House of Representatives
23 October 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session

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

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2293

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Education

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

The petition of certain citizens of NSW respectfully showeth:

Dismay at the reduction in the total expenditure on education proposed for1980 and in particular to Government Schools.

Government Schools bear the burden of these cuts, 1 1.2 per cent, while non-Government schools 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 Anthony, Mr John Brown, Mr Hunt, Mr James, Dr Klugman, Mr Neil, Mr O’Keefe and Mr West

Petitions received.

Fishing

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

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

That the agreement between the Commonwealth and Japanese Governments granting Japanese long line fishing boats access to Australia’s recently declared two hundred mile fishing zone for a fee of $ 1 .4m will seriously imperil the world’s largest population of black marlin which inhabit the north Queensland waters and consequently endanger the invaluable tourist and ancillary industries in that area which depend on big game fishing.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will declare:

  1. How many Japanese long line boats will be allowed to enter the Australian fishing zone in the year of the agreement;
  2. b ) How many tonnes of black marlin the Japanese will be allowed to catch;
  3. What is the composition of the overseas interests, referred to by the former minister in his ministerial statement of September 25, which have expressed interest in carrying out feasibility fishing projects;
  4. Whether the Japanese-Australian fishing agreement includes provision for a portion of the foreign catch to be processed in Australia;
  5. What assurances on access to the Japanese market for Australian fish and fish products have been given by the Japanese;
  6. What was the basis for the calculation of the fee which the Japanese will pay for access to the AFZ;
  7. Were any guarantees given by the Japanese for the protection and conservation of black marlin numbers in the AFZ;

And asks that the government undertake not to re-issue the licences to the Japanese fishermen next year when the terms of access are again reviewed.

Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodges, Mr Humphreys, Mr Barry Jones and Mr Morris.

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 National 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 imposed 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 Kevin Cairns, Mr Martyr and Mr Shipton.

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 showeth:

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; mobilise 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 every pray. by Dr Edwards and Mr Jarman.

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 showeth that the situation which has arisen as a result of the mass exodus of refugees from Indo-China is critical.

Accordingly, we feel that immediate and direct action should be taken to (i) raise significantly the numbers of refugees accepted into Australia and to implement measures to facilitate their prompt settlement; and to (ii) despatch immediately increased humanitarian aid to alleviate crises in various internment and processing camps throughout South-East Asia.

Although we are aware of social and economic difficulties which may face Australia as a consequence, Australia is in a unique position of responsibility and opportunity with regard to the refugee problem.

Finally, we ask that appropriate pressure be put on those nations creating the present situation to help alleviate it. Your essential concern must be the preservation of human life.

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

Petition received.

Liquefied Petroleum Gas

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 price of LPG in Victoria has risen by $80 per tonne since November 1978 as a result of Federal Government policy thereby causing hardship to country consumers using LPG for cooking, heating and hot water and to decentralized industries using LPG for industrial purposes.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

  1. that the Federal Government should abolish its so called export parity’ pricing policy for LPG consumed in Australia.
  2. that the price of Bass Strait LPG sold on the Australian market should be related to the true cost of production plus a fair margin of profit for the producers;
  3. that all LPG ex. Bass Strait consumed on the Australian market should be free of excise levy;
  4. that there should be no restriction on availability of LPG ex. Bass Strait to meet the requirements of the Australian market;
  5. that the price of LPG ex. oil refineries should be established by the P. J.T. at parity with Bass Strait LPG consumed on the Australian market;

  6. that pending the establishment of a fair price in accordance with Clause 2 above and to provide some immediate relief to country consumers;

    1. the existing excise on Bass Strait LPG consumed in Australia be abolished forthwith, thus providing a reduction in price of $27.60 per tonne for propane,
    2. that the windfall profit that Esso/B.H.P. is enjoying as a result of the increase in price of LPG from $1 10 to $147 per tonne be directed to Australian consumers rather than the Federal Treasury through excise, thus providing an additional decrease in the present price of $37.00 per tonne.

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

Petitions received.

Sale of Publicly Owned Enterprises

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

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

There is a limit to the capacity of Australia’s drug manufacturing industry in Australian hands.

Accordingly our resources should be managed and developed under Australian ownership and control

Publicly owned trading enterprises and corporations have been established and operated for the benefit of Australians since Federation.

The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, Commonwealth Banking Corporation, Trans Australia Airlines, Qantas, Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, Australian Wheat Board, were all designed to operate to the benefit of our Nation as a whole under public ownership.

The Fraser government’s irresponsible proposals to sell off our Nation’s interest in the Ranger Uranium Mine, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, and to dispose of other successful statutory corporations such as Trans Australia Airlines and the Fawnmac group of drug companies would be contrary to the Nation’s interests. Fawnmac still makes a profit of about half the proposed sale price in a year and cost the Australian government several times the proposed sale price. It provides the Pharmaceutical Benefits pricing negotiators within the Health Department with inside information on drug manufacturing costs and so prevents collusive monopolistic pricing by major transnational drug firms. It complements the resources of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to make both Government owned drug firms more efficient and competitive by co-operation.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will reject outright proposals of the Fraser government to sell the Ranger Uranium Mine, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, Trans Australia Airlines and the Fawnmac group of companies.

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

Petitions received.

Unemployment

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, 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 penalities 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 every pray. by Mr John Brown.

Petition received.

Metric System

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

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

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

Petition received.

Fisher Place Park, Australian Capital Territory

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

The humble petition of 1004 undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth:

That the National Capital Development Commission has plans at an advanced stage to auction off for medium density development Fisher Place Park (Section 31) Ainslie, a unique natural parkland bounded by Hassall, Duffy and Ebden Streets and Herbert Crescent Ainslie in the Australian Capital Territory, contrary to the wishes of the residents and other Australian citizens.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled, should, being mindful of the recreational needs, health and well being of present and future generations including the Scout and Cub Groups whose hall is sited on the parkland, take measures to ensure that this parkland be preserved and gazetted a parkland and your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fry.

Petition received.

Rosemount Repatriation Hospital, Brisbane

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

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the work undertaken at the occupational therapy (woodwork) section of the Rosemount Repatriation Hospital, Windsor, in Brisbane, is of great value to participating patients.

Your petitioners regret that:

The Department of Veterans ‘ Affairs has deliberately discouraged the use of the occupation therapy woodwork section at the Hospital in order to downgrade the facility and ultimately to close it,

Repeated appeals from patients at the centre, from exservicemen’s associations and from other members of this Parliament to reverse this policy have been unsuccessful;

And because the alternatives offered are unsatisfactory, your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will request the Government to review its decision not to replace the former woodwork instructor at Rosemount Repatriation Hospital, and to effectively close the woodwork facility, jeopardising the therapeutic value of the work undertakenthere.

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

Petition received.

Unemployment Benefit

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

Whereas:

  1. The number of positions available throughout Australia is insufficient to provide the opportunity for fulltime employment for several hundred thousand Australians including School Leavers who have as yet been unable to avail themselves of work experience.
  2. The provisions of the Social Security Act be so modified as to permit all such persons to engage in part time employment without suffering the immediate disincentive of loss of Social Security support (Dole Money). The proposed modification to the Act to permit incomes at least to the Henderson ‘Poverty Level’ and to taper off in such manner as to maintain incentive to work.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the government of the Commonwealth of Australia per medium of the Minister for Social Security give all directions to ensure that necessary action be taken without delay.

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

Petition received.

Repatriation Benefits

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:

  1. Merchant seamen who were captured and held as prisoners of war during World War II are not treated as Members of the Forces’ (veterans) for the purpose of entitlements to Repatriation benefits.
  2. ‘Member of the Forces’ is defined by Part III, Section 23 (c) of the Repatriation Act 1920-70 as ‘enlisted or appointed for service in connexion with naval or military preparations or operations’. ‘Served in a theatre of war’ means served at sea . . . at a time when danger from hostile forces of the enemy was incurred in that area . . .
  3. 114 Australian merchant seamen were repatriated after the war and it is estimated that only about 60 of these men survive today.

The Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill of 1974 made available free medical and hospital treatment to all veterans who were prisoners of war. The reason, stated by the Minister, was that abnormal hardships and privations, suffered by these veterans, could affect their general health and well-being as they get on in years, and are deserving of special consideration.

Your petitioners therefore pray that:

The Australian Government should amend the appropriate legislation so that merchant seamen prisoners-of-war are defined as ‘Members of the Forces ‘ (or veterans) so that they are entitled to the appropriate Repatriation benefits.

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

Petition received.

Fishing

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

  1. That the Black Marlin is a National asset and is recognised as an endangered species;
  2. That the United States has totally banned long lined Bill Fishing for ten ( 1 0 ) years;
  3. That over fishing could cause great damage to the ecology of Marlin Fishing grounds and also destroy the food chain for it and other species;
  4. That the Game Fishing Industry centered on the Black Marlin is a vital part of Far North Queensland’s tourist industry and its removal could cause a great revenue loss to tourist operators.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that-

  1. That the signing of the Commonwealth/Queensland Agreement with Japan be delayed;
  2. That negotiations recommence to allow a larger Buffer Zone from North of Lizard Island to the Torres Strait and in a straight line from Bramble Cay to east of the Swain Reefs off Gladstone, to be declared;
  3. That during these further negotiations all long line fishing be prohibited.

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

Petition received.

page 2296

ANZUS TREATY

Notice of Motion

Mr YATES:
Holt

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

That this House affirms its absolute and unqualified support of the ANZUS Treaty and congratulates all ranks of the Australian armed forces on their successful and impressive exercise, Kangaroo Three, on land, sea and air in cooperation with the allied forces of New Zealand and the United States Marines.

The motion is seconded by the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) and supported by the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Thomson).

page 2296

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2296

QUESTION

ANTI-TRUST PROCEEDINGS IN UNITED STATES

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of paragraph 22 of the Australian memorandum submitted to the Appeals Court in Chicago in the case involving the four Australian uranium companies, which states:

The Australian Government is concerned that the effect of a judgment for damages against the Australian defendants and the continuing enforcement of that judgment may constitute a serious irritant of indefinite -

I stress ‘indefinite ‘- duration in bilateral relations between Australia and the United States of America?

Does that statement, with all of its serious implications, represent the considered position of the Australian Government, and has it been communicated to the United States Government?

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

– I am aware of the reference mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. The seriousness of this matter has been referred to by me before in regard to other matters both directly affecting nuclear safeguards arrangements and affecting the policies that we have adopted on them. At the present moment, however, the matter is being handled by the AttorneyGeneral. I will refer the question to him and provide the Leader of the Opposition with a detailed answer on questions of law as well as fact.

page 2296

QUESTION

ZIMBABWE-RHODESIA CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– I also direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the difficulties experienced last week at the Zimbabwe-Rhodesia constitutional conference in London over the Patriotic Front’s reluctance to accept Britain’s constitutional proposals. Does the Patriotic Front’s acceptance of the British proposals mean that detailed discussions on transitional arrangements can now begin? Are proposals for Commonwealth observers included in these electoral arrangements? If such proposals are included, does the Australian Government stand ready to provide observers for such an election?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

-I think the honourable member spoke at the outset of his question of the difficulties- there have been some difficultiesduring the negotiations to date in London. I think it is fair to say, and I think the House would agree, that the six-week-old conference has been characterised also by a spirit of goodwill and compromise. In fact, the most serious difficulty so far encountered arose last week over Lord Carrington’s understandable ruling that the parties had to accept the British constitutional proposal before going on to the second stage of the conference, to discuss arrangements for the interim period before independence. The Muzorewa delegation said that it accepted the proposal, subject to the lifting of sanctions and to agreement on the interim or transitional arrangements. After some consultations, the Patriotic Front announced that it had received the assurances it required on multilateral efforts to assist land, agricultural and development programs. Although it continued to have reservations- and stated them- about certain aspects of the constitution, it said that it accepted the British proposal, also subject to the satisfactory negotiation of interim arrangements, and it then rejoined the constitutional talks. Naturally, the Australian Government welcomes this development.

Referring now to the discussions on interim arrangements, we have kept in contact with the British Government. I had discussions again with Lord Carrington while we were both at the United Nations and we have been in contact through our missions since then. Yesterday the British tabled a series of proposals for the transitional period, and the honourable member referred to them in his question. These proposals differ in many respects from the proposals put forward earlier by the Patriotic Front. Unquestionably there will be hard negotiations between all the parties to the conference before agreement can be reached. The provision to which the honourable member referred and which is part of the British proposal does relate to Commonwealth observers. Honourable members will be aware that this accords fully with the Lusaka agreement, which provided for Commonwealth observers to witness the election of the government which would take Zimbabwe into independence. At this point in the negotiations the stage has not yet been reached for decisions to be made on the particular matter. Nevertheless, the Australian Government remains ready to do whatever it appropriately can do to assist the process of the negotiations, if so required, or to help the establishment of a Zimbabwe government that can achieve wide international recognition. We welcome the constructive spirit with which all parties have approached the talks. The Government believes that the British Government and, I think it is fair to say, Lord

Carrington personally are discharging their ultimate responsibility for Zimbabwe with tact, sensitivity and courage. Although many difficulties lie ahead, the Australian Government is hopeful that a peaceful negotiated settlement on Zimbabwe-Rhodesia will shortly be found.

Mr Young:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could I have the Minister table the document he was reading from?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Was the Minister reading from a document?

Mr Peacock:

– No, I certainly was not reading from a document.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

page 2297

PRIVILEGE

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Batman has indicated to me that he has a matter of privilege which he wishes to raise at the first opportunity.

Mr HOWE:
Batman

– I wish to raise a matter of privilege concerning the responsibilities of public servants to provide information to committees of this House. I refer particularly to two reports in the Press yesterday. I refer, firstly, to the comments of Mr Geoff Duncan on the Australian Broadcasting Commission program AM in which he concluded a report on Treasury documents concerning environmental legislation with, according to the transcript, the following words:

  1. . that it-

That is, Treasury- has refused point blank to indicate its attitudes to a back bench committee which has just reported on the adequacy of the legislation.

I refer also to an article by Paul Malone on the same matter, in the Australian Financial Review of 22 October, in which the following sentence appears:

The Treasury refused to supply the joint parliamentary inquiry with its opinion on the EPA -

The Environmental Protection Act- preferring a behind-the-scenes manoeuvre to get its views across.

The authors of those two reports are presumably referring to several sentences in the published report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation entitled ‘Environmental Protection: Adequacy of Legislative and Administrative Arrangements’. On page 24 of the report the following comments appear:

The Committee sought information from the Department of the Treasury on attitudes towards the Act and comments on the amendments necessary to improve the operations of the Act. The Committee regrets that the Department of the Treasury refused to supply it with any information.

The Committee wrote to the Treasurer (Mr Howard) on 21 February, inviting a submission from his Department on environmental legislative arrangements. The Treasurer, in his reply of 27 March, noted that some of the legislation is currently under review by the Government and that his Department’s involvement with a number of the Acts listed is insignificant. For these reasons he did not believe that it would be of any benefit to the Committee if the Treasury were to prepare a formal submission for the consideration of the Committee. However, the Treasurer did acknowledge that committee debates may be of assistance to the Government in reaching decisions in this area.

He said:

I would of course be happy to have Treasury respond to any specific points or questions that the Committee may wish to raise.

Accordingly, on 5 June the Clerk to the Committee submitted to the Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Stone, a series of questions. However, Mr Stone, in a letter to the Committee of 3 July, commented that the Treasurer’s promises needed to be viewed in the context of the guidelines tabled in Parliament on 28 September, ‘which preclude us from commenting on Government policy’. On this basis Mr Stone indicated that he refused to answer five of the eight questions submitted. I believe that Mr Stone of the Treasury may be in contempt of Parliament in that, apparently of his own volition, he failed to provide certain information requested by a committee of this Parliament. I refer briefly to a relevant paper prepared for the Parliament by a former Attorney-General, Senator Greenwood, and a former SolicitorGeneral, Mr Ellicott. On two occasions in a parliamentary paper they referred in specific terms to this kind of matter. In paragraph 1 1 1 of that report they stated:

If a witness summoned to produce documents does not do so, or refuses to do so in accordance with the summons, he may be dealt with according to contempt.

Paragraph 142 section (iv) stated:

If the Minister decides to claim privilege, he should furnish the Committee with a certificate to that effect.

I conclude: It would appear on the face of it that at the very least a committee of this Parliament has been dealt with in a rather cavalier manner by one of the most senior public servants serving the Government. I am not sure what is the standing of the guidelines referred to by Mr Stone in his letter to the Committee. I do not know whether it is possible to sustain a distinction between information and policy. However, I would have thought that, in the Westminster tradition, the power of Parliament to require the production of documents and the giving of evidence is, for all practical purposes, unlimited. If this is the case, I believe that Mr Stone has a case to answer.

MrSPEAKER-Is the honourable gentleman a member of the Committee?

Mr HOWE:
BATMAN, VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Has the honourable gentleman been authorised by the Committee to raise this matter of privilege?

Mr HOWE:

-No. I raise the matter in relation -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman has raised it of his own accord?

Mr HOWE:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Treasurer has indicated to me that he wishes to speak to the matter of privilege.

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

-I submit that no matter of privilege is raised by what the honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe) has put to the House.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I submit that it is not competent for any honourable member at this stage to canvass whether a breach of privilege has occurred. The procedure, Mr Speaker, is for you to consider the submissions put to you by the honourable member for Batman and to report back to this Parliament on your view of the submissions. Everyone has to agree that this is a pretty serious matter.

