtain what would be her right if the law were consistent in both instances. That is one instance that I wish to raise in respect of children.

The other matter I wish to raise is in respect of the Government’s approach to the situation of persons who are de factos. Whichever approach is adopted- the recognition or otherwise of de facto relationships- it ought to be consistent throughout all aspects of Commonwealth law. Unfortunately it is not. The Government adopts a situation, and knows that it adopts a situation, whereby discrimination takes place in all instances where de factos are confronted with an advantageous or disadvantageous position. Under the social security Act it is provided that persons living in a situation which may be deemed to be similar to that of a married couple shall be treated, for the purposes of that Act, as being married. I agree with that provision. I do not think that a state of non-marriage as against marriage should disadvantage a person. But, having denied the person access to the social security benefits available to a single person because the Commonwealth deems that person to be married, the Commonwealth then denies that same person- I can give instances involving exactly the same person- the right of being considered to be married in respect of taxation legislation where rebates for a wife are concerned under the income tax laws. So the Commonwealth takes upon itself the beneficial position in both instances: Where a social service benefit can be denied by the fact that a person in a de facto relationship is deemed to be married; and where a tax reduction can be denied because a person is not married, under its existing laws the Commonwealth considers that same person to be not married. That is a denial of justice and an anomaly in the law which should be corrected. One should either take the -

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

Mr NEIL:
St George

-There are two matters which I wish to raise on the adjournment. The first one relates to speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) and the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) on 19 September in a debate regarding ethnic radio. As I said at the time, both of those speeches were quite disgraceful because the honourable members attacked persons who acted in public capacities and had no opportunity to defend themselves. I particularly want to draw the attention of the House to an attack that was made on the Turkish radio program. The Leader of Opposition alleged that there had been a right wing broadcast on the Turkish radio which resulted thereafter in some forms of disturbance or violence in the community. The honourable member for Lalor named the coordinator of the Turkish program, a Mr Arthur Inchehara, claimed that he had been an unsuccessful preselection candidate for the New South Wales Liberal Party Senate ticket, and also claimed that he had been appointed by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) because he was politically safe.

Mr Inchehara has contacted me and has admitted that he was an unsuccessful candidate for New South Wales Liberal Party preselection, but he also pointed out that he was appointed as a co-ordinator by the Labor Government. He also pointed out, and other information also leads to this conclusion, that Mr Inchehara and nearly all the other co-ordinators- except possibly one- were also appointed by the Labor Government. The Opposition now has the gall to come into the Parliament and attack these same people unmercifully under parliamentary privilege and to call them politically safe appointments of the Liberal Government. In fact they have been reappointed to almost the same positions by the Special Broadcasting Service under a special Act of Parliament and are the same people who were originally appointed by the Labor Government. Furthermore, Mr Inchehara was appointed as a member of the Sydney Committee of the ethnic radio by the Labor Government. This Committee was chaired by Mr Jim Kaldis who was an active member of the Labor Party.

Under this Government Mr Kaldis has remained as an active member of the ethnic radio, even though this Government knew that Mr Kaldis was an active member of the Labor Party. I certainly knew that he was an active member of the Labor Party because I have seen him handing out ‘how to vote’ cards at polling booths in the St George electorate at times when the Labor Party has been thrashed in an election. I am not attacking Mr Kaldis 1 because we have retained him on the ethnic radio. We believed that the ethnic radio was operating responsibly and reasonably under the Special Broadcasting Service and we reject the claim of political interference by this Government. This has been proven not only by the fact that the Labor Government appointed all the co-ordinators and this Government has retained nearly all of them, but also by the fact that we retained an active member of the Labor Party on the ethnic committee in Sydney. He is the person in charge of the Greek program. We retained him right up to the time that writs were issued for the election for the New South Wales Legislative Council. Mr Kaldis was a candidate for the Labor Party for the New South Wales Legislative Council, and is now a member of that body. We retained him right up to the time the writs were issued. This is another example of the extraordinary hypocrisy of the Labor Party.