Honourable members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. The matter of privilege will be heard in silence.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It is a serious matter if it is true.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will make his point of order.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Therefore, to allow a debate- that is what will develop if the Treasurer is permitted to continue in the strain in which he started- at this stage would be contrary to all precedent.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I appreciate the honourable member for Hindmarsh reminding me of the manner in which privilege issues are determined by the House. I will hear the Treasurer.

Mr HOWARD:

– If it suits the wishes of the House and you, Mr Speaker, I will seek your guidance as to the appropriate form in which I may make a submission on the matters raised by the honourable member for Batman. I simply wish to draw to the attention of the House some facts that relate to what the honourable member for Batman said. Some of the things that the honourable member said are, according to the information in my possession, correct. It is true that the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation invited the Department of the Treasury to respond to a series of questions. It is true that, by a response of 3 July 1979, the Secretary to the Treasury responded to those questions in the questionnaire of the Committee which were of a non-policy character. In that same letter the Secretary to the Treasury indicated that he did not propose to respond to those questions asked by the Committee which sought the views of the Treasury on policy matters. The view was taken, quite properly in my submission, by the Secretary to the Treasury, that it is not the role of public servants to express and formulate government policy, particularly before committees. Rather, it is the role of public servants to respond to requests for factual information by committees.

The Committee asked the Treasury to prepare a written submission to the Committee in this particular matter. Because the matter was before the Government at that particular time, the Treasury took the view that it would not be appropriate to furnish a written submission to the Committee. This in no way represents contempt by the Treasury or by any officer of the Treasury of the committee processes of this Parliament. I point out to the honourable member for Batman and to the House that in all of those cases where committees have requested written submissions from the Treasury in the time that I have been Treasurer- except on those occasions when the matter has been directly before the Government at the time the request was being made, or it has been a matter in respect of which the Treasury’s capacity to provide a useful submission is very minimal- the Treasury has readily responded by providing a written submission. The charge of the honourable member, that the Treasury has been guilty of contempt of his Committee or any other committee, is without foundation. I do not believe that any case of privilege has been established.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I ask for your indulgence to make a statement too.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will be granted indulgence. I ask the honourable member to confine his remarks to the issue of privilege.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON (Hindmarsh)After the Committee of Privileges has dealt with the matter, if you, Mr Speaker, decide that it should go to the Committee of Privileges, the House can determine whether there has been a contempt of the Parliament. I can understand a public servant saying to a committee: ‘I am under the instructions of my Minister not to answer that question’. That is a legitimate response from a public servant if the Minister has given him that instruction. That is a precedent that was laid down on several occasions, the last of which related to the loans affair. Public servants were called upon to answer questions in the Senate, and they all replied that they had received written instructions from their respective Ministers not to answer the questions. The question on that occasion became one of whether the Minister had the authority to issue the instruction. If he did not, it would have been the Minister who would have been in contempt of the Parliament, not the public servant.

As far as we can discover, on this occasion no Minister gave the public servant concerned directions not to answer the questions put to him by the Parliament’s committee. Had the public servant responded by saying: “That is a policy matter and consequently I wm need to obtain the approval of my Minister before I can answer it’, the committee could have had no possible complaint. Its members would have been obligated, if they were fair, to stop pressing the question until the public servant had sought and obtained permission or had been refused permission to -

Mr Lucock:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I do not want to interrupt the honourable member; but I point out that he is a member of the Privileges Committee which will have to consider this case if you decide that it involves a matter of privilege. Therefore, does this not mean that a member of that Committee is actually giving a prejudgment of the decision before the Committee gets a chance to look at the case?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member for Hindmarsh to draw his remarks to a conclusion.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am not giving an opinion on the matter at all -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will the honourable gentleman please continue with his point and not respond to the point of order?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-If anything, I have given reasons why in certain circumstances no charge of contempt could possibly be levelled against the public servant. This is a terribly important issue. It has never been raised in this House before in the context in which it has now been raised and it becomes a matter of tremendous importance by way of precedent. I think that you, Mr Speaker, ought to reserve your opinion on the matter -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman has made his point.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Yes, I know. Mr Speaker, you ought to reserve your opinion on the matter, tell us later what you decide and let the Privileges Committee determine it, if that is your opinion.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Treasurer has indicated to me that in making his statement a short while ago he said something that he wishes to correct. I call the Treasurer.

Mr HOWARD (Bennelong-Treasurer)-In making my statement a moment ago, I think I gave the House the impression that it was the Treasury that told the Committee that it did not believe that it could give a written submission and the reasons for that. On checking my papers I find that, in fact, it was I who told the Committee that the Treasury would not be making a submission and the reasons for that. I make the observation that that gives added substance to the point I was making.

Mr YATES:
Holt

-This is no time for a debate here. Mr Speaker, I would suggest and believe that, if it is a prima facie situation, you alone must make the decision and there is no debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is absolutely correct.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– I think I ought to say on behalf of the Government that it has been the long-standing practice of successive Australian governments, going back for some decades- it is a practice that this Government certainly adheres to and upholds, and will uphold in relation to its own public servants- that if public servants are asked questions of fact that is one thing; but, if they are asked questions of policy, those questions are for Ministers and the Government. In the Government’s view public servants are not obliged to give their personal views on policy matters to anyone outside the Public Service. They advise Ministers in relation to those matters. That is advice to Ministers and it is an essential and important part of an apolitical Public Service that the advice to Ministers goes from the public servant to the Minister. At the same time, that protects the public servant who at some future stage might well be required to service some other government with equal integrity and dedication.

That system will be broken down if this House or the Parliament seeks to inveigle a public servant into discussions which become public discussions on matters of policy involving that public servant’s personal opinion. So let me say that this Government, if necessary, will direct all its public servants not to answer questions of policy in relation to those matters. There would be no retreat from that.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will give consideration to the matter and report to the chamber.

page 2300

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2300

QUESTION

RENTED OFFICE ACCOMMODATION

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I refer the Minister for Administrative Services to information provided by his Department to a Senate Estimates committee that $776,000 was paid last year in rent for office space which was not used at all. I ask: What is the justification for this expenditure? Is it a fact that part of this expenditure, namely, $78,500, was paid for empty office space reported to be owned by Mr David Rofe, Q.C.?

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I do not have in my mind the detail with which to answer that question. I will provide the information as soon as possible.

page 2300

QUESTION

DISEASE IN PIGS IN NORTHERN TASMANIA

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP

-I refer the Minister for Primary Industry to a report that 300 pigs have been destroyed, under the direction of animal health authorities, on a farm in northern Tasmania because of suspected disease. Can the Minister inform the House concerning the disease situation which arises? What steps have been taken to deal with the problem? What precautions are being taken against any spread of the disease to other piggeries in Australia?

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Primary Industry · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · NCP/NP

– I confirm that there has been a suspected outbreak of vesicular disease at a piggery in northern Tasmania and that as a result some 300 pigs have been destroyed. As a result of that outbreak, veterinary officers of both the Commonwealth and State governments have gathered in Tasmania today to determine what other action is required. I can also confirm that samples from the pigs have been sent to London for testing to find out exactly what this disease is. As soon as further information is available I will make it available to the honourable member.

page 2301

QUESTION

PALM ISLAND HOSPITAL WATER SUPPLY

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware that the water supply on Palm Island is unacceptably polluted? Is he aware also that, according to Palm Island hospital, in the past six weeks 90 Aboriginal children have been admitted to that hospital with gastro-enteritis, 20 of them being so seriously ill that they were transported to Townsville Hospital? How long has the Government been aware of the problem? What is being done to prevent further preventable grave illness and public health hazards in the region and in Aboriginal settlements run or serviced by the State of Queensland?

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

– I am not personally aware of the information needed to answer the honourable gentleman’s question. I will refer the question to my colleague and obtain a written answer for the honourable gentleman.

page 2301

QUESTION

MULTILATERAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS

Mr ALDRED:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Trade and Resources. Is it correct that as part of the Multilateral Trade Negotiations the United States of America has obtained exemption for its DomesticInternational Sales Corporation scheme from the provisions of the code on subsidies and countervailing duties, yet a similar exemption will not necessarily apply to Australia in respect of its export incentive scheme? If this is correct, is the Minister concerned about the adverse consequences for Australia vis-a-vis its competitive position with the United States, and will Australia refuse to ratify the Multilateral Trade Negotiations agreement while this situation persists?

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

– At this stage the Government has not made a decision relating to the various codes under the Multilateral Trade Negotiations round of negotiations. The subsidies and countervailing duties code which the honourable gentleman mentioned was negotiated largely between the European Economic Community and the United States of America. Within negotiation on the code, which was a rather complex matter taking in many tax and other matters, the Americans had included their DISC scheme, which is an export incentive scheme. They are refusing to repeal the scheme so as to take out the DISC arrangement. However, they have made certain sounds indicating that they will integrate the DISC scheme into the subsidy code arrangement slowly over a period. We have been making soundings with our industry people in Australia, getting a reaction to the various codes. Until we have a reaction the Government will not decide whether it will become a member to this code.

page 2301

QUESTION

PHOSPHATE

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister for Trade and Resources indicated that supplies of phosphate from Christmas Island will last for another 10 years? Is this advice at variance with that of the British Phosphate Commission which has announced that Christmas Island deposits will be exhausted in 1983? Will the Minister give a guarantee that farmers will not be forced to rely on Moroccan phosphate which is selling for SO per cent more than Christmas Island phosphate?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– A year or two ago there was a debate in this House concerning the future of the Duchess phosphate deposit in Queensland. At that stage Broken Hill South Ltd, which owned the deposit, was very reluctant to pursue the development because it was uneconomic. At the same time we were given information by the British Phosphate Commission that Christmas Island would have economic deposits to keep it going until at least the latter part of the 1980s. However, due to changing economic circumstances and a reassessment of the grades of phosphate on Christmas Island it looks as though the life of that deposit is very much shorter than what we were informed at that time. I can assure the honourable member that Australian farmers will be given every opportunity to get access to the cheapest available forms of phosphate. Should it be necessary to go ahead and to develop our own rock phosphate deposits, I certainly hope that Australian companies will be willing to do so.

page 2301

QUESTION

TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES

Mr GILES:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I also address a question to the Minister for Trade and Resources. It bears on the question already asked by the honourable member for Henty. Can the right honourable gentleman explain to the House why there appears to be some doubt in the mind of the American Administration as to the validity of agreements on relaxation of duty on Australian wool imports into that country? Can he describe to me the current situation; why there is evidently a suspicion in the mind of the American

Administration over this? How does this historically tie back also to relaxation of protection in the tobacco industry? At what time does agreement on these matters, which are important to Australian industries in both instances, become effective?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– One of the very important aspects of the negotiations between Australia and the United States was the getting of some relief from the wool duty that has been imposed upon the import of raw wool into that country since about the tura of the century. During the course of negotiations with the United States we were able to get relief to the extent of 60 per cent over a period of three years. That progressdown to 60 per cent- will start to take effect in 1980 and will be concluded after a period of three years.

page 2302

SOUTH AFRICA

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Burke.

Honourable members:

Honourable members interjecting

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Mr Speaker, it seems as though I have opposition in this House as well. Is the Prime Minister aware that the international executive of D’Arcy-MacManus and Masius, one of the 10 biggest advertising agencies in the world, met last week in South Africa in what was described as ‘a strong gesture of faith and confidence in South Africa’? Does the Prime Minister hold to his earlier expressed opinions about South African policies and those who support them? Is he aware that the local off-shoot of D’Arcy-MacManus and Masius numbers among its clients the Liberal Party of Australia?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The Government’s policies in relation to South Africa remain totally unchanged. The success of Masius in advising the Liberal Party in relation to elections will also be totally unchanged.

page 2302

QUESTION

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I ask the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs: What action is the Government taking to differentiate in the unemployment statistics between unemployed youth and those who, due to a lack of the necessary basic skills, motivation and discipline or as a result of unreal job expectations, are unemployable? Would it be possible for such a differentiation to be made so as to put the youth unemployment figures into perspective and to highlight some of the real problems at the root of youth unemployment?

Mr VINER:
LP

– As the honourable member would be aware, the Australian Statistician, by means of a household survey, surveys the number of people unemployed, both the 15 to 19-year-olds and those older than that. The basis upon which the Statistician makes that survey is an internationally accepted basis. The Government believes that it gives the fairest and most accurate assessment of the level of unemployment within the community. I should inform the honourable member that the Australian Statistician also does a survey of the persons looking for work. On 10 October this year the Statistician published the results of a survey done in July 1979. Although it does not go into detail such as the honourable member canvassed, it is indicative of some of the reasons why people find it difficult to get work. For example- I have mentioned some of these statistics in the past- 8.8 per cent of the people surveyed reported that the main difficulty in finding work was insufficient work experience. Another 7.9 per cent said that their main difficulty was the lack of necessary education and skills. In fact, I am advised that something like 50 per cent of the people surveyed gave one or other of those reasons as one of the difficulties that they had in finding work.

This is at the heart of the Government’s consideration of what is called the policy on the transition from school to work. We appreciate that surveys have shown that the primary reason why so many young people are unemployed is that they lack experience and they lack the skills required by employers- either specific skills or a broad range of educational competence. It is for that reason that we as a government believe that we must tackle this area constructively and positively, starting with the children in schools, prior to the end of compulsory schooling, and extending beyond that period into technical and further education and into a range of vocational training as well as work experience programs. I thank the honourable member for his question and I direct him, for further details, to the survey of 10 October by the Australian Statistician.

page 2302

QUESTION

DETECTION OF ILLEGAL IMPORTS

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, relates to his specific responsibilities for the detection of illegal imports. Does he subscribe to the practice of placing major dependence for the detection of drug runners and smugglers operating to Australia on the services of wholly foreign-owned and controlled companies, particularly where such companies have a veto power over decisions by an Australian subsidiary as prescribed in their articles and memorandum of association? Can the Minister say what level of control over such wholly foreign-owned companies is available to the Australian Government in these circumstances?

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

-I will take note of the detail of the honourable member’s question and give him a considered reply later.

page 2303

QUESTION

INCOME TAX EVASION

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

-I ask the Treasurer whether he has seen a recent study of the socalled black economy, that is, the world of cash and kind transactions used to avoid payment of income tax by means such as straight-out avoidance, gifts instead of payments, moonlighting and illegitimate deductions. Has the Treasurer also seen some assessments that put such transactions at about 7½ per cent of the national income in Great Britain? Has he also seen that there have been recent attempts to counteract this sort of activity in tax avoidance in France, West Germany, Belgium and Sweden? I further ask the Treasurer Is there a similar avoidance of tax in Australia? What is the extent of it? Is it not extremely unfair on those who do comply with their taxation obligations? Finally, if there is a problem in this regard in Australia, what does the Government propose to do about it?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– My attention has been drawn to a very detailed study of this particular problem which appeared in a recent issue of the magazine, the Economist, and which studies the incidence of tax evasion through cash payments in Europe. I would have to say to the honourable gentleman that one would have to be extremely naive to pretend that there is not an incidence of this activity in Australia also. It is impossible for somebody to quantify anywhere near precisely the extent to which it occurs. To the extent that it does occur, it does place a much greater burden on either those who are not in a position to do it or alternatively those who are in a position to do it but who choose not to do it.

The Government has had under study for a period the possibility of some changed arrangements regarding certain industries where it is believed the incidence of cash payments is greater than in others. I can say to the honourable gentleman that that study will continue. In framing any counter-measures in this area, the Government must of course be sure that the effect of those counter-measures is not heavyhanded and that it does not impose unfair burdens and unfair obligations on honest citizens and on those who are quite prepared to bear their taxation burdens. I can assure the honourable gentleman that, just as this Government remains concerned to curb what might loosely be called sophisticated tax avoidance arrangements, it is equally concerned to take appropriate measures against outright and illegal tax evasion of the type that the honourable gentleman has described.

page 2303

QUESTION

TUNA FISHING

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

-I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: In view of the imminent declaration of Australia ‘s 200-mile economic zone, is the Minister aware of United States law which declares tuna a free swimming fish and bans any country declaring a 200-mile zone from interfering with the rights of United States fishing vessels to catch tuna in those areas? Is the Minister also aware that the same law prescribes that any interruption to the rights of a United States vessel under these circumstances will result in all possible sanctions being placed on the country concerned? In view of the fact that tuna is one of the more controversial fish in the area, and with effect on Australia and this region, what action has the Government taken to ensure that Australia will have full control over the operations of all fishing vessels and other activities in Australia’s zone?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

-The declaration referred to by the honourable member does not involve a 200-mile economic zone. I say that because the Leader of the Opposition made the same error at lunch-time today. There is an essential difference between an economic zone- exclusive or otherwise- and a fishing zone. It is a fishing zone which will come into effect on 1 November. I am well aware of the policies of and attitude taken by the United States in regard to highly migratory species, in particular tuna. In fact, I am so well aware of it that I spent at least 72 hours with the Prime Minister on the island of Niue last year discussing virtually nothing else but that. That was at the South Pacific Forum, at which the island nations represented put some very deeply held views about what they regarded as an inequitable application of the 200-mile fishing zone by the United States. We have had a series of negotiations and discussions with them on the way in which this fishing zone is implemented. We will continue to do that not only under the aegis of government to government relations but also through the fisheries agency which we have established in the South Pacific and which was also referred to at the luncheon today, because we believe that there have to be co-operative attitudes taken by the nations in the South Pacific as they declare and act upon their 200-mile fishing zones. As far as Australia is concerned, we have no problems other than those referred to on previous occasions by the Minister for Transport- in his capacity as Minister for Transport- so far as surveillance of the fishing zone is concerned, and added to by the Minister for Defence. The short answer is that I am well aware of the attitude of the United States. It concerns not only Australia but also others, but we are well prepared to survey our own fishery zone when it comes into effect on 1 November.

page 2304

QUESTION

ELECTRIC MOTOR VEHICLES

Mr YATES:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, concerns the electric motor car, which is a new invention in this world. In order to conserve oil and to minimise air and noise pollution, will the Minister advise the House of the steps being taken to facilitate electric motor vehicles being offered to the Australian public? In view of the technical problems involved in battery storage, will he confer with his Cabinet colleagues and suggest that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the universities try to obtain a breakthrough for Australia?

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

– There is very keen interest in the development of electric motor vehicles in Australia. The Government is very actively encouraging this activity at the present time. There are some 62 electric motor vehicles available around the world and a number have been brought to Australia for assessment purposes. The honourable gentleman is right in seeing the development of the electric vehicle as very significant for fuel conservation. Apart from that, it promises to be a vehicle which will create little noise or air pollution and it will serve a particular community- albeit, in the early stages, a limited need. With existing technology, the potential electric vehicle market is understood to be for urban use, principally for commercial delivery, household shopping and travel to work.

Considerable research is being undertaken into the development of electric vehicles both here and abroad. The honourable gentleman would be aware of the work undertaken by the Flinders University, the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Bureau of Transport Economics. The Commonwealth Government is actively funding this research work at present. For this year and the year following, some $670,000 has been committed for research into the development of systems for the electric vehicle. This research is complementary to the very heavy funding from the free enterprise sector at present. I will confer with my colleague, the Minister for Science and the Environment, and seek from him the details of the CSIRO funding. I will provide the information directly to the honourable gentleman.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

Mr Young:

– I take a point of order. Most of Question Time has been taken up by a matter of privilege and not by questions.

Mr Howard:

– That is your fault.

Mr Young:

– It is the right of any member of Parliament. The Minister should spend more time in Europe. The Parliament would get on a lot better.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Prime Minister is entitled to ask at any time that questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

page 2304

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY ENDOWMENT FUND

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Pursuant to section 10 of the Science and Industry Endowment Act 1926 I present the audit of accounts of the Science and Industry Endowment Fund for the year ended 30 June 1979.

page 2304

ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Attorney-General’s Department 1978-79.

page 2304

WAR PENSIONS ENTITLEMENT APPEAL TRIBUNALS

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

– Pursuant to section 83 of the Repatriation Act 1920 I present the annual reports of the four war pensions entitlement appeal tribunals 1 978-79.

page 2304

AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · Wentworth · LP

– Pursuant to section 43 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 I present the annual report of the Australian Heritage Commission 1978-79.

page 2304

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO EDUCATION AND TRAINING

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

– For the information of honourable members I present an index to the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training.

page 2305

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 2305

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Navigation Amendment Bill 1979.

Lighthouses Amendment Bill 1979.

Pollution of the Sea by Oil (Snipping Levy Collection) Amendment Bill 1979.

Sea-Carriage of Goods Amendment Bill 1979.

Seamen ‘s Compensation Amendment Bill 1979.

page 2305

EMPLOYMENT: TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The failure of the Government to understand and deal with technological changes taking place in employment.

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

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

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-Once again, it has been left to the Opposition to initiate a debate on a subject which is worrying almost every adult in this country. Subsequently, it will worry the children of those people as they wonder what lies ahead in the 1980s. At the end of 1979 the people in this country are heading into a decade of greater uncertainty than any other generation of Australians since the 1940s. As I said, it has been left to the Opposition to say something about the effects and ramifications of technological change in this country and what bearing it will have on employment opportunities in the years ahead.

The Fraser Government is engaged in a conspiracy of confusion to obscure the unemployment shock wave resulting from uncontrolled technological change over the next decade. There is a wealth of evidence from overseas studies indicating that over the next few years the impact of microprocessing will be devastating. In West Germany the microprocessors are called the job killers. Yet to listen to the tripe peddled by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner), the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) and the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) one would believe that technological change will herald an era of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity. Given present Government policies, nothing could be further from the truth. Only last week the Government authorised expenditure in excess of $300m on the introduction of a domestic satellite. The report on that project- a report of over 200 pages- canvassed the employment implications in just three pages. That fact in itself is a damning indictment of the present Government’s attitudes. At best it could be said that within the Government there is an obstinate resistance to facing reality. The Minister for Industry and Commerce was typically fatuous when he told a convention in Sydney in 1978:

  1. . technological advance will be one of the keys in the future, to creation of new industries and improved conditions of work.

Interestingly enough, he failed to spell out the implications for those presently unemployed and for those whose livelihood will be shattered by the spectre of job redundancy. The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs was less coy in his indifference when he gave this answer to a parliamentary question in March of this year:

The Department of Employment and Youth Affairs does not collect on a regular basis statistics which indicate the number of people who have been retrenched from industry or who have lost their jobs as a result of the introduction of automated techniques.

This sort of complacency at government level is backed up by outright bureaucratic indifference and bloody-mindedness at departmental level. The Treasury, in its submission to the Myers inquiry, claimed:

  1. . there is no evidence that technological change has or will contribute to greater unemployment overall.

In a recent working paper entitled ‘The Snapshop Model’, written as a research paper for the Impact project sponsored by several Government departments, there is not one sentence which discusses unemployment rates and the impact of technological unemployment; yet the whole purpose of the Impact project is to forecast future economic and employment trends. Of course the Government will claim the appointment of the Myers inquiry as belated evidence of concern; yet that inquiry is controlled and virtually run by the Department of Productivity, whose bullish approach to technological change is well known. Its hearings have been stage managed; the format, to say the least, is intimidating; and its timetable is completely unrealistic. On present indications, the report is likely to be a whitewash.

The Government constantly argues that the new technology will create jobs, which is a partial truth, but it never acknowledges that there will be a net loss. One of the most recent objective surveys on this question was published in December 1978. It is entitled ‘Report on Computers in Australia- Usage and Effects’ and it was conducted by Dr B. S. Thornton and Mr P. M. Stanley. Their conclusion, working from capital investment in computers, was that some 200,000 jobs had been displaced in offices alone. On the positive side, some 53,000 people gained employment in data processing and operating. The Government remains passive, as the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has indicated. We simply do not know how many storemen and packers have been replaced in warehouses or how many linotype operators have seen their skills become irrelevant. In an excellent booklet just published by the Printing and Kindred Industries Union a number of items are put forward as to what is occurring in industry. The unions are doing their best to salvage something out of the changes that are taking place as far as technology is concerned, but all they have been able to salvage is the right to see that none of their present members is dismissed from employment. The unions are not able to guarantee that the jobs available in industry today will be there in the future for the children who come out of the educational institutions. If we look at some of the instances given in the booklet printed by the Printing and Kindred Industries Union we will see that the Government ought to be initiating a great deal more debate and discussion on this subject in the Parliament. Telecom Australia will reduce the number of maintenance workers it has by 20 per cent over the next six years but there will be an increase of 60 per cent in the number of lines available to consumers in Australia. The booklet states:

In the Banking Industry the personalised work of bank tellers, of ledger keepers and typists will be eliminated as a result of the installation of 24 hours a day, seven days a week automatic cash dispensers.

An electronic funds transfer system will allow for electronic payment at point of purchase when the automatic transfer of funds is achieved by direct link from the computer of the store to the centralised computer of the bank.

This will result in a reduction of cashiers, record clerks and other support staff in the offices of manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers.

The transfer of computer tapes to banks from Electricity Authorities, Telecom Australia, Insurance Offices and other large undertakings will enable customers’ accounts to be charged automatically and as a result fewer or no invoices will be needed, less paper will be used, less printing will be required, fewer envelopes will be needed, less stamps will be needed for postage and less mail deliveries will be required.

From this type of analysis we can see that computerisation in one industry or even in one undertaking can cause a domino effect in others.

Following an address made in Australia last year, Mr Clive Jenkins presented a view quite contrary to the view being expressed by some Ministers in this country. Mr Jenkins is the General Secretary of the 440,000-member Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs of the United Kingdom. He was in Australia to speak at a conference on democracy at work. He said that the work force in every mature industrialised country including Australia would be decimated in the next 10 years by a fire storm of technology. He quoted from a recent study done at Cambridge University which showed that unemployment in Britain would soar from the present level- that is at the time he was speaking- of about 1.3 million to five million by 1990. The European Economic Community has predicted that the six million people currently unemployed in that area will swell to 18 million by 1990 and that of these 5 per cent, or almost one million, will be young people who have never worked in their lives. As I said, even when people are kept on in a firm on the guarantee of their jobs when technology changes, there are still social costs to be paid, as reported by Professor Bill Ford. He said:

The operator who once uniquely knew when to tap the zinc furnace but who is now a stacker attendant, the 33-year- old shoe maker who since qualifying as a tradesman has spent all his working life operating a machine on a 1 5-second cycle . . .

Technological change has the potential to deskill large sections of the work force. I refer to an excellent paper given by Justice Mary Gaudron at the Australian College of Education in Perth. She called her paper. ‘The Changing World of Work’. About the impact on the work force in these places of technological change, she stated:

Only in rare instances thus far in Australia has management seen fit to inform trade union officials and employees in advance of the purchase and installation of new technology. Even rarer have been the instances in which employees have been afforded the opportunity to involve themselves in decisions relating to the technology to be introduced and for the adaption of work practices and numbers employed to that technology. Even when employees have gained information in advance of the introduction of new technology, their requests for involvement in the decision-making processes have been met with the response either of managerial prerogative or of higher engineering and /or technological knowledge.

The 150,000 clerical jobs already eliminated have had an adverse effect on youth unemployment. In the past, banks, insurance companies and so on were all major employers of school leavers. Today, teenagers leaving school face not only an economic recession but also employers who will not recruit them for jobs which have been eliminated. Between June 1975 and June 1978 the number of staff under 17 years of age employed by banks in this country declined by 47 per cent. But that was in the past. The speed of the development of the new technology immediately threatens more jobs. The Fraser Government has seriously exacerbated the problem through the indiscriminate granting of the investment allowance and other inequitous handouts of capital. In effect, it has willingly financed the abolition of jobs. The advent of the microprocessor has the potential to destroy traditional employment patterns completely. Even the smallest of firms can now exploit the new technology. In the bigger companies more jobs lower down the line can be performed by computers. One of the major effects will be in the typing pool. In February 1979 the number of employed clerical female workers totalled 732,000. Thornton and Stanley believe that the introduction of micro-processors could cut the number of staff by as much as 30 per cent to 50 per cent. Taking the lower figure, we come up with at least 220,000 positions abolished.

But the implications go beyond the typing pool. Fewer personal staff, fewer supervisory staff and fewer wages staff will be needed. The Nora report on the impact of technology on jobs, which was commissioned by the French President, estimated that 30 per cent of jobs in banking, insurance and the public sector would be lost because of technological change. A special report prepared by the Siemens Corporation of West Germany estimated that 40 per cent of clerical and related workers would be redundant by the mid-1980s. So recent developments in computer technology will have a stunning impact in reducing the number of jobs available in this country. I refer not only to white collar jobs. The jobs of many semi-skilled production workers are at risk. The changing micro-processor technology threatens two of our most vulnerable groupsschool leavers and the semi-skilled. But the present Government rejects the responsibility and continues to delude itself that computerisation creates jobs while flinging investment allowance money to big companies.

A Labor Government would have a responsibility to all of the people of the country. There are positive steps to be taken, such as the monitoring and supervising of the introduction of new technology and the promotion of education and retraining. But these measures on their own will not plug the gap. In Australia the Government must recognise the need for job creation on a scale previously not contemplated. Job creation is good enough for comparable Western countries. It is good enough for the United States, Canada and Western Europe, but not for Malcolm Fraser and Ian Viner. For youth we require a specific job creation scheme designed to assist in the transition from school to work. We do not require the present Government’s nonpolicy of locking up kids in the classroom and simply postponing their transition from school to unemployment. If the Minister is seeking some international comparisons for declared intentions to abolish unemployment benefits for the young and substitute them with a substantially smaller training allowance he should perhaps read the resolution of 22 May 1975 which was adopted by the Council of Europe, calling on all member-countries to make an all-out attack on the problem of youth unemployment. It reads:

Governments should consider what measures in the short term can be taken to help unemployed young persons, including those seeking their first job, in order to prevent them from being a charge on their families. Such measures ought not to consist solely of the payment of regular allowances. They could . . . take the form of setting up temporary work projects adapted to the needs of young people and specially organised by public authorities.

Since that motion was passed, technological change has abolished millions of jobs for young workers throughout Europe. European governments have responded in a variety of ways, but in every country publicly funded employment schemes have assumed greater priority and importance. That is exactly what a future Labor government would do to meet the crises that we are going to live with throughout the 1980s. This Government is taking us into the 1980s without any firm idea of the effects of technological change on employment.

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

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · Balaclava · LP

– It was very disappointing to hear the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) say that it has been left to the Opposition to raise this matter. The truth is that the Government has raised the matter many times through me and through other spokesmen. We are, of course, positive in our approach to the problems and in our capacity to resolve the problems, and being positive is not always newsworthy. The honourable member spoke of a conspiracy of confusion, as he called it. One is bound to say that if he his exploiting any aspect of fear, it is the fear of change. Far from our having a conspiracy of confusion, we are endeavouring to point out the nature of the problem and show a positive capacity to deal with it. The honourable member has virtually slandered the members of the Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia. Each of them is distinguished in his own right. Each is independent and each represents organisations which have a great deal at stake in terms of their independence. We have placed the inquiry deliberately at arms length from me, from my Department and from the Government. There is no question of our having any undue influence of the way in which the inquiry is being conducted. We do not know what conclusions they will reach. We are certainly not in the business of asking for a whitewash. We are in the business of understanding the nature of change and the problems thrown up by it.

The honourable member did not ask what the alternative is. What is the alternative to facing up to the problems of technological change? What is the alternative to increasing our productivity and improving our technology? Not to improve technology can only be to worsen our competitiveness and worsen our capacity to employ people. If that is the heart of the honourable member’s motion, it ought to be of concern to him that we make our industry as competitive as possible. As well as rejuvenating our existing industries by improved technology, we ought then to be looking to the creation of new industries by improved technology and industries which will provide secure and highly skilled employment because of the fact that they are built around Australian innovation for high technology. I agree with him that technology has the potential to deskill and dehumanise jobs but technology also has the potential to meet the aspirations of people. Much technology which has replaced jobs has replaced jobs which people, demonstrably, do not want any more. We certainly are trying, as a government, to encourage Australian innovation in the creation of new jobs of a kind which people do want, which are more secure in terms of world markets and which do represent potential and substantial employment opportunities.

The Government will provide ample time in this Parliament to debate this question on an informed basis. One reason why we set up the committee of inquiry was to make sure we had some informed debate instead of pandering to the emotions of short-term thinking people. That is the contrast, I submit, with the deliberate emphasis upon fear, the fear of people losing the jobs which they now know. Nowhere in history have people always had the security of knowing that they could do, for all their working life, the one job with the one set of skills without some requirement to have retraining. It is very easy to alarm, it is not so easy to reassure. We have never sought to make glib utterances. We have never sought to conceal the difficulty of the problem. We have never sought to introduce the investment allowance as a means of destroying jobs. We sought to introduce the investment allowance as a means of retaining as many jobs as possible so that our industries could update their technology and be as competitive as possible.

Reference has been made to word processors, microprocessors and other machinery. This reference, it seems to me- I am disappointed to say it- in the words of the honourable member, is designed to create alarm rather than to say that this is the direction in which we have to go for more meaningful jobs. Every successive generation of stenographer wants a considerable degree of extra responsibility. Some of that responsibility can come by a delegation of authority from management by means of the introduction of new technology. The time which stenographers have available under word processing machinery to do managerial skills which each successive generation of management might find rather boring and tedious is something which should be encouraged, not discouraged. So it is much harder to construct, it is harder to prepare people for change, but we as a government are trying to do that. In trying to do that we are pointing out repeatedly that technology is not a new phenomenon. Society has been introducing new technology and adapting to it for a very long time. Yet the employment situation of the past year or two has revived concern for the effects, especially in respect of employment.

I again remind the House of the alternative, the worsening employment situation, if we do not in fact increase our technology when our competitors are doing their utmost to increase theirs. There has been in recent times a good deal of public debate in Australia on the subject of technological change. This debate has seen a wide variety of views being expressed. Not wishing to oversimplify the very great diversity of views which have been put forward, it is possible broadly to distinguish between the two views. These are the views broadly represented by the Opposition and the Government- that technological change is something to be promoted because of new opportunities it creates for Australian industry and the view that technology threatens to bring about widespread dislocation in the community because of the reduced number of jobs available. The Opposition has again expressed the negative view and the Government has constantly expressed the positive view. In doing so we are not glibly ignoring the problems associated with change, but we are optimistic about our capacity to grapple with change.