The other point I want to mention is the devious way in which the Labor Party has taken the Galbally report- which probably fell off the back of a truck; it has not been made publicconcerning television. The Labor Party has taken the statements of complainants and not Mr Galbally ‘s findings and has applied them to the ethnic radio. A report concerning pilot television has been applied to ethnic radio. This has not been done fairly because these are totally separate arrangements. I challenge honourable members opposite to look at McNair Anderson reports on ethnic radio; they show that it works well.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I really do not want to take up much of my five minutes in replying to the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) because the point is almost too trivial to make. I freely concede that Mr Inchehara was appointed originally by the then Minister, Moss Cass, of the Labor Party. I concede also that I was not aware at the time that I made the statement that he had already been appointed by Moss Cass. But I do not think the -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will refer to the honourable gentleman by his electorate.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-By the honourable member for Maribyrnong. I would invite honourable members not to take out of context what I said but to look at page 1274 of Hansard. It is all written there. What I said quite clearly was that a number of members of the national Ethnic Broadcasting Advisory Council and the State Ethnic Broadcasting Advisory Council were very prominent members of the Liberal Party. This has been described as an unmerciful attack. It may be regarded as detrimental to somebody’s character to say that they are members of the Liberal Party, and I can quite understand if honourable members opposite are sensitive about it, but all I said was that they happened to be prominent. I referred to Mr Inchehara and everything I said about him was correct. I then said that there were a number of other politically safe appointees on these councils. In the context in which I spoke I would have thought, with the legal training that the honourable member for St George has had, that it would have been understood even by him. It was simply this, that if one is arguing for an ethnic radio media service which has no political content at all in the sense that issues are not argued out- in other words, if what one is looking for, as is said by the Galbally report, is merely a kind of ‘minestrone’ of very safe items, a bit of travelogue here and a bit of folk singing there, but where one does not engage in any serious discussion of the actual issues and the political context in which migrants live- one creates a situation which is ‘politically safe’. It is politically inert. It does not -

Mr Neil:

– Wriggling on the hook.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I am not wriggling on the hook. That is exactly the argument that I put. At the time the honourable member for St George did not understand it and I think that he should be given another opportunity to understand it. If one has people who politically are complete neuters on the subject, it is quite obvious that one will have a nil return, as it were, because it would not permit a wide range of differing views. It is quite clear that in the period when the Labor Party was in power a mixture of people were appointed. There were people who were committed politically to the left and there were people who were committed politically to the right. There is nothing wrong with that.

Mr Innes:

– There was Sir John Kerr.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– We had some strange appointments such as that of Sir John Kerr, as my colleague the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) has pointed out. That indicates that one had a context in which a variety of points of view could be put. One has the classic example which I think is illustrated in the contrast between, say, radio stations 3EA and 3ZZ in Melbourne. Station 3ZZ was composed of people who had a variety of political points of view which they expressed very fiercely. The result was that 3ZZ was politically a controversial station in which a variety of controversial points of view were put. On the other hand, one would describe 3EA, I think not unfairly, as being a ‘politically safe’ station. It is a ‘politically safe’ station because there are no controversies in it. As the Galbally report itself said, it has a series of ‘minestrone’ programs which certainly provide a little bit of ethnic culture here and there but do not provide any comprehensive argument, any comprehensive debate in which different points of view can be put. A parliament comprised of political neuters, which no doubt many honourable members on the government side would like, and in which only one point of view was put and there were a whole number of people who were absolutely safe, sitting round without an idea in their heads- and this is no doubt what honourable members opposite would likewould not be part of the democratic community.

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

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

-New South Wales is the worst State for education standards in Australia. It is the only State that had not passed its Karmel resource target for primary schools by June of last year. It was one of only two that had failed to reach these targets for secondary schools and is the only State at present suffering the pre-school disaster that has rocked pre-schools throughout New South Wales. Why is it that the other States are doing so much better than New South Wales? It cannot be the fault of the Federal Government’s education spending program, as it is required to be even-handed throughout Australia and does not benefit any one State against another without the agreement of the States. In fact New South Wales is getting some slight advantage. Yet the only criticism that is ever mounted on education spending in New South Wales always seems to be politically oriented against the Federal Government. After six years of Karmel resource targets under the Schools Commission, primary schools in New South Wales now lag 10 per cent behind the average for the six States, with Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania being between 15 percent and 20 per cent better than New South Wales.

Mr Jull:

– Even Queensland?