On the question of employment consequences, whilst it is true that new technology can lead to a loss of jobs at a particular work place it is important to remember that it can also create new employment opportunities in a variety of ways. For example, a reduction in unit costs can result in increased demand for goods and services; therefore for increased output and therefore employment creation. Secondly, through improved competitiveness, industries can increase their share of domestic and international markets. Thirdly, new technology can create new industries in manufacturing and commerce thus creating new employment opportunities both directly and indirectly. There is a chain reaction, often indirectly, which leads to a creation in jobs when the casual observer might see them disappear in one area and not recognise the creation of jobs somewhere else along the line.

No one pretends that there are not problems inherent in the introduction of new technology. There clearly are. The Government, together with management, recognises this no less than the unions, or the employee, or the operator in a commercial office or in a bank or retail establishment, or the Opposition. But again I repeat, what is the alternative? What are the consequences of not updating our technology? They are clearly worse than the short term repercussions of tackling the challenge and updating our technology. The solution of these problems does not he in delaying technological progress. Feelings of fear, insecurity and pessimism must not be allowed to cloud people’s judgment or make them lose sight of the positive and inevitable advantages of technological change. Confronted with a high cost structure and a small domestic market, Australian industry already faces enormous competitive pressures in both domestic and export markets. The cost problems in Australia are enormous and the Opposition has always failed to understand their deep-seated nature.

Failure to introduce new technology will therefore lead only to a further erosion of competitiveness and a further loss of jobs. Put simply, more jobs are put at risk by failing to introduce new and innovative technology than by grasping the nettle and ensuring that we keep abreast of technological innovation. It is important to remember that postponement of technological change in Australia would undoubtedly lead to a loss of overseas markets to more technically advanced trading partners, a growing inability to compete on the domestic market, a reduction in real terms of wage rates, worsening unemployment, and a general lowering of our living standards. We therefore need to face the challenges of technological change squarely. As a government, we are prepared to do so and we are endeavouring to encourage other people to do so, too. We need to face new technology enthusiastically and imaginatively, realising that it is a long-term generator of higher incomes, more satisfying jobs and a wider range of new skills and professions as not yet fully realised. The Government is facing this challenge squarely, as I have said.

An important response by government to the challenge has been the establishment of the Department of Productivity which, as the Prime Minister said at the time, is intended to be a technologically oriented agency with the aim of encouraging innovation and exploitation of inventions. A wide variety of programs, of which I have informed the House from time to time, is aimed at stimulating the introduction of new technology in Australian industries and looking at the consequences of the introduction of that technology. We are taking a fresh look at our own industrial research and development capability and effort. We have in the past two years dramatically increased the funds available for industrial research and development. A major allocation of funds in the last two years has led to a much more positive attitude by management towards research and development. An independent survey in June of this year showed that nearly nine out of 10 respondent companies agreed that significant increases in private investment in research and development would become essential over the next five years. This is in sharp contrast to management attitudes prevailing in the previous years as indicated by the results of the Australian Bureau of Statistics survey in February showing a decline of 46 per cent in real private sector research and development between 1973-74 and 1976-77.

Along with taking a fresh look at our own research and development, we are examining whether traditional mechanisms for the transfer of technology are adequate. We are also examining what barriers exist to the flow of inventions and innovations to Australian industry and commerce. We are doing so because increasingly we need to ensure that the transfer of technology is facilitated from centres, both within and outside Australia, where it is known and understood to enterprises where that technology can be used effectively in the production of goods and services. A number of measures have been introduced recently to facilitate the effective transfer and diffusion of the latest international technological developments. The Opposition asks the Government what it is doing; we are doing a great deal. It might be said that this work should have been commenced in the early 1970s. But we are doing it and we are doing our best to catch up the time-lag.

The Technology Transfer Council has been established as a joint government-industry body with the objective of developing mechanisms to enable small and medium-sized companies to gain access to the expertise which they require for the application of the latest technological developments in their operations and, therefore, for their capacity to retain and extend employment. A three-year program involving the establishment of a network of technical referral centres has been initiated under the auspices of the Technology Transfer Council. We are concentrating on the metals manufacturing industry to start with. The Information Technology Council has been established in recognition of the importance of information technologies as a potential source of productivity improvement. Programs directed towards the effective utilisation by industry of that Council are currently under development. I stress again that by the use of these new technologies we can increase our capacity to compete on world markets and thus employ more people. We will certainly employ many more people than if these new technologies were not introduced.

A manufacturing process technology program has also been established to stimulate cooperative projects aimed at the introduction of the latest technologies for manufacturing processing. It is easy for the Opposition to say that jobs are in jeopardy. What is overlooks is that by these mechanisms jobs of the future are being created. We have also spent a lot of time on the question of employee participationlooking at the aspirations of people and the design and adaptation of technology to meet those aspirations. My colleague, the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) and I have told honourable members ad nauseam of the time we have spent on developing training programs. They are not perfect but they are being continually evaluated and upgraded. We are expending funds on training and retraining programs because of their importance in the adaptation to technological change. We are tackling most aggressively the problem to which this motion is directed. I am surprised and disappointed that again the Opposition, instead of joining enthusiastically with us, is not recognising the long term nature of what we are doing, namely, improving our capacity to create jobs which are satisfying and secure. Instead, the Opposition is emphasising the short-term fears which people have. We have never disguised the difficulties from a human point of view. We are trying to minimise those fears on a collective basis and maximise the benefits of technological change for the whole community.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-In 1950 the father of cybernetics Norbert Wiener, Professor of Mathematics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in his book The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Human Beings wrote these prophetic words on page 1 89:

Let us remember that the automatic machine … is the precise economic equivalent of slave labor. Any labor which competes with slave labor must accept the economic consequence of slave labor.

A convenient illustration of this particular chicken coming home to roost is the example of the Olivetti TES 401 word processor. The discrepancy between the cost of leasing the machine and the cost of the five employees who might be estimated conservatively to be displaced by its introduction would be of the order of 1:27. That is, it would cost $33 a week to lease the machine compared with five salaries at, say, $180 a week for each employee. To reduce wages to a level of strict comparability with the cost of the machine would involve a 2,700 per cent fall in wages to $6.50 a week for each person. That is slave labour. We are faced with the difference between the low cost of and modest needs for slave labour- the machines- and the high cost of and needs for free labour.

The labour displacing machines can work 24 hours a day. They do not require lighting, heating and ventilation in their work places. They do not need annual holidays, public holidays or weekends. They do not receive overtime or penalty rates. They do as they are told and never argue back. They do not go on strike and they do not join unions. They are not eligible for long service leave, sick leave or workers compensation. They have no meal breaks. They do not seek wage rises and they make no demands for industrial democracy. In the present distribution of wealth and power in Australia, the new technology is often used as an instrument for the strong against the weak and the rich against the poor. This leads to a strengthening of the skilled and accomplished against the unskilled or deskilled. This is all happening with only the barest expression of interest by this Parliament and with only the foggiest understanding both inside and outside the Parliament of what is going on.

Despite a large number of early warning signs, Australia and its institutions come woefully illprepared to the broad debate on technological change and its social impact. Governments, parties, unions, employers and other interest groups must share the blame which largely arises because we tend to be pre-occupied here with immediate, short term concerns and postpone examination of the more serious long term problems. The media in general- and the Press in particular- have shown the most monumental lack of interest in, or even curiosity about, the impact of high technology on employment. Given what happened to the London Times, this might be an appropriate maxim: Never speak of rope in the house of a man who has been hanged. The media and the Press exhibit a high degree of ‘gee whiz’ interest in the hardware and software which is not unrelated to the advertising that it generates. Characteristically, the media is interested in the ‘how’ and ‘what’ questions but it is not at all interested in the ‘why’ questions nor, to adopt a maxim of Lenin, is it interested in the ‘Who whom?’ question which, Lenin said, was the basic political issue- ‘who does what to whom?’ I will not use the exact equivalent of the Russian verb. The so-called serious Press has shown an astounding degree of gullibility in accepting the views of the ‘technological determinists’- the credulous public servants, incurious journalists and vigorous salesmenwithout question.

My submission to the Myers Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia appears to have been the only one made by any member of parliament in Australia. The United States in the last decade has had remarkable success in creating new jobs. The largest group of these jobs has been in the ‘Information Sector* of the economy, broadly defined. That sector includes the collection, processing and dissemination of data, for example by teachers, public servants, media workers, office workers, social workers and many health workers. The United States Department of Commerce says that by 1980, 50 per cent of all United States employees will be working in the ‘Information Sector’- as many as all other paid workers combined. However, it seems very unlikely that Australia will follow this precedent. I am inclined to think that the Minister for Productivity has emigrated already.

There is a sense that in the global economy the United States is head office. When the United States does basic research and development- for example, in aerospace or telecommunications- it does it for the entire world. The United States is also much further into the information revolution than Australia. In the United States, more than 50 per cent of young people aged between 20 and 24 years are undergoing full time education- itself enormously labour absorptive -while in Australia only 21.4 per cent of young people between the ages of 17 and 22 are in full time or part time education. Certainly we lack the educational basis of the United States to create new jobs in the ‘ Information Sector ‘. It seems certain that job creation in the US, in creating the new technology, is a major factor in worldwide job displacement. There is a huge net loss globally, but an immense profit for the United States. There is also the paradox that the area which might appear to have the greatest opportunity for job creation in Australia, following on recent United States experience, is also the most susceptible to the impact of technological job displacement, in which there is far greater output at dramatically lower cost in what has become an increasingly Parkinsonian area of employment.

It is essential that we begin to grasp the significance of the micro-electronic revolution which has led to a dramatic break with past economic history. Firstly it permits maximising of two advantages at once- greater output at dramatically lower cost. In other words, industry can have its cake and eat it too. Secondly, it destroys the classic, neo-classic and Keynesian precept that output and employment are necessarily in direct relationship and that if output goes up, employment must go up too. The Minister said it himself. I copied down his exact words. When he referred to ‘increased output and therefore employment creation’. He makes it sound as though it is absolutely axiomatic. It is not axiomatic.

Mr Yates:

– Not necessarily.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-That is quite right, as the honourable member recognises. As I have argued repeatedly, it is true of many services performed personally that as output goes up, employment goes up as well. But there are many major exceptions. I have described the major exceptions in what I have immodestly described as ‘Jones ‘ law ‘ which says:

In the supply of products or general economic services, on a massive scale, employment does not necessarily have a direct relationship to demand.

The relationship may be in inverse proportion and, as demand goes up, relative demand for employment may go down.

There are many examples, such as Telecom, the chemical industry, the fuel industry and much of retailing. A central fallacy ran through the Minister’s speech, which, to give him credit, he did not read with much conviction. The fallacy goes like this:

Australia must adopt the new technology in order to increase output relative to labour costs in order to enable low cost, high volume production runs which are then internationally competitive. This activity will then create newbut unidentified-jobs which will then raise labour costs which is a reversal of the reasons for adopting the new technology in the first place.

That is a very careful paraphase of what the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) said. The new techniques are specifically designed to eliminate jobs and reduce labour costs. If, after all, these techniques lead to higher numbers of jobs and increased labour costs, why adopt the new techniques in the first place? There is an absolute uncertainty about where the Government is going. What is clear is that the lost jobs are absolutely identifiable and quantifiable. The new jobs which we are told will be created are quite unidentifiable and unquantifiable. We accept that new jobs will be created. All the indications are that these jobs will require a higher level of skill, and that they will be fewer in number than the jobs that they replace. There must be a clear indication as to what happens to the people without marketable skills. What happens to the people who are displaced? Technological change has to be an even-handed business. When the Government talks about promoting the idea of new technology, it ought also to give us some indication as to how it will deal with the possible social consequences. For the last eight years I have devoted myself to this subject and I believe that I have made some contributions. We have yet to hear from the Government.

I conclude by illustrating my point about miniaturisation. I have in my hand a circuit panel from a 1970 computer, 13.5 centimetres by 15 centimetres. In the new microchip technology, 100 of these panels can be accommodated in a space less than the size of my little finger.

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

Mr CARLTON:
Mackellar

– It would be difficult for anybody coming from Mars to understand that the present industrial machine is somehow able at the moment to employ somewhere between 93 per cent and 94 per cent of the Australian work force. I make that simple point in order to restore some sense of perspective into this debate. I would also like to make the point that -

Mr Young:

– It is not a bad point! When did the last ship come from Mars?

Mr CARLTON:

– The honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), who is interjecting at the moment, has not made the kind of case that he might have made had he followed the arguments put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) in a recent speech to the Printing and Kindred Industries Union. Nor is it the case he would have made if he had read the decisions of the Australian Labor Party Conference in Adelaide in July of this year. In the Leader of the Opposition’s speech, and in this document, there is an attempt to speak about the problems of technological change in industry. I quote from the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition in Sydney on Thursday 18 October where he said:

Let me make one thing clear. It is indisputable that technological change is inevitable in the operation of our industrial system.

In the next sentence he makes a more unacceptable claim. He says:

The task of government is to remain in control of that change . . .

Later on in his speech he says:

A Luddite approach seeking to block changes is too despairing to tolerate and too damaging to the future welfare of the country.

I would hope that the honourable member for Port Adelaide would take that as a rebuke. The Leader of the Opposition went on to say:

Similarly, a foolish panglossian belief in the undiluted virtues of unregulated change will have disastrous social consequences as well as damaging economic effects.

I would say to honourable members on both sides of the House, in common with the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) who has just spoken, very reasonably, in this debate, who have a very genuine concern about what will happen in this whole area, that we have to reject utterly the divisive and fear creating speeches made by the honourable member for Port Adelaide. I exclude the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) from this charge because he has made a constructive contribution to this debate since he has come to this Parliament. He did so previously in the Victorian Parliament. It simply will not do to have a tirade week after week of the kind that is put forward by the honourable member for Port Adelaide and which creates fear in the community.

A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to act as an observer at an Association of South East Asian Nations conference in Bangkok. It was something of a learning experience to see the vibrations and enthusiasm in regard to development in those countries in an attempt to try to do something for their people. It is almost impossible to believe that a country like Australia, sitting on the edge of this extraordinary explosion of effort, of demand and of requirement by the people for simple things, cannot participate in that expansion and development. There is a complementary aspect of our prospective skills. If we follow the programs that are suggested by the Minister for Productivity there are hundreds of thousands of things that we can do here in much greater numbers. We can contribute to the development of those and other countries and at the same time find satisfying and useful employment for our young people. Both internally and externally we are faced with the humanitarian task of participating in that development.

Most of the debate that has come forward on this subject relates to an internal obsession of the developed countries. How can we possibly keep talking about stopping growth or technological change in a world where two-thirds of the people still have not got basic material necessities? How can we possibly continue to be so negative about this? Last week in Australia Mr John Garnett, the Director of the Industrial Society in the United Kingdom, spoke to a group of Government members. During that speech he talked about the responsibilities of management and supervisors in industry in getting across to workerstrie people in the industries- a sense of participation in what was going on. In the course of questions somebody asked him about technological change. He said that a hundred years ago in England over three-quarters of the population was taken up in rural pursuits or in domestic service. If we look at the statistics today -

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– That is not true either. That is not true of a century ago.

Mr CARLTON:

– We can take it back a bit further. He may have said that it was more than a hundred years ago. If we look at the statistics today we will find that about 4 per cent of the population is indulging in rural activities and virtually none in domestic service. Mr Garnett said: What if our forefathers had said at that time that we must introduce government-regulated control of industrial or technological change in order to preserve those particular occupations’? We certainly would have consigned those people to hundreds of years of servitude. There would not have been any release of their energies, opportunities and skills. Today, there is no argument which would suggest that we should do otherwise than to examine carefully- and with all due regard to humanitarian aspects both internally and externally- the benefits and difficulties of technology.

Let me give one simple example. People keep talking about the microprocessor industry and microchips, and the difficulties in terms of employment. In February I visited the British Oxygen Company in England which had developed a welding robot. It was not a spot welding robot of the kind that makes motor cars. It was a more complicated welding robot which was able to do seam welding at a level of expertise as good as that of the very best welder. Naturally, we asked the question: How many people will this welding robot put out of employment? The people in England said: ‘From the applications we have looked at so far we find that there is an extreme shortage of people who are skilled and who are prepared to do the hot, dirty and difficult work of welding of this kind ‘. In the applications where this machine has been used it has been able to turn out the equivalent of the work of six skilled welders. The net result of that has not been to throw any welders out of work, because such welders are not available; it has been to create additional employment for less skilled people who have to feed the welding process, both in the supply of materials and in the sale and distribution of the finished product.

All I can say to industry- both industrial management and the trade union movement- in Australia is that Australia is extraordinarily well placed. We are not well placed to go into the mass production of microchips, which is something that has to be done on a scale of which we are not capable. But we have sufficiently good engineers and managers to develop applications of microprocessors in Australia which will not only create employment in manufacturing industries but also in the process remove a number of extremely unpleasant jobs in existing manufacturing industry. It will create wealth which can be redistributed amongst various people in various ways. It can also provide, as micro processing applications are developed further, work for unskilled people who can carry out extremely skilled operations with the aid of these devices. After all, the end product of a microprocessor is to make simple something that is complicated. Therefore, there is a capacity for such machines to provide work for unskilled people.

The Government’s view on this matter is one of very cautious optimism. The Government does not believe that we should overturn the experience that we have gained since the beginning of the industrial revolution as new ideas have come forward. We believe that these new ideas exist to make life better for people, to relieve them of tedious and dreadful work and also to create the wealth which can be suitably redistributed to the benefit of the whole society.

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

page 2314

SOCIAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL 1979

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 18 October.

Clauses 1 to 16-by leave- taken together.

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

– by leave- On behalf of the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland) I move:

I am worried about the people who may be discharged just for a day to go home for Christmas or whatever, as sometimes happens with elderly people in those institutions. I hope that some method will be found to get around that problem so that his going home for Christmas- being discharged in theory for one day- does not cost a person $1 1 a week for the rest of his life. I do not expect the Minister to make a specific statement in reply now. However, I hope that when the Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill (No. 2) is considered later today we will be able to get some agreement on that point.

Amendments agreed to.

Clauses, as amended, agreed to.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-I apply myself to clause 35, which relates to unemployment benefit. I do not know that I have seen a more criminal clause in any Bill that has been presented to this Parliament. It is the height of madness of the Fraser Administration. I have never seen a clause that is so inhumane as the clause that is inherent in the Social Services Amendment Bill. I hope that people who are listening to Parliament follow what I am about to say because it will give them some idea of the type of people who are running this country at the moment. They are a group of multimillionaires who spend $30m or $40m buying themselves VIP aircraft. And this is what they do to people who find themselves in more unfortunate circumstances.

The position once this Bill becomes law will be that in the case of an industrial dispute some people who had previously been entitled to unemployment benefit will be denied that benefit. I am not referring to the people who are actually- at first hand- involved in the industrial dispute. I am talking about people who have absolutely no say at all in the industrial dispute that is taking place. They do not have a vote on it. In many cases they are not even aware that the action is being taken until they are stood down. I will give a very simple example of what will apply in this country. It will give the people of Australia some idea of how draconian a measure this is.

Let us look, for instance, at the situation of the rubber workers, the miscellaneous workers and the fitters who are part of a group of metal workers, if they were to go on strike in Adelaide at Uniroyal Pty Ltd and if its product- in this case tyres- was not available for the final assembly of cars in Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane. If members of the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union went on strike over a dispute in Adelaide and if General Motors-Holden’s Ltd or Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane went to all their employees and said: ‘Because our supply of tyres has been cut off from Adelaide we can no longer continue in production, so we are standing you all down’, all the manufacturing industries related to the motor vehicle industry in Australia would close down. All the people involved in those industries would go off to register for the receipt of the unemployment benefit. But a person who is a member of the union- that is the metal workers unionwhich decided to go on strike at the Uniroyal works in Adelaide, when he goes to the counter to register to receive the unemployment benefit, will find that under this legislation the Government has devised a mechanism whereby that person will be denied the benefit. However, members of other unions who are stood down and who are not involved in the dispute at the Uniroyal plant in Adelaide will receive the unemployment benefit. Under this legislation a fitter, boilermaker, sheetmetal worker and an instrument maker in Brisbane can be stood down because the car plant cannot receive tyres from Adelaide but only those people who belong to the metal workers union will be denied the unemployment benefit. Those people who belong to another union such as the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia or the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union- the people who work in the canteens at these works- will be entitled to receive the unemployment benefit.

How can any government in a democracy devise such a villainous scheme? How can it be that the people who run this country can sit around the Cabinet table and devise this way of denying a person the unemployment benefit when, through no fault of his own, he finds that he has been stood down? Such a person has to go home to his family and say: ‘Look, we have been stood down because of an industrial dispute 2,000 miles away but I am told that because I am a member of the same union that went on strike in Adelaide, I cannot receive any unemployment benefit from the Government’. What is the family expected to live on? It will have to get a handout- a food parcel- from the welfare agency in the State in which its members live. What kind of men and women make up this Goverment when all they can do is to sit around the Cabinet table and devise such a scheme? It says a great deal about this Government. Many of them were bom with a silver spoon in their mouths. The man who leads this Government is a multi-millionaire. He has never wanted for a meal or anything else in his life. Last year he denied the pensioners $30m in benefits so that he could buy his VIP aircraft. He is now saying to the work force of this country: ‘I have thought up another scheme for you. ‘ It rivals in its intention the scheme in last year’s Budget to tax paperboys. That illustrates the type of government that we have in this country.

Unless the members of the Opposition get up and expose what this Government is about to try to do the people of Australia will not understand. How is it that a person living in another State, in another country town, working in another establishment, can be denied the unemployment benefit, which would otherwise be his due, because a member of his union went on strike? Almost every industry in Australia would involve members of the metal workers union because of the specific work that they do. The union has 160,000 members spread throughout Australia. If the members of a union go on strike in an industry which supplies components to major manufacturers and as a result all those industries are closed down, only the members of the metal workers union will be unable to get the unemployment benefit. If a person is a member of another union he can get the unemployment benefit.

The comical feature of clause 35 is how the Department of Social Security is to tell to which union a person belongs. Will those people who seek to register have to show their union card to the Department before a decision is made? This clause is absolutely criminal. Whilst it would not have a great impact on the finances of the work force of this country- not many people would apply for the unemployment benefit when they were stood down because they would not be stood down long enough- it does give a good idea of the mentality of this Government and how far down the gutter it has gone in order to come up with schemes to save a few more bob. It has done this not only in clause 35 of the Social Services Amendment Bill but also in many other ways, including the work test on unemployed people, the income tax it envisaged imposing on paperboys last year and in the taking away of twice-yearly indexation of pensions. It can be seen that at every corner this Government is devising schemes to make life tougher for the average Australian. That is what it is all about. As I said, we of the Opposition are totally opposed to clause 35 as is every thinking Australian. It stinks. It introduces a criminal feature into legislation which has been developed to assist people. The clause ought to be thrown out holus-bolus by every person who considers himself to be a parliamentarian in any sense of a democracy.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-Because of the procedure that has been taken, it is necessary to deal with more than one clause at a time. I think it is important to point out exactly the sorts of consequential arrangements which the Government is making in respect of clause 35 (4), which the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) raised. I do not think anyone would dispute the Evatt derived definitions which were brought in in the 1940s. They provided that a person who was involved in a dispute or who stood to benefit from a dispute was not eligible to apply for the unemployment benefit. In effect, that meant that a key man, which was the description at that time, or a small group of key men in an industry could not be pulled out in order to pursue an industrial dispute while the remainder of the people in that industry were paid the unemployment benefit. For example, in the railways if signalmen or a few train controllers were to go out it would probably tie up the railways system in most States and other persons employed in the railways would be eligible to obtain the unemployment benefit. That sort of industrial action was specifically outlawed as far as the Social Security Act was concerned.

Later definitions by the honourable William Wentworth when he was the Minister for Social Services laid down that where some members of a union were in dispute, as a result of that dispute other members of that union were stood down. That was an extension of the earlier principle but it had the same effect as this amending legislation has to the Social Security Act. It meant that a person who in no way stood to benefit from a dispute, who was in no way able to influence the decisions or the actions of those in the dispute, would be punished merely because of his membership of the organisation which covered a particular calling.

It is not unreasonable to draw attention to a union such as the Miscellaneous Workers Union or the Australian Workers Union whose awards cover a massive diversity of occupations. Members within those unions do not necessarily attend- and in the case of the AWU they do not attend at all- meetings of members covered by other sections of the union. They have, in fact, an amalgamation of a number of small unions. Yet under this legislation if members of that union, for instance, were involved in the power dispute in Queensland, because of some narrow association of their membership they would be deemed ineligible for unemployment benefit. In a dispute in Victoria a few years ago, because one member of a union involved in a power dispute- the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia which the honourable member for Port Adelaide mentioned- the persons employed by the companies involved, namely the Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd and General Motors-Holden’s Ltd, and other vehicle builders union employing organisations in Melbourne which were neither in the dispute nor stood to benefit from the dispute, were all deemed to be ineligible for unemployment benefit. Under this legislation, they certainly would be ineligible for unemployment benefit. But the decision in that case was reversed. The

Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann), who is at the table, unfortunately is not the Minister in control of the Bill. Clearly, the Government is prepared to allow honourable members to debate the legislation but is not prepared to listen to the argument in any significant way by providing a Minister who has some authority in the area.

I submit to the Committee that in taking this legislation to the stage at which it is now before the chamber, the Government is merely providing for a punishment for persons for being members of a trade union, of a protective association for their rights. That is the import and the meaning of this piece of legislation- to punish a person because he is a member of a trade union, not because he is involved in an industrial dispute and not because he is in any way supporting or in control of an industrial dispute, or has any say or derives any benefit from that dispute. What the Government is doing here is saying that if a trade union covers a particular area where a dispute exists, all persons throughout Australia who are members of that trade union stand to lose, whether or not they have any say. I will not say any more about this clause, but it is indicative of the standards which this Government is setting itself within the Australian community.

The Government feels that strikes are unpopular. It feels that unions are unpopular and it feels that unemployment benefit recipients are unpopular. So it feels free to legislate in order to punish people for being members of unions or for taking industrial action. But in this case the Government is not punishing the person taking the action; it is seeking to punish any person who is a member of a trade union which is involved in an industrial dispute. I draw the Committee’s attention to the breadth of the cover of some organisations within the trade union movement. But the Government does not apply similar sanctions in the case of commercial activities. In fact it runs away from similar legislation in respect of restrictive trade, control of trade and control of commerce, where actions which penalise the community heavily are not covered in any way by any forms of legislation where redress can be found. I want to deal with one other clause and if time permits, I will come back to it at a later stage.

It is proposed in this legislation to extend to six weeks the mandatory period for which a person who voluntarily leaves employment will be barred from receiving unemployment benefit. I want to raise a matter in this respect and I hope that honourable members opposite will take it seriously because, unfortunately, it happens fairly regularly in our society. I cite the case of a girl who seeks employment and finds employment in an industry only to discover that her position is one that she morally believes to be intolerable, where pressure is placed on her either for favours or merely to satisfy some need of a fellow employee or employer. If that girl leaves her employment by way of resignation, she now will be subject to six weeks without unemployment benefit. It is like the old complaint about a person having to prove that she was raped, not a person having to prove that he did not commit rape. Unless she can go before an officer of the Department of Social Security who is quite likely to be a young male- and I say ‘quite likely’ because that is a SO per cent chance with an assessment officer- and proves that the conditions under which she was employed were intolerable to her personally- and, I would suggest, it is not unusual; that it does happen that girls are taken advantage of- she has to take the choice of whether she will put up with the indignities of maintaining her employment under those circumstances or suffer the further and doubtful indignities of trying to prove to an officer in an abstract situation that she has been treated in a way which probably would have criminal implications if it could be proved in court.

I believe that the Government is placing on that person a burden of proof which is beyond reason. It is certainly unreasonable to punish a person because she is unable to reduce her moral standards to that level which this Government apparently seeks to apply. I think it is an imposition in an Act of Parliament which should not and cannot continue to exist with impunity. I believe that the clause should be reconsidered by the Government because what it is doing is reinforcing the position of those persons who would take advantage of their employees in a manner which has nothing to do with their employment whatsoever. In doing that the Government is totally immoral.

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

– I wish to speak against clause 41 which is one of three or four clauses in this Bill which are aimed at making the securing of unemployment benefit more difficult. We have the extraordinary position that, as jobs per worker become fewer in this society, this Government makes it more difficult for those unemployed to secure unemployment benefit. Indeed, one could say that this practice runs contrary to the practice of practically every country in the civilised world where, as unemployment has grown, governments have become more generous and more supportive of the problems of the unemployed.

Clause 41 amends section 120 of the Principal Act. At the moment, section 120 provides the Director-General with two discretionary powers. One is the discretionary power to judge whether a person has left work voluntarily without good or sufficient reason; whether a person has left work due to his own misconduct or has lost his job due to his own misconduct; or whether a person, without good or sufficient reason, has failed to accept an offer of employment. In those three cases, the Director-General has discretionary power to judge a person in relation to the payment of unemployment benefit. That discretion is already an extremely difficult one to operate fairly. If one looks at the figures from State to State, it is obvious that there are clear differences in operation in quite an arbitrary way between States. In some States this discretion is being used generously while in other States it is being used in a very tight fashion indeed. It raised the very problems that my colleague the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) has just referred to; the difficulty, for instance, of a young girl who feels that she cannot go on in a particular job and voluntarily leaves that job, but who then has the extremely difficult problem of proving the reasons for her voluntary abdication from that employment. Others may leave a job for what they see as good and sufficient reasons, but the reasons are not good and sufficient in the eyes of the bureaucratic judges. Indeed, often these bureaucrats are relatively young members of the trade; often they have very little experience. So that discretionary power is already a dangerous one. It is already operating in this society in a particularly arbitrary way.

The other discretion, and a more generous one in some ways, leaves the Director-General with the power to determine for what period the unemployment benefit will be denied. In this Bill, the Government- determined to punish people such as these- has made it mandatory that if the Director-General or his agent makes a judgment in any of the cases referred to, then the person will be denied the unemployment benefit for at least six weeks- it must be six weeks; the Director-General will have no discretion- and up to 12 weeks. It is true that over the period from six to twelve weeks, the Director-General will have some discretion. Thus as the employment situation gets tighter in the society, so this Government pursues a policy of making eligibility for the unemployment benefits tighter in relation to this set of situations.

The effect of this is to impose quite drastic fines on people. One can see the denial of the unemployment benefit for this period as, in fact, a fine imposed on the person for leaving a job or for particular misconduct in a job or for not accepting a job offered by the Commonwealth Employment Service. The fines are substantial. For instance, the minimum fine for a single person is $347.40- that is, the amount of the six weeks benefit denied. The maximum fine for single person, if denied the unemployment benefit for 12 weeks, is $694.80. If the person concerned is married the fine becomes even more severe. For any judgments made in this field, fines for married people would range from $579 for a sixweek period to $1,158 for the maximum period. That kind of fine is a more substantial fine than a fine imposed in most courts of law for quite a serious offence. For instance, a whole series of dangerous and drunken driving offences will not incur fines of that order. Because people refuse to go on working for a particular employer often for what they see as very good reasons, although they cannot convince the Department of their merit, these kinds of fines are imposed upon them.

Opposition members argue very strongly against a provision which is already severe and which is now made worse by the six weeks period being made mandatory. While the original judgment remains discretionary, an adverse decision automatically imposes a six week postponement, and possibly at the discretion of the DirectorGeneral a 12 weeks penalty. Therefore this amendment imposes major fines on these groups of unemployed. We find this kind of attitude totally unacceptable in a situation in which the number of jobs per worker is declining. One might take quite different views if there were a relatively healthy employment situation in this society, but under this Government the unemployment situation has got worse year after year. Despite all the hollow promises it will get worse next year. Yet, these are the kinds of punishments and fines being strengthened and toughened, not just in this provision but in two or three provisions of this Bill. It will be tougher and harder for the unemployed, for the people who have to bear the real burden of this Government ‘s economic policies. The contemptible Treasurer (Mr Howard) gets up in this House and says that we have to have more unemployed for the next 12 months in order to solve the problems of this economy.

That is what the Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) seem to be arguing. If that is so, then the Government is bounden to do something about the unemployed who are suffering as a direct result of their avowed policy. Yet, the Government is making it more and more difficult for the unemployed to get the necessary benefits in an era of very high unemployment, a condition which the Government accepts as a necessary part of its own policy. I do not really believe that the people of Australia and the members on both sides of this House should go on accepting those kinds of attitudes. We may disagree about how the economic problem in this country will be solved but, surely, if Government members argue that it is to be solved by a long period of increasing unemployment then they have real, humanitarian responsibilities to the unemployed, responsibilities which are denied by the provisions of this Act.

Mr BOURCHIER:
Bendigo

– I feel it necessary to rise and make some comments on one or two of the remarks made by some members of the Opposition. The honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), in his usual histrionic manner, tried to suggest that the Government in some way is taking some dreadful step against all unionists by bringing in this proposal for unemployment benefits to be refused to those members of a union who are unemployed as a result of industrial action related to their particular union. Surely it has been obvious to this country for many years that the tactic of the trade unions is no longer to have the old form of strike, to call out the union. Now they create the industrial atmosphere that they require by calling out a few key workers and use the taxpayers’ money to meet union responsibilities. That is exactly what this Bill is all about.

Let us not overlook the fact that we are talking about strikes and industrial action. Unions are going out on strike. It seems to me that the Opposition has the idea that people should be free to cause industrial disruption continuously to the detriment of the progress of this country without any responsibilities attaching to that action. The Government is saying that there is a responsibility. There is a responsibility for the rank and file members of the unions. Union members have to say to the handful of people causing these pinpricking strikes; ‘Cut it out; don’t do it, it is starting to affect us as well as everybody else’. When it starts to affect them, they might well tell these fellows to stop it. Let us have a little more common sense in our approach to what is going on. We might well find that the people about whom the honourable member for Port Adelaide was talking might send telegrams to their cobbers in other areas saying: ‘Look, you have gone out on strike and we are not going to be paid. We are part of the same union and we support your strike but we do not want to be held responsible for it. ‘ Of course they must be held responsible. They must take that responsibility. The Government- and through the Government the taxpayer- cannot be expected to pay union responsibilities. Unions extract an enormous amount annually in fees from their members and put that money into coffers so they can pay Australian Labor Party campaign funds, as well as use it for other nefarious purposes.

Mr Scholes:

– That is why you want to legislate against unions. Now we are getting to the truth.

Mr BOURCHIER:

– Let us be honest about it. It is not untrue. The honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) knows they supported the Opposition’s campaign last time. In collecting this money surely the unions have a responsibility to look after their members. They should not expect the taxpayers to look after their members while they are out on strike. The poor old honourable member for Corio has to live with this. I understand that, but let us be honest. The taxpayer, the average Australian citizen, is well aware that for too long the unions have been trying to run a double game in this country. It is about time the Government took the action it has taken, and I fully support it.