Mr BAUME:

– Even Queensland- while in secondary schooling the six-State average is 7 per cent above New South Wales with Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania all being at least 14 per cent better than New South Wales. This is despite the fact that all States get about the same amount of Federal funding per head. There is no way that Mr Wran’s Labor Government, or his local supporters, can pretend that this problem is simply one that was inherited from the previous State Government. For the facts are that New South Wales has simply been lagging behind the other States in education spending ever since Labor came to office in New South Wales. This has been the result of a slowdown in recurrent education spending in New South Wales per pupil in real terms; that is, after accounting for inflation. During the New South Wales Liberal Government’s last year in office, recurrent spending per primary school pupil increased by 6 per cent in real terms. Last year the New South Wales Labor Government had cut that down to only 2 per cent. For secondary schools, the 4.5 per cent real rise under the Tom Lewis Budget had been cut back to a 3.5 per cent rise. But that tells only part of the story of the New South Wales Government’s education deception.

In the year to June 1978, while recurrent funding per primary pupil in New South Wales had been cut back to a real increase of only 2 per cent in Victoria it was as high as 6.5 per cent, reflecting a different set of priorities south of the border that is given to education as against other State projects.

Mr Aldred:

– There is an enlightened Liberal Government in Victoria.

Mr BAUME:

– Yes, there is an enlightened Liberal Government in Victoria compared with the anti-education Labor Government in New South Wales. And for secondary schools, Victoria in the latest year has achieved a 7.4 per cent increase in recurrent funding, which is just about double the New South Wales Labor Government’s effort. It is not only Victoria which is so clearly outperforming New South Wales on education. The average increase for the six States for primary schools is about Vh times the increase for New South Wales, and for secondary schools is about 25 per cent better. This dismal performance in primary and secondary education is also reflected in pre-schools where Mr Wran has admitted that children’s services in New South Wales are ‘unacceptably below standards in other States’ and where provisions for disadvantaged children are ‘woefully inadequate’. In New South Wales, only $69 a head is paid by the State to pre-schools compared to $327 a head in Victoria. As a result, there are far more children at pre-schools in Victoria than in New South Wales. In fact, there are almost as many Queensland school children at pre-schools as there are in New South Wales because of the relatively good deal the Queensland Government provides compared with the appalling New South Wales record.

The reason for outlining all these facts is to dramatise the utter dishonesty of the present campaign against the Federal Government’s alleged ‘slashing’ of education spending this year. The reality is that Federal recurrent spending on schools will increase per head in real terms next year as a result of the Government’s decision to keep the total the same as last year, despite the fact that fewer children will be enrolled in primary schools. So in the vital area of recurrent spending, it is dishonest and untrue to allege there has been any cut in Federal funding for State schools whatsoever. Where there is to be a cut is in capital expansion. Throughout the whole of Australia, Federal funding for capital spending on schools will be down by $44m. This is a big cut and no one can pretend otherwise. However, it is exactly the same relative cut as the New South Wales Labor Government imposed on its own State schools in its first year in office. In fact, the New South Wales Government -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– It was not my intention to speak in this debate tonight until I heard the remarks of the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr), who referred to the subject of abortion which I thought after the debate on the Lusher motion in this place would have been buried for all time. Most honourable members on this side of the House respect the honourable member for Swan as a man but we do not always agree with his political statements. Most of us know what motivates the honourable member. It is with a degree of reluctance that I say that I am possibly the only member of parliament in this country, State or Federal, who has had the unpleasant duty of taking dying depositions and declarations from unfortunate women who had been forced to go to a backyard abortionist. Abortion should be- and I believe it isnauseating and reprehensible to every member of this House. It is something that makes the stomach turn even at the very thought of it. But despite that, the trend in the world has been that a women with an unwanted pregnancy, irrespective of the consequences and by whatever methods are available- the backyard abortionist, the darning needle, jumping off a ladder or a thousand other ways- will seek to terminate the unwanted pregnancy.

Despite the sincerity of the honourable member for Swan, he is not facing up.to the practicalities of the situation. I may agree with him that the avenues for terminating pregnancies in Canberra should be taken out of the hands of private clinics. To my mind private abortion clinics which operate for a profit are reprehensible to every one in this House and every citizen who lives in Canberra. No one should be permitted to make a profit out of the plight of the unfortunate women who have an unwanted pregnancy. There has been a change of attitude in Australia over the last 18 months. We know that the New Zealand Government will not relax the abortion law in that country. The unfortunate New Zealand girls or married women who are determined to terminate their unwanted pregnancy have to find the air fare to enable them to come to Australia to end that pregnancy.