The honourable member for Corio seemed to suggest in relation to clause 41 that discretion to judge whether persons should or should not receive unemployment benefits because of the manner of their leaving employment has gone. That is not true. The honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) acknowledged that that is not true. The discretion to judge is still there. The Government has said that there will be a penalty if a person leaves his job for an unfounded reason. That situation has not changed. Even the honourable member for Corio would acknowledge that point. I would like him to get up and say that there should be no responsibility placed on a person who leaves his job, who walks out, and that the taxpayers should pay. I would like him to say that straight out, because that is what he is suggesting. He is saying that such people should bear no responsibility. The honourable member for Corio and the honourable member for Bonython brought forward the case of the young girl. Nobody could be more sympathetic to that situation than the members on this side of the House. There is now provision in the Act for that discretion to be exercised. Surely the honourable member for Corio is not suggesting that the people who make the decisions are not capable of making them. Is he saying that members of the Public Service in those very responsible positions are not capable or do not have the feelings to understand the situation and to judge it fairly? Who does he suggest should make that decision. Should a High Court judge make that decision?

Mr Scholes:

– It might be better.

Mr BOURCHIER:

– The honourable member should be reasonable. He is casting aspersions against the ability of the people that his Government probably put there in the first place. Let us understand the situation. There is a provision in the Act as it stands- it has not been altered- for discretion to be exercised as to whether a person is or is not entitled to receive the unemployment benefit. A decision having been reached- I would assume that it has been reached properly and fairly- that people who leave employment voluntarily are not entitled to unemployment benefit, the Government has laid down that they will not be paid unemployment benefit within a certain time. Surely people have a responsibility to accept that they have to work. Let me make it clear that if they decide that they do not want to work, if they walk out and say ‘The taxpayers of Australia can care for us. We will go and lie on Bondi Beach’, we do not consider that that is right. The people of Bendigo, Geelong, Corio, Melbourne and all over this country are satisfied that the situation has gone on for too long. It is about time that those people who have genuinely made up their minds that they do not want to work were not entitled to receive taxpayers’ money in order to remain idle. That is a different ball game from what the honourable member has tried to suggest. He has suggested that the Government is saying that those who are genuinely unemployed should not receive unemployment benefit. That is utter rubbish and he knows it. I felt that that matter should be clearly spelt out.

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

– I would like to speak firstly about the two amendments that have been moved by the Opposition with regard to implementing twice-yearly indexation of benefits for the unemployed without dependants and the necessity for an increase in the unemployment benefit for those under 18 years of age. I will also raise several other matters. For the last two years the unemployment benefit payable to those people without dependants has been pegged. That is a gross injustice. It means that those people are expected to live on a level of income that is well below the Henderson poverty line. Because of this Government’s action in freezing the benefits payable to them for the last two years, people under 18 years of age without dependants have been robbed of $6.45 a week. If the rises in the consumer price index over the last two years had been applied to the ridiculously low benefit of $36 paid to people under 18 years of age they would currently be receiving $42.45 a week. Those over 18 have been robbed of $6 per week. There is an absolute case for raising immediately the benefits paid to people without dependants.

I now refer to the injustice in the means test threshold applied to all people receiving unemployment benefit. The income threshold for the purposes of paying an age pension to people under 70 years of age has been pegged since 1972. For single aged pensioners it is currently $20 a week and for married couples it is $34.50 a week. The unemployed person and his family are subject to a means test threshold of $6 a week. The threshold for age pensioners is bad enough. It has not been increased since 1972. Since December 1975 the consumer price index has risen by over 40 per cent; yet that threshold has not been increased. So pensioners are badly off with regard to the means test threshold, but what about the unemployed people? Every dollar earned over $6 a week, earned perhaps in a part time job by a wife or husband, results in a direct reduction of benefit. That is completely wrong. It proves a positive disincentive to the unemployed to look for part time work.

A 20-year-old person without dependants receives a benefit which is pegged at $51.45 a week. Every dollar over $6 a week which he or she earns they lose $ 1 from their benefit. There is a direct reduction. Let me take the case of a 45- year-old middle aged man, living alone, who is subject to all the cost pressures of this inflationary society. If he earns an extra $35 a week, all he gets from it is $6 a week. He ought to get $57.45 plus $35 and even then he would get only $92.80 a week, which is still below the poverty line in this day and age. But this Government wants to rob him of $29 of the meagre $35 extra which he earns each week. How can the Government justify that? It is absolutely ridiculous. The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier) was pushing the old line of ‘let them go out and look for work’. If he wants people to look for part time work which might be available to supplement the meagre, pegged, frozen benefit it would be a good idea for the Government to lift the $6 a week threshold for unemployed people to at least the level that prevails for pensioners and that is bad enough. It has not been altered for seven years.

I turn to the effect of present health insurance upon the unemployed. Certainly the Government has raised the income threshold under which pensioner health benefit cards are issued from $33 a week for a single person to $57.50 a week and from $40 a week for a married couple to $68 a week. Of course, as we all know, these cards allow pensioners to receive free pharmaceuticals from chemists. They are able to produce their cards when they are seeking to be treated as pensioners by doctors or specialists who can bulk bill and receive 85 per cent of the service charge. But what happens with regard to the unemployed? They do not have health cards. The Government will not even provide them with identification slips. It expects them to identify themselves to medical practitioners as disadvantaged people and plead to be treated as a matter of charity. To illustrate the Government’s line on this matter, I refer to a letter which I received today from the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt), I had suggested that health benefit cards be issued to unemployed people. I said that perhaps identification butts could be added to the cheques which unemployed people receive. These could be torn off and presented to doctors as a means of identification when seeking medical treatment The Minister for Health said:

It was decided not to do so bearing in mind the difficulties in precise definition and the probability that the specification in legislation of categories of disadvantaged persons could introduce rigid procedures which would be complex to administer. Such definitions might not be readily adaptable to changes in patients’ circumstances. There was also the possibility that this could lead to interference in the patientpractitioner relationship.

Because of the legislative difficulties the Government would face in the identification of persons as disadvantaged, it was decided to leave these decisions to the medical profession. This accorded with the concept that doctors had traditionally made judgements as to when the overall circumstances of a patient required some alleviation from the normal fee structure, and that doctors were in the best situation to make such a judgement.

To me that letter reads like something out of the nineteenth century, the age of the work house when unemployed people and the homeless were treated as a matter of charity. The Government is not concerned that, according to the Commonwealth Employment Service’s figures, there are about 400,000 unemployed people, that that figure will probably be 550,000 next year, that probably a quarter of a million more unemployed people are not registered with the CES, and that probably about 650,000 or 700,000 people are now really unemployed. Government supporters say: ‘Do not worry about them. Let them go along to their local good-natured doctor, get down on their hands and knees and say: “I am a disadvantaged, unemployed person. I do not have any identification. Unfortunately, I cashed my social security cheque the other daynow I am broke “.’.A person may be 500 miles from home looking for work. He may be unknown in the district The Government still expects him to say: ‘I am unemployed. I am a disadvantaged person. Will you please treat me because I am sick?’ This Government has made no provision whatsoever for health insurance for the unemployed except to tell them to go along to their doctors and beg for charity.

I have raised these three points. Let the Government now revert to twice-yearly indexation of benefits for the unemployed without dependants. Let there be an immediate increase in unemployment benefits for those under 18 years of age. Let the Government issue immediately some means of identification to the unemployed so that they can legitimately seek medical treatment in a dignified way and not as pleaders for charity. Let the means tested earnings of the unemployed, which are in addition to what they receive from the unemployment benefit, be lifted immediately from the present miserly $6 a week which applies to single aged pensioners to at least $20 a week.

Mr HOWE:
Batman

– It is extraordinary that, after all the debate that has taken place in this country, and after all the discussions that have occurred in the various communities around this nation about the reality of unemployment and what it is doing to the lives of a whole generation of youth, here we are in the national Parliament dealing with two particular measures- amongst others- which do nothing to relieve the needs of people who are unemployed and which are, in a sense, directed much more towards the punishment of people who are unemployed through no fault of their own. I refer to clauses 36 and 42. Clause 36 has the effect of denying unemployment benefits to someone who, as a result of industrial action perhaps in another State, is involved indirectly in industrial action because he is a member of the same union. Furthermore, clause 42 would even deny special benefits, as part of a punitive action, to people in the most necessitous circumstances, in a situation where they were reduced to absolute poverty, absolute destitution and in circumstances where people literally would not know where their next meal was coming from.

I refer also to the extension of the period during which those who fall into the so-called voluntary unemployed category can be denied unemployment benefits. At a time in which unemployment has reached the level of tragedy, this Government is still preoccupied with the use of the social security system for what can only be described as social control. The Government is interested to use the social security system to support its repressive industrial legislation. One needs to look at the amendments set out in clause 36 within the context of the whole range of measures that this Government has brought in to restrict the rights and freedoms of people involved in industrial action. In this particular measure that is even extended to people who are indirectly involved. It is one thing to suggest that someone who has struck ought not to be paid unemployment benefits; it is another matter to suggest that someone indirectly involved, who is not part of the decision to strike but who is in the same union in perhaps another State, ought to be refused his benefits.

It is quite incredible that this is the kind of legislation that the Government is introducing into this House at a time when I do not think there is a family in Australia that is not unaware of the suffering being caused to people- perhaps in their family, perhaps in their community- as a result of extended periods of unemployment. One does not need to emphasise or to restate within this House the shifts that have occurred in the scales of unemployment since this Government has been in power; the length of time that people are unemployed; and the fact that particular sections of the community are bearing the weight of unemployment. Not every section of society is being affected equally. We know that essentially it is the working people of the nation who are most severely affected. It is the kids who perhaps were not able to stay at school long enough; it is the kids who went to schools that were not best served in terms of facilities or in terms of staff/student ratios; it is the children of the unskilled and semi-skilled who are unemployed. It is the older workers and not the younger workers; it is the recently arrived migrants; and it is the Aboriginal people in the farflung and outlying communities of this nation who are bearing the weight and full dint of this Government’s repressive economic policies which have introduced into this nation the most extended recession it has experienced at any time since the 1930s.

I believe it is within that context that there are people right across this nation who are beginning to take a position in relation to unemployment. It is a divisive issue. It is one on which people have to take a position and have to take sides. I think it is of some interest that in the last few weeks we have seen each of the leading churches in this country taking sides on the issue of unemployment. The Uniting Church in Australia, and the Church of England in Australia have issued a very strong statement about unemployment. The

Catholic bishops, through their Commission on Justice and Peace, have also produced a stinging indictment of the policies of this Government. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) may describe it as a Marxist document but the Catholic Church- if one looks at its involvement throughout the world- sometimes has had to take quite strong and radical positions in the face of repressive and often fascist governments. I refer to that church’s leaderships in many respects of revolutionary change in Latin America; its strong and unyielding opposition to the current dictatorship in the Philippines; and the strength of its opposition to the fascist regime which exists in South Korea.

Church people across this nation are not going to see the unemployed destroyed, repudiated or maligned by governments such as this one, and by those forces of capitalism which are so closely aligned with the present policies of this Government. People in ordinary communities are beginning to organise to support the unemployed. As they do so they will find that the Government is not going to give them a great deal of help. Only a week or so ago we heard the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) maligning the Unemployed Workers Union for its efforts simply to organise the unemployed in various cities. What else have the unemployed got if they cannot get themselves together in terms of their own union? In this House, the Prime Minister talked about the Unemployed Workers Union being some kind of way out organisation which has no right to express a view or dissent on behalf of its members in the various States of Australia who are bearing the full dint of this Government’s economic policies. The report of the Commission on Justice and Peace points to the very guts of the unemployment problem in this country. The report is based not on our nation ‘s capacity to provide jobs or to provide a decent income for those who are out of work, but on the social structure which we have erected in this country and which enshrines and endorses inequality. The report quite rightly refers to that small minority of people who control far more than their share of the wealth of this country. The sacrifices that are being made in this time of unemployment are not being made on the North Shore, in Toorak, South Yarra or in the lush suburbs of Perth or Brisbane. They are being made in working communities across the nation. Working people are going to organise, to find friends and, despite the repressive legislation which we have seen go through this Parliament, they are not going to be frightened off. People in working communities are going to fight the fight because they know that, essentially, deep down in the Australian people, there is a sense of justice and fair play.

There is in the Australian people a willingness to support those who they recognise are treated unjustly. I believe that the community’s attitudes are changing. I believe that people are getting sick of the constant reiteration of remarks expressing the dole bludger mentality and of the blaming the victim syndrome of which the public relations Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) is so much an exponent. I believe that they are tired of seeing so much suffering in their communities. If one goes to any one of the unemployment groups in my electorate one finds -

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

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-Mr Deputy Chairman, let me illustrate the hypocrisy and dishonesty of this Government by reading the first two sentences of the second reading speech on the Social Services Amendment Bill by the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland).

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! It has been the practice of the Chair of late to rule that the word ‘hypocrisy’ is unparliamentary. I would prefer the honourable member for Prospect to use another word.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-I will say ‘extreme dishonesty’ then. Those words are probably more applicable in any case. When introducing this legislation the Minister stated:

This Bill embodies the Government’s Budget proposals for improvements in social services, pensions and benefits. It demonstrates the Government’s determination to continue to provide for those in need, notwithstanding the necessity to restrain Government expenditure.

That was the Minister’s explanation for this piece of legislation. We are now dealing with a number of clauses which quite clearly are not intended to improve social services, pensions and benefits. The Minister tried to hide them. In trying to explain this piece of legislation, the Minister completely ignored those clauses. Let me remind the House of some of the points that were made in the amendment moved by the Opposition in the second reading debate. We stated that the Bills should provide for Twice-yearly indexation of benefits for the unemployed without dependants; an increase in unemployment benefits for those under 18 years; removal of the provisions relating to the mandatory postponement period for the ‘voluntary’ unemployed and those who fail the work test; and removal of the provision of refusing unemployment and special benefit to those unemployed through the industrial action of others. Those are the four main points to be made in relation to the second part of the legislation with which we are dealing now.

Specifically, the Opposition opposes clauses 35, 41 and 42 of the legislation. The only point I would like to make in relation to clause 35 is that this Government pays a lot of lip service to the proposition that unions should be amalgamated. It says that we should have large unions, unions covering whole industries, that we should have Federal unions instead of State unions and that that would prevent some of the industrial conflict. Yet it introduces this legislation which obviously penalises members of a large union. If a person belonged to a small union- let us say a union covering only tyre makes in New South Wales, or an even smaller union covering people employed in tyre manufacturing in a particular plant- that person would not be covered by this dragnet clause. But a member of a large unionthis Government encourages the amalgamation of unions to form large unions- is covered by this legislation. Take a member of the Australian Workers Union or any of the other large unions in this country. If one or more members of that union are on strike anywhere in Australia and that strike causes him to be stood down, he is not entitled to benefits. But if he belongs to any other union he is still entitled to benefits. I think it is ridiculous. The Government ought to be thinking about what the effect of this type of legislation will be.

The other important point that I should like to make is that the Government is inconsistent in this legislation in another way. On the one hand it removes the discretion of the Director-General on the question of the automatic suspension of unemployment benefit for the first six weeks but on the other hand says that the first six weeks are mandatory. Then there is a discretion for a six to 12 week suspension for persons who have failed the work test or some other test which is insisted on by the Government. Yet in another case, in the case of the unions, it introduces much discretion. The Director-General is to have discretion to decide whether a particular standing down is due to an industrial dispute, whether a person in a different establishment is covered by a particular union and so on. My own advice to people applying for unemployment benefit because they have been stood down from their plant, if they want the unemployment benefit, is not to admit to being members of the union concerned. They would be silly if they did so. They would disqualify themselves from eligibility for unemployment benefits. It is a penalty on their union membership. All a person has to say, I assume, is: ‘I do not belong to that particular union. I am not a member of that union’. A person can claim that he is not a financial member of a union or that he belongs to a different union. It strikes me as being quite ridiculous that this Government would impose these sorts of penalties on union members, particularly on members of large unions, and at the same time claim that it encourages large unions.

I remind the House that similar proposals were put up in the Victorian power dispute some two years ago, in 1977. Let me quote to the House some of the words of conservative politicians as to their attitude to the suspension of unemployment benefit for people stood down during an industrial dispute when those people have had no say whatsoever as to whether that dispute should have occurred. That is what we are dealing with here. The then chairman of the Government’s Back Bench Industrial Relations Committee, Mr Peter Falconer, urged the Government to reconsider its proposals. He told the Government parties meeting that a large number of rank and file members who had nothing to do with the strike would find their benefits cut. Senator Hall, a Liberal senator from South Australia, said that the Government was making the innocent do its dirty work for it. He said that the proposal was unjust and that he had the gravest doubts about it. The Melbourne Age on 13 October 1977 reported:

The State Social Welfare Minister, Mr Dixon, telegramed two Federal Ministers warning of the possibility of family breakdown if the benefits were not paid.

Also on 13 October 1977, it was reported in the Australian:

The State’s Minister for Social Welfare, Mr Dixon, said: It’s stupid to use unemployment benefits as a possible lever in an industrial dispute and such a move would be ill-advised and ill-considered.’

The Liberal Premier of Victoria, Mr Hamer, was reported in the Sun News-Pictorial on 12 October as having said on 1 1 October that he believed that people stood down through no fault of their own should be paid unemployment benefit. Mr Hamer said it, Mr Dixon said it, Mr Falconer said it and Senator Hall said it. Let me tell the House what the editorialists, who always support the Government, said. In the Melbourne Herald on 1 4 October it was stated:

It would be outrageous to deny sustenance to stood-down unionists and their families not involved in the dispute. The Goverment should take care that no substance exists for such stories in future.

The Age stated on 14 October 1977:

Unemployment benefits should be regarded as a right for those people jobless through no fault of their own. They are not a privilege and they most certainly are not a plaything for politicians.

On the same day the Canberra Times stated:

The apparent intention of the Federal Government, however, to deny unemployment benefits in the future to workers stood down as a result of a strike if the union to which they belong does not condemn the strike is a threat to the right to freedom of opinion, a denial of justice to taxpayers, and a perversion of the conventional definition of what constitutes unemployment

I draw honourable members’ attention to the fact that one assumes these people’s opinion has not altered. What has altered? This Government wants to create conditions of industrial disputation. This Government is worried about its complete failure to deal with the economic problems facing this country. In the four years since this Government came to power, unemployment has increased by huge numbers, and inflation is now increasing. This Government is trying to change the opinion of people by concentrating on industrial disputes.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Jarman)-

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

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

– in reply- I will only take a few minutes. Today, in effect, we are hearing the same old arguments that were trundled up in the debate on the second reading. Those arguments were answered effectively in that debate. It is a condition of eligibility under section 107 of the Social Services Act that the claimant for unemployment benefit must satisfy the DirectorGeneral that he is unemployed and that his unemployment is not due to his direct participation in a strike. Here is a glorious inconsistency of the Labor Party. In the interpretation of this provision successive governments have followed two basic principles. The first principle is that the Government cannot permit the unemployment benefit to, in effect, become strike pay. The second is that when we talk about the solidarity of unions, responsibility for sponsorship or support of a strike by a trade union must be accepted equally by all members of that union. Doubts were expressed about the validity of that principle. We are amending the Act to make that clear.

It was put to the Committee that this Government had dreamed up something goulish and novel in this area. I want to take honourable members back to the McKenna-Chifley rules of 1947. Does a person who is a direct participant, in a strike get the unemployment benefit? The answer is no. Does a member of a participating union, although not a direct participant, as an individual, employed at the place of industrial action get the unemployment benefit? No. Does a member of a non-participating union which does not disown the strike get the unemployment benefit? No. I ask honourable members to listen to this: Can a member of a non-participating union not a direct participant, as an individual and not employed at the place of industrial action, get the unemployment benefit? No.

Mr Goodluck:

– Which Prime Minister was that?

Mr ADERMANN:

-They were the ChifleyMcKenna rules of 1947. The honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) did ask a question.

Dr Klugman:

– Are you going to bring in all the 1940 legislation?

Mr ADERMANN:

– All the noise in the world cannot confuse those facts. The Labor Party has to live with them. The honourable member for Port Adelaide did ask how it is to be established whether an applicant is a member of a union or not. Information relevant to determining whether a person is disqualified from obtaining the unemployment benefit by reason of industrial action or by membership of a union, members of which are engaged in industrial action, will be sought initially from the claimant. If the information supplied by the claimant is insufficient to determine his eligibility for unemployment benefit, the Director-General has authority within the Act to seek further information from other sources, for example the claimant’s employer or the Department of Industrial Relations, in order to be satisfied to the required extent under proposed new section 107(4). The information and degree of proof required in any particular case will vary with the circumstances of that case. It is not possible, of course, to lay down any harder or faster rule than that.

The honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) did ask a question. He established a case about a lass. The answer to that is that if that girl had good and sufficient reason for leaving her employment there would be no penalty. There is no requirement to prove the matter beyond reasonable doubt. That is the position. She only has to satisfy the Director-General that there was a good and sufficient reason for her leaving. If she is dissatisfied with the decision she has a further right of appeal to an independent arbitrator. So, those are the same arguments which the Labor Party has trundled up before. The Labor Party’s memory is mercifully short. If its members have forgotten, we have not forgotten.

Mr Scholes:

– I could tell you of the case where the Government in Victoria did not proceed with 40 prosecutions because these involved friends of the Government.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Jarman)Order! The honourable member for Corio will resume his seat.

Mr Scholes:

– What about the position of the people who are unemployed?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order ! The honourable member for Corio will remain silent.

Mr Scholes:

– This legislation is being introduced in disgusting circumstances.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I have warned the honourable member for Corio. I hope I do not have to do it again.

Progress reported.

page 2325

PRIVILEGE

Mr SPEAKER:

-This afternoon the honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe) raised as a matter of privilege the alleged refusal of the Secretary to the Department of the Treasury to answer certain questions in a questionnaire forwarded by the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation in relation to the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act and the Australian Heritage Commission Act. It is a well established contempt of the House for a witness to refuse to answer questions put to him by a committee within the scope of the committee’s authority- see May’s Parliamentary Practice, pages 137-140. I have examined the record of the Committee’s approach to the Treasury for certain information. On 21 February 1979 the Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) wrote to the Treasurer (Mr Howard) inviting a submission from the Department of the Treasury in relation to the Committee’s inquiry into Environmental Protection- Adequacy of Legislative and Administrative Arrangements. On 27 March 1979 the Treasurer responded to the invitation stating that he did not feel that there would be any benefit to the Committee if Treasury were to prepare a formal submission for consideration by the Committee and adding that he would be happy to have Treasury respond to any specific points or questions that the Committee may wish to raise. On 5 June 1 979 the Clerk to the Committee wrote to the Secretary, Department of the

Treasury, Mr Stone, asking that answers be provided to an attached questionnaire. On 3 July 1979 the Secretary to the Treasury responded to the letter of the Clerk to the Committee and stated:

You drew to my attention the Treasurer’s reply of 27 March 1979 to Mr Hodges’ letter of 21 February, in which the Treasurer said that he would be happy to have Treasury respond to any specific points or questions that the Committee may wish to raise. We naturally wish to assist the Committee in its inquiry so far as it is within our competence to do so. The Treasurer’s words however need to be viewed in the context of the guidelines tabled in the Parliament on 28 September 1978 which preclude us from commenting on matters of Government policy.

Questions 1 to 4 inclusive and Question 8 relate to possible amendments to legislation involving Government policy and therefore I regret that we are not able to comment on them.

The answers to Questions 5 to 7 inclusive are set out in the Attachment.

I find that no resolution was adopted by the Committee summoning Mr Stone to provide the additional information, nor for Mr Stone or other officers of the Treasury to be summoned to appear before the Committee. It is understood, however, that there was some discussion within the Committee on the adequacy of the Treasury response. In summary, information sought from the Treasury was supplied in part, the Secretary declining to answer five of the nine questions asked on the basis that they involved government policy. The Committee did not press for the information and there was no resolution from the Committee calling Mr Stone or other officers of the Treasury and no refusal by them to supply information.

The honourable member for Batman stated that he was not raising the matter on behalf of the Committee. Had the Committee wanted to place the matter before the House as a contempt of the House the Committee would have been required to follow the accepted procedure of submitting a special report to the House desiring the instructions of the House as to the authority of the Committee or the proper course for it to pursue- see May, pages 661-2. From my examination of the matter I conclude that no prima facie case of breach of privilege exists.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

page 2326

NATIONAL COMPANIES AND SECURITIES COMMISSION BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 August, on motion by Mr Fife:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Opposition proposes at the outset to move an amendment to the motion that the National Companies and Securities Commission Bill be read a second time. I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: whilst not opposing the Bill, the House:

expresses it concern at the Government’s apparent abdication of its responsibility to make national laws for corporations and the securities industry pursuant to the Commonwealth’s own constitutional powers, and in accordance with the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange in 1 974 (the Rae Report);

notes that the proposed legislative scheme places uniformity before reform, and creates both the danger and the likelihood that lowest common denominator standards will prevail;

expresses its concern at the lack of effective accountability of the proposed Commission to either the Government or Parliament of the Commonwealth, or to any other single elected Government or Parliament;

d) expresses its view that the Bill should be improved by redrafting it to provide for

an extension of the scope and enforceability of its financial interest provisions;

a requirement that hearings of the Commission be normally held in public;

the establishment of the proposed Companies and Securities Law Review Committee on a firm statutory basis;

the establishment on a firm statutory basis of an Accounting Standards Review Committee; and

the explicit prescription of the matters on which the Commission must annually report;

while acknowledging that pursuant to the scheduled Agreement any such proposed amendment may need to be the subject of consultation with the Ministerial Council before final acceptance by the Government, nonetheless insists upon this Parliament’s right to properly scrutinise and amend all legislation put before it by the Executive; and

calls upon the Government, in the event of the breakdown for any reason of the scheme embodied in the Bill, to immediately proceed to the introduction of Commonwealth legislation for the national regulation of corporations and the securities industry’.

Attached to the Bill is the agreement which regulates and controls the whole concept underlying this legislation. It relates to an agreement made between the Commonwealth and the States dated 22 January 1978. That agreement is fairly lengthy. When we were talking about national companies and securities legislation, it should be remembered that the Australian Labor Party has always approached the subject on the basis that the Commonwealth should occupy the field of power which is given to it under the Constitution. In our view and in the view of particularly recent decisions of the High Court of Australia, it is clear that we have power in this field. It is very clear also the Government has abdicated that power. The Bill we are debating is the first of a series of Bills to be introduced into this House to give Australia a new system of company law. I indicate the attitude of the Opposition by moving the amendment that I have moved.

The legislation has been in the pipeline a long time; three years as a matter of fact. The initial announcement of the establishment of the scheme was made by the former Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs- now the Treasurer (Mr Howard)- as far back as 6 July 1976. Of course, the Government will tell us that the New South Wales Government has been holding up the matter, but that is not the true situation. At the time, the New South Wales Government, along with the South Australian Government, offered the Commonwealth a reference of power so that there would be no doubt that a national scheme enacted by this Parliament could be all-embracing. This reference of power was refused and the charade of longwinded dialogue to frame co-operative legislation has proceeded for the past three years. The word ‘charade’ is not used lightly but there is no doubt that this is exactly what this exercise has been about. It has even had a longer history in this Parliament.

In 1970 the then Senator Murphy moved for the establishment of a Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. The Democratic Labor Party senators supported him and the conservative government of the day was forced to accept a motion in the Senate. The Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, later known as the Rae Committee after its chairman, Senator Peter Rae, was then born. That Committee reported to Parliament in 1 974, four years after the most extensive investigation. Its report was an indictment of the securities industry and of the inadequate surveillance of that industry. The Rae Committee reported unanimously:

We found in the securities markets a high level of abuse and much behaviour falling short of minimum acceptable standards of fair dealing, competence and responsibility. After examination of the existing body of law, rules and administrative practices, we have concluded that these fail to provide adequate and effective regulation. In our view, there is a need for a new approach to securities regulation in Australia.

There can be no doubt or confusion about what was recommended by the Senate Committee. Unilateral action by the Commonwealth was recommended in the areas in which it had constitutional power. It has such constitutional power in this area. That, of course, does not mean that the States would have no role. We would have co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States. That co-operation would be desirable in the areas where the States would retain residual powers. But where there is constitutional power there is the obligation so to legislate. However, in our view of the constitutional power, the area of any residual power is small and not of major importance. Nothing in the Rae report would justify this extraordinary, amazingly complicated and cumbersome scheme that we now have before us. Indeed, such a scheme is explicitly rejected in the Rae report.

National power carries with it national responsibilities. We say that the Federal Government has abdicated those responsibilities. If the Commonwealth has the constitutional power to legislate in any field, it should do so because that will give a national standard. If the Commonwealth leaves it to the States to dictate how they see a situation and for decisions to be made even by a majority vote, the result will be like Rafferty ‘s rules because States have political influences. It is far better that the people of Australia judge the political pulse of what a national government would do and how national legislation should operate. In respect of the securities industry, it has been said that there are not six security markets in Australia, one for each State: There is one national market. That is an important point. If we are ever going to become a nation, we ought to legislate accordingly. We cannot have six little armies simply because we decided by agreement under the defence power that each State would raise its own army or air force. Honourable members could think of nothing more ridiculous.

In this case the Commonwealth, under the Constitution, has a power to talk about the regulation and control of a securities industry and we have abdicated that power. The Government’s excuse for this abdication of national power is to say that there is doubt about how far the power extends. The main power which is relevant is the corporation’s power- section 51, placitum (xx) of the Constitution- which gives this Parliament power to legislate with respect to foreign corporations and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth. The three main areas of doubt about the scope of this power are: Firstly, what is a trading corporation? Secondly, what are the activities of such trading corporations that can be controlled? Thirdly, what is the meaning of the words formed within the limits of the Commonwealth’?

Before dealing with these areas I wish to make two points. Firstly, the Government has never sought a reference of power from all the States. It has ignored the offers of such a reference. Secondly, doubt about the extent of the constitutional power does not justify inaction or weak, or half-baked action. It certainly did not stop the Government ramming through its unconstitutional amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in recent weeks. It is amazing that the Government is prepared to take the broadest and most centralist possible view of its power when it comes to trade unions. Yet when it comes to the regulation of companies, the Government says that it cannot do anything directly because it may lack the power, despite the specific power in relation to corporations. So there is one law for the corporate area and one law for the trade unions. On the point of constitutional power the present Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) said in 1974: . . uncertainty as to the extent of constitutional power should never of itself be a reason for opposing an otherwise worthwhile legislative exercise of power, nor should it prevent a government, properly advised, treading where angels of constitutional probity have formerly feared to tread. The High Court, as we know, will readily give us the answer . . .

In other words, why not legislate as there is a higher tribunal that can test the validity, and not to do anything is to abdicate responsibility? The Rae report states:

We wish to make it clear that in advocating the establishment of a national regulatory body we are not in favour of such a joint commission, particularly not one which involves the concept of continuing the responsibility to all the governments concerned. Such an arrangement would seriously endanger the ability of the system of regulation to adapt speedily to ever-changing circumstances and standards. The experience referred to earlier has shown how difficult it is to secure the agreement of all seven governments.

It is difficult to envisage the relationship between the joint commission and the various State and national Ministers. Would the body be responsible to more than one Minister? How and by whom would ministerial discretions be exercised? How would arrangements be made for the consideration and, if thought necessary, the disallowance of rule by the Parliaments involved?

Which would be the appropriate courts to deal with litigation arising? We might mention in passing that the current proposal for an inter-State commission for three of the States not only raises these questions but it fails to meet the basic need for a national regulatory body. National regulatory action is preferable.

Our recommendation is that the new national regulatory body should be established by the Federal Government. It is clear from the powers given in the Constitution that this Government was created to meet national needs relating to foreign corporations and trading or financial corporations . . and interstate and overseas trade and commerce.

That is the view of the Rae Committee. The view that it would be beyond constitutional power to enact comprehensive companies and securities legislation is so restricted and conservative that it defies logic. In the United States there has been a

Securities and Exchange Commission since 1934, set up wholly in reliance of the interstate trade and commerce power. The United States, in fact, does not have the constitutional equivalent of the corporations power that we have.

One of the arguments, based on the Constitution, used against a national companies law is that the words ‘formed within the limits of the Commonwealth ‘ mean that trading and financial corporations must be already formed under State law before the Australian Parliament has the power to make laws. The argument goes that this Parliament has no power to pass laws for the incorporation of companies. There are some dicta, although none recent, which would tend to support that view. With respect to those judges who have made these dicta, the argument is neither sensible nor logical. The words ‘formed within the limits of the Commonwealth’ are used merely to distinguish home-grown corporations from foreign corporations. This appears to have been the view of the Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, in the St George County Council case of 1974. It should also be pointed out that a past participle does not necessarily mean only the past tense. In the case of Mikasa v. Festival Stores, Mr Justice Stephen stated that the past participle often applies equally to the future as to the past. There he was dealing with the word supplied’. One can apply the same reasoning to the word ‘ formed ‘. In other words, the past participle does not mean that it has to have been created. It applies equally to the future. It is a descriptive mechanism.

The constitutional base on which this legislation depends is not, therefore, section 51 (xx) of the Constitution, but rather section 122, which relates to the Territories power. The scheme is that the Commonwealth will pass legislation unanimously agreed to by the Ministerial Council and this legislation will apply only in the Australian Capital Territory. Each of the States and the Northern Territory will pass laws to adopt the law operating in the Australian Capital Territory. They will repeal their current legislation. Amendments to the legislation will be agreed to by a majority of the Ministerial Council, on which the Northern Territory will not have a vote unless the other parties unanimously agree. If within six months of the agreement of the Ministerial Council being reached the Commonwealth has not legislated, the States themselves can pass the amendments. One of the conditions which the Rae Committee stated was absolutely essential to any system of national companies law was that it should be capable of speedy amendment. It must be able to adapt to ever changing circumstances. It must be a dynamic law. No one could possibly suggest that income tax law, which is being continually probed for loopholes, should be subject to a ministerial council before it can be amended. Yet very much the same sorts of considerations apply to the company and securities law.

Let me deal with what one might term the philosophical basis of company law. Everybody knows that the corporate sector is very much a dog eat dog game. One needs only to look at the recent manoeuvrings of Ansett, Holmes a’Court and Ampol to realise the sorts of power struggles and manipulation that occur in everyday life in the corporate sector. We are not particularly interested in protecting those predators from each other. Of course, Sir Henry Bolte was very concerned about this. In 1971 he was able to act swiftly to prevent Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd from taking over Ansett. Of course, he has his reward. He is now on the Board of Ansett, having retired from politics. The reason that reform in company law is necessary is not to protect the big fish, or what might be called the sharks. As former Senator Murphy put it in 1970 when talking about the establishment of a Select Committee on Securities and Exchange:

Where so many enter unknown waters, there are many who do not know how to swim, and there are many sharksnot just single sharks, but schools of sharks.