That should not be the situation but it is a matter for the New Zealand people to force their politicians at the ballot box to take a more practical and realistic view. Even the Catholic church which is the principal religious opponent to modern, safe abortion methods is, I believe, changing its attitude. If not, its people are. An article in the Canberra Times of 10 March this year entitled Abortion rate among catholics rising: report’ reads:

Catholic authorities have been given a report which says Catholic women now have abortions at about the same rate as non-Catholics.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 1 1 p.m., the debate is interrupted.

page 1601

NOTICES

The following notices were given:

Mr Groom to move;

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament:

Construction of a New Terminal Complex at Coolangatta Aerodrome, Queensland.

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament:

Construction of the Darwin Patrol Boat Base at Larakeyah, Northern Territory.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 1602

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Asbestos Water Pipes (Question No. 4071)

Mr Kerin:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 30 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Can he say whether the US Environmental Protection Agency has stated that by all standards of research, asbestos passing through water would or could lead to cancer.
  2. What information can be provided on the use of asbestos water pipes in Canberra, Sydney, and in other Australian cities.
Mr Hunt:
Minister for Health · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 understand that the United States Environmental Protection Agency has been examining whether water containing asbestos fibres could lead to cancer and that its report on the matter is near completion. I have requested a copy of the report but at this stage am unable to say what it may contain on this matter.
  2. In Canberra, only minor use is made of asbestos cement pipes in water supply systems. Such pipes were laid in isolated areas in the older parts of Canberra but only in small quantities. The present policy is that asbestos cement pipes may be used in situations such as:

    1. for lawn watering and irrigation supplies from lakes and rivers;
    2. extensive rural supplies outside the Canberra city area.

As far as Sydney and other Australian cities are concerned, the information sought by the honourable member is not within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth.

Business and Consumer Affairs: Motor Vehicles (Question No. 4304)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. How many (a) motor cars and station wagons by make and tare, (b) trucks and other commercial vehicles by make and mass and (c) motor cycles by make, are operated by his Department , and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control.
  2. What is the average fuel consumption (kilometres per litre) of each type and make of motor vehicle referred to in part(l).
Mr Fife:
LP

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

All vehicles operated by the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs are hired from the Department of Administrative Services. 1 therefore refer the honourable member to the answer to Question No. 4299 (Hansard, 1 1 September 1 979, page 972 ) provided by the Minister for Administrative Services.

Telecom Dispute: Advertisement (Question No. 4430)

Dr Blewett:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) What was the total cost of an advertisement, headed ‘In the National Interest’ and signed by the Prime Minister which appeared during the Telecom dispute in July 1 979.
  2. In which newspapers and on what dates did this advertisement appear.
  3. Which advertising agency prepared the advertisement and what was the cost of preparation and placement.
  4. Which Department funded the advertisement.
Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) $44,25 1 (estimated).
  2. 2 ) The advertisement appeared on: 16 July 1979 in: Financial Review, The Australian, Canberra Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Daily Telegraph, The Sun, Daily Mirror, Melbourne Age, Sun News Pictorial, Melbourne Herald, Brisbane Telegraph, Adelaide Advertiser, Adelaide News, West Australian, Perth Daily News. 17 July 1979 in: Hobart Mercury, Launceston Examiner.
  3. D’Arcy MacManus & Masius Pty Ltd. Some accounts are still to be presented but the estimated costs are $6,950 for preparation and production and $37,301 for newspaper space. In accordance with standard Australian Government Advertising Service procedures, these payments will be made through the Commonwealth’s main Press Placing/Charging agency, Berry Currie Advertising (NSW) Pty Ltd.
  4. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Immigrants: Change of Status (Question No. 4432)

Dr Blewett:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many persons granted temporary entry into Australia for any purpose have been granted permanent resident status while in Australia since 7 June 1978.
  2. How many were (a) spouses and dependent children of residents in Australia, (b) refugees with valid entry permits, (c) aged parents who would have qualified for admission if they had applied overseas, (d) private overseas students able to meet the criteria for permanent residence in Australia and (e) others.
  3. How many applications have been received by his Department for change of status since 7 June 1 978.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Data are not available for the part month from 7 June to 30 June 1978. During the period I July 1978 to 30 June 1979, a total of 6024 persons were granted Australian resident status.
  2. and (3) During the financial year 1978-79 applications for Australian resident status were lodged and approved under the following categories:

Salaries of Ambassadors and High Commissioners (Question No. 4479)

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1979:

  1. Did his Department refuse to reveal salaries of Ambassadors and High Commissioners to the Australian Broadcasting Commission program Nationwide; if so, what was the reason when salaries of politicians and other high ranking officers are made public.
  2. What are the salaries paid to all Australian Ambassadors and High Commissioners.
Mr Peacock:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. 1 ) During the afternoon of Thursday 2 August my Department was asked by a journalist from the ABC program Nationwide what were the salaries being paid respectively to the High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, Sir Gordon Freeth, the Ambassador to the Netherlands, Sir David Fairbairn and the Consul-General in New York, Sir Robert Cotton.

The journalist was informed that the salaries and other terms and conditions of employment of Australian Ambassadors and High Commissioners are determined by me under authority from the Executive Council. Before making the salaries of the three appointees public the Departmental Spokesman said the Department would wish, at least, to advise those concerned. The journalist did not accept an offer to provide the information after consulting those concerned because the information was required for an item going to air that night.

  1. The salaries currently paid to Australian Ambassadors, High Commissioners, the Commissioner in Hong Kong and the Consul-General in New York are shown in the following schedule.

Asbestos-Related Diseases (Question No. 4581)

Mr Howe:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 1 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) What statistical information is available on the incidence of asbestos-related diseases as they relate to occupational health.
  2. ) What regulations cover the use of asbestos in industry.
  3. Has his Department undertaken any research into the question of asbestos-related diseases as they relate to occupational health; if so, what are the results.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Statistical information on the incidence of asbestosrelated disease is available from the New South Wales Dust Diseases Board, Victorian Health Commission and the Western Australian Department of Public Health.
  2. New South Wales Factories, Shops and Industries Act, 1962. Factories (Health and Safety- Asbestos Processes) Regulation, 1977.

Victorian Labour and Industry (Asbestos) Regulations 1978.

Queensland Asbestos Rule, Factories and Shop Act ( 1960-68), Section 38, Rule 9.

South Australian Industrial Code Regulations under the Industrial Safety, Health and Welfare Act, Section 39, (1972-78).

Western Australian Asbestos Regulations, 1978.

  1. Yes. For many years my Department has conducted applied research on the estimation of airborne asbestos dust, the results of which are to be found in the National Health and Medical Research Council publication ‘Membrane Filter Method for Estimating Airborne Asbestos Dust’.

More recently my Department has set up a Mesothelioma Registry at the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine. By the means of this registry, the relationship between occupational exposure to asbestos and mesothelioma tumours will be researched.

Brucella Abortus (Question No. 4610)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 13 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has he received representations from meat workers concerning the spreading of brucella abortus
  2. If so, did these representations ask that his Department ensure that reactors would be processed in works where facilities for personal hygiene are available.
  3. 3 ) Would this move greatly reduce the risk not only to the health standards of workers but also to family and community health standards.
  4. Did he say that it is not possible nor would it be reasonable to demand co-operation from meat exporters and processors, especially if they would suffer financial loss; if so, does he still stand by that statement.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. There have been representations over the last few years from unions representing meatworkers indicating concern over the risks to their members from the handling of cattle infected with Brucella abortus
  2. I am not aware that any of the representations specifically asked that reactors be processed only in works where facilities for personal hygiene are available. All abattoirs registered for export under the Exports (Meat) Regulations are required to have extensive facilities for personal hygiene.
  3. The use of such facilities reduces the risk to workers arising from the handling of infected cattle. Additionally, known reactor cattle are only slaughtered at export abattoirs at a separate time from the normal daily kill and personnel handling carcases are encouraged to make full use of the facilities provided to assist in their own protection.
  4. Yes, I did use those words in correspondence with the AMIEU in 1976 in relation to questions raised by the union over co-operation by meat processors in purchasing and slaughtering reactor cattle. I also stated ‘My Department will continue to actively seek the co-operation of all sectors of the industry in the brucellosis campaign’. Yes, I stand by the statement in the context in which it was originally made.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 26 September 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1979/19790926_reps_31_hor115/>.