We should do something about this. I suppose that ‘piranha’ would have been a more appropriate word. It is the general public that we wish to protect. Look at the little people who lost their life savings in Associated Securities Ltd. Who attracted them to put their faith in Associated Securities Ltd? It was people like Sir Cecil Looker, Sir Reginald Ansett and Sir Henry Bolte. Many of the small investors probably voted for Sir Henry during his political career. Yet their interests were not even given a second’s notice. The three directors, of course, continue to draw their salaries. It is not just the small investor that we wish to protect. Employees and consumers are also directly affected by the activities of companies. The idea that shareholders control companies is a myth which does not stand up to the scrutiny of modern corporate reality. Most companies are controlled by their management and the shareholders, in the main, have virtually no say in the running of the companies. This is the problem.

Incorporation places a business in a very privileged position. Companies ought to be required to act according to the highest standards if they are to retain the benefits of incorporation. Unfortunately incorporation, involving as it does the creation of a new legal entity and the drawing of a corporate veil, is used for a variety of nefarious and fraudulent practices. The use made of companies to facilitate tax avoidance is well known. It is the public generally rather than simply the shareholder which should be protected from the improper activities of companies. Negligently or fraudulently run companies are a cost to the community, not simply to the investor. The future and living standards of the employees of companies are also at stake.

The other rationale for reform in this area of the law was identified by the Senate Committee as being able to maintain, facilitate and improve the performance of the capital market in the interests of economic development, efficiency and stability. In other words, the lack of adequate controls and protection for the investor has led to a crisis of confidence where Australians would rather save than invest in Australian enterprises. All companies suffer from the public outrage at spectacular corporate crashes. This leads to an even greater concentration of ownership of Australian capital. Australians cannot be expected to have any confidence in the capital market when most people know at least someone who has had his or her savings destroyed by unscrupulous people in corporate crashes which could have been prevented.

The extent to which some companies are prepared to engage in improper practices is well documented by reports such as the 1977 New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission’s report into Cambridge Credit. That report shows that the directors announced a record profit, despite the fact that they had been aware for a month that the group was heading for a cash deficiency of $3.5m and would have had a $ 10.8m deficiency within 10 months. The secretary of the company said to the Corporate Affairs Commission’s investigators:

There’s nothing definite about profits- you work them out. You just try to achieve figures that when you announce them will appear to the public sensible for the company to maintain its profitability.

The report also shows that a glowing prospectus was issued in May 1974, despite the fact that the company had no further borrowing capital and that it had lent more than $15m to family companies of the managing director, of which less than $5m was represented by assets and the balance was written off. Clause 8 (2) of this Bill sums up the position as far as reform of the law is concerned. It provides that the legislation will be: . . substantially in conformity with the provisions of the Companies Acts, Securities Industry Acts and Marketable Securities Acts in force at the date of this Agreement in the States which are the parties to the Interstate Corporate Affairs (ICA) Agreement.

The four ICA States at that time in 1974 all had conservative governments. New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland were the initial signatories and Western Australia became a party in 1975. That Agreement was a blatant attempt to prevent the Labor Government’s passing Commonwealth legislation to override State law. It represented the last nail in the coffin of the 1961 so-called uniform companies legislation. The law of the parties to the ICA agreement has been chosen mainly because it provides the most uniform base. However, let us make it clear: It is the lowest common denominator legislation in that even Queensland and Western Australia have had to agree to it. Of course, the fact that Queensland and Western Australia have had to agree to the initial legislation may not be the death knell for ultimate company law reform. Amendments to the legislation need be agreed to by only a majority and any objections by States such as Queensland and Western Australia can be overriden provided conservative partiesthose of the present Commonwealth, Victorian and South Australian governments- are serious about reform of law. There will be no problems with the Labor governments of New South Wales and Tasmania. There is in the Agreement a rather odd provision which is, at the very least, poorly drafted. I refer to clause 47 of the Agreement which provides that:

The Commonwealth will not submit to its Parliament legislation or take action for the making of regulations which will, upon coming into force, negative the operation of the legislation referred to in paragraph (A) of sub-clause 8(1) or the regulation referred to in paragraph (B) of that subclause or that legislation or those regulations as amended from time to time in accordance with this agreement.

The previous clause prevents the Commonwealth from amending the legislation or the regulations without the approval of the Ministerial Council. The intention of clause 47 may have been to prevent the Commonwealth from achieving the same effect by indirect means; that is, by enacting other legislation which would have an overriding effect on the companies legislation. But that is not what the clause says. It entrenches the legislation and regulations both as initially enacted and as amended from time to time. In other words, the Commonwealth cannot submit legislation to this Parliament or make regulations, regardless of whether that legislation or these regulations have been agreed to by the Ministerial Council, if that legislation or these regulations would have the effect of negativing the operation of the existing legislation or regulations. The meaning of ‘negativing the operation’ is not clear, but it would appear to prevent repeal or wholesale amendment to particular provisions of the legislation or the regulations. If that is the case, then it is not only quite an unacceptable limitation on the powers of this Parliament- as this scheme tends to be anyway- but also it is a quite remarkable limitation on the powers of the Ministerial Council.

Let us turn to the characteristics of this scheme which should concern every member of the Parliament. Under this scheme the Parliament is to lose its power to scrutinise and to amend legislation. Not an ‘i’ can be dotted or a V crossed if that is not acceptable to the Ministerial Council. It may be a rare event for a government to accept amendments, but we have seen in relation to the Customs Amendment Bill how legislation can be improved by the parliamentary process. But in future no matter what we will say here we will be just talking to the breeze. We will not be able to amend or alter anything unless it has been previously agreed to by the Ministerial Council, none of the members of which is represented here. In other words, this Parliament is to be told that it is irrelevant to the legislative process where national company law is concerned. This matter is canvassed in part (e) of our amendment. At the very least, we want an assurance from the Government that amendments will be considered and, if necessary, taken back to the Ministerial Council.

The Government must take responsibility for the scheme in all its elements. As one of those elements is that governments must get legislation through the Parliament after it is agreed to by the Ministerial Council, is the Government saying that in Opposition it would not use its Senate majority to block or amend any legislation agreed to by the Ministerial Council? Can we have a situation in which no matter what happens in another place nothing will be done about the legislation? It is also of concern that the scheme does not provide for direct ministerial responsibility for the Commission by any particular Minister, or for accountability to a parliament. Naturally, we believe that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs should have that responsibility and that the Commission should be accountable to the Parliament. Under the Labor legislation- the Corporations and Securities Industry Bill and the National Companies Bill- there was responsibility and accountability. That principle, which is important to parliamentary government, is abrogated by this legislation.

The Agreement makes it quite clear that the Commission will not be subject to such control or accountability. Clause 22 (2) provides that the giving of directions by the Ministerial Council will be exclusive apart from the questions of special investigations and states: . . and the National Commission shall not be required to recognise or acknowledge any knowledge anther person or authority.

Clause 32(1) provides:

The functions of the National Commission to be established by the Commonwealth Acts shall be to have and to exercise, subject only to directions from dme to time of the Ministerial Council, responsibility for the entire area of policy and administration with respect to company law and the regulation of the securities industry.

Clause 38(1) states:

The policy direction and general control over the administration of company law and the regulation of the securities throughout Australia by the Ministerial Council and by the Commission in accordance with this agreement shall … be exercised to the exclusion of Ministerial direction and control by the responsible Minister of the Commonwealth or of the State.

Thus, there is only a corporate group, the Ministerial Council, which can give directions and the Commonwealth Minister can evade responsibility by, in effect, drawing the corporate veil over the activities of the Council. We would be less than honest if we did not say that we have grave reservations about the capacity of the scheme to endure.

One of the unnecessarily obstructive features of our Federal system is that whilst State governments at times- particularly under Labor- are prepared to act co-operatively with conservative Federal governments, the conservative State governments always adopt a policy of open warfare against Federal Labor governments. Under the Agreement, the States can pull out of the scheme by giving one year’s notice or they can withdraw immediately if the Commonwealth acts in breach of clause 46 of the Agreement. They can also withdraw in breach of the Agreement, which would not carry any legal consequences. We must ask: How viable is this scheme going to be? Will reform be at a snail’s pace? Do we expect the conservative States and this conservative Government to abide by the scheme? We would like to make it clear that, as a national government, we would have no intention of being stood over by the conservative States nor of having overdue reforms blocked by bloodyminded States bent on preserving the status quo. If this area of the law is to be made an area for co-operative federalism then there must be cooperation on all sides while at the same time recognition of the supremacy of the responsibility of this Parliament.

Should this scheme founder, as it probably will, then a Labor government would have an obligation under its constitutional power to pass legislation on a national basis. That was the approach of 1974 and 1975. The provisions that caused us most concern are summarised in our amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. The first matter is the financial interest provisions and restrictions on share dealings by members of the Commission. These provisions are contained in clauses 19, 48 and 49. Clause 19 provides for a Register of Financial Interests of members of the Commission. The only interests which must be disclosed are the directorships they hold and interests in securities which will be prescribed by regulation. No penalties are provided for non-compliance, nor for making false declarations. The Opposition will be moving an amendment at the Committee stage to strengthen those provisions.

Clause 48 is the section which restricts dealings in securities. There is a very good argument to ban dealings in securities by members and staff of the Commission. However, under clause 48 it would be impossible to get a conviction against such a person for dealing in securities, even when that person was using inside knowledge. We will also move an amendment to establish an accounting standards review committee, the purpose of which is self-explanatory. The honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) will deal with this matter in detail. Other amendments that we will move will provide for all hearings of the Commission to be in public unless there is justification for a private hearing under the principles contained in the Freedom of Information Bill. We also consider the present provisions relating to annual reporting to be deficient in that the Ministerial Council can direct the Commission as to the form of its report. There should also be explicit provisions as to what should be contained in the annual report.

The problems that I have mentioned have bedevilled Australian companies and securities law since Federation and they will not be solved by abdication of responsibility. The legislation is a poor substitute for the two Bills of the Labor Government. It is important that we have a look at what we should be doing to guarantee that in this area we can effectively legislate. This legislation sets up a commission which will have no power to administer. In many ways this legislation is akin to the trade practices legislation of the 1960s which resulted in ineffectual laws. We need to produce effective trade practices legislation as we did in the trade practices area. Whilst we of the Opposition do not oppose the legislation we hope that it will be successful, but we honestly say that we do not believe it can work. We fear the worst and urge the House to support our amendments which suggests that the Bill be considered in the light of what we have said.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Kerin:

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

Mr MOORE:
Ryan

– I congratulate the Government on bringing forward this legislation at this time. It is some years since we first moved in this direction to bring about a national companies and securities commission. I am sure the business community as a whole would welcome the introduction of this legislation which establishes the National Companies and Securities Commission. Contrary to what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) said, I believe that the way in which the Government has gone about it in terms of seeking a cooperative approach with the States is the correct one. If one embarks on a course in an area such as this which is shrouded with a very grave legal doubt one is certainly courting disaster in establishing a fairly complex commission which will have an enormous impact on the whole of the business community throughout Australia. That is why I commend the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife), the State Ministers and officials who spent months getting this package together. It would have been difficult because there is no doubt that the various interests of the States are somewhat contrary to a uniform companies commission approach from a national standpoint. We only have to look at the history to see that that is the position.

This legislation will enable the establishment of the Commission. It will allow for the appointment of the commissioners and it will establish the basis of what is the beginning of quite a long run. Numerous Bills will follow this legislation to enable the full-scale establishment of a Companies and Securities Commission Act. This legislation is purely, in my view, a preliminary but a most important step in getting the Commission on the road. I think it is fair to say that no number of regulations will ever stop company crashes or attempts to manipulate share prices or balance sheets. No regulations in the world will ever stop that. It is a question of human nature.

In entering the area of regulation the Government raises the level of sophistication as is now practiced in the United States under the operations of the Securities Commission there. One ought to look at the question of how that works in comparison with the city code in the United Kingdom and see which is the most effective in terms of understanding what goes on in the market place. I was surprised that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition engaged midway through his speech in a general description of sharks and adopted a general anti-business approach because he should understand that the business world is a risk taking centre. Risks will be taken because people are looking for rewards, otherwise there is no point in being in it. They are there to look after their interests and it is our job to ensure that the public interest is protected against what are sometimes seen to be manipulative activities.

Let me deal with the background of securities and companies commissions, especially in the Companies Act area. At the moment all States have the powers in the companies area. Some State Acts vary markedly.

Action has been taken in some States such as that which has been referred to in the Ansett case and that in Queensland under the regulations of the Companies Act to prevent takeovers of other companies within Australia. I have said before that I do not believe such actions are in the best national interest. I certainly hope that with the establishment of this Commission we are moving towards a concerted and united approach to the corporate sector.

I have some reservations whether this legislation will be entirely successful. But I can hope that the workings of the Commission and the personalities of the members of the Commission will be such that they will clearly demonstrate their ability, their far-sightedness and their integrity to be able to administer the legislation in such a way that the relative State parochialisms will fall by the wayside. Let me refer to the securities area because it is in this area that I think most of the heartburn came about in the late 1960s and early 1970s as a result of the excesses of share market boom at that time and the establishment of a Senate committee of inquiry into it. The findings of that committee and what flowed from that area, in my view, were largely responsible for the public demand for a national securities commission. The excesses in that area, particularly in the area of insider trading, I think are well known. But I do not believe even now that in the proposed legislation that there will be a real ability to look at these things from behind until such time as we know the character and personnel of the people who will be on the Commission itself, because in that alone rests the whole future of the Commission.

Unless we get in the appointment of commissioners three men who are practical peoplenot lawyers who specialise in a particular niche of law- people who have practiced in this area, people who have known the game not only in terms of the market but also in terms of accounting, legal practice and with overall experience, we will fail. In the establishment of this Commission the people involved must win the confidence of those who operate in that area. I wonder whether the advertisement that I have in my hands which calls for applications to fill the three commissioner positions is offering sufficient to attract the people we want in this area. I cannot stress too emphatically the importance of having the right people at this point of the establishment of the Commission. If they fail the concept without a doubt will fail.

I briefly refer to the securities industry because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred, I think, fairly vigorously to some of the excesses that went by. One has to look at the problems of insider trading. Whilst this matter has not come to the fore at this time it is nevertheless one of the great problems in the Australian capital market. I recall an old saying that an ounce of drum is worth a ton of research. Once you understand the meaning of that you will realise that enormous significance is attached to this sort of activity. All I can say is that any commissions of inquiry or any person who attempts to investigate background charges will not have any prospect at all of sorting out the details unless he knows the game, where to look and exactly what the background is. This is the concept to which I referred earlier in relation to the appointment of commissioners. I hope that the people who will be appointed to the Commission will have a very good knowledge not only of insider trading but also in terms of share market rigging, rigging prices, how to hold markets, takeovers and the other aspects of areas that can be manipulated against the national will. Those things are very hard to trace and will take a lot more than is currently available in the corporate areas of the State commissions.

I am appalled at the attempts of some of the State commissions to find out what went on in various transactions. A very old ploy once upon a time was to place orders from another State into the main market to achieve a result. This legislation, of course, will overcome that because once there is a single body one should be able to approach this matter fairly easily and be able to call up books from the various areas to look at them. Most of the companies involved in this sort of activity will probably move off-shore and deal into Australia from overseas. As a consequence, they will be fairly hard to trace. I hope that when this information is being sought only a relatively small number of people will be found to be using their wits against the overall market. The market in Australia is a remarkably strong element and it has an enormous amount to contribute. All those who have been involved in the market would know that if the self-regulatory forces of the stock exchange committees work with this Commission they can make the market a more viable, a more acceptable area in which to deal. They have a credibility problem but I believe this can be overcome if they move towards the acceptance of the Commission in the best possible light.

What is the future importance of the Commission in this area? I believe that as we move into a higher level of communication, the Australian capital markets and the companies themselves will become more uniform as a consequence of time. Because of this we will find that the various stock exchanges will probably merge into one; we will find that accounting firms in Australia will probably tend to become more national and that, as a consequence, accounting standards will become more of a nationwide standard than a State by State standard as at present. I believe also that the move towards uniformity will help with the investigating process. It will certainly enable people to understand more readily what has gone on than they have done in the past. As they move towards this higher level of uniformity, the Australian capital market will become a far more efficient area and a far better area for everyone to deal in. I hope that people who live in the market will find the enormous benefit of having to deal with only one organisation- not having to register as a company in every State, not having to register every prospectus in every State with the various intricacies that go on from State to State, and not having to arrange and to continue to have a level of contact with commissioners on a State by State basis.

I am aware- I was one of the first in this area- of the problems in the early stages of being a registered dealer in New South Wales when one is not a resident of that State. I know what had to be proved across the boundary line, to deal in the Sydney market. I know of the different standards of financial backing required in Queensland, as opposed to Sydney, as opposed to Melbourne, as opposed to Perth. I believe that in time under the National Companies and Securities Commission, all these things will become uniform and the community will be much better for it. It will be a far more practical and a far greater community for those uniform approaches. I am sure that as a whole the business community will support this move towards a united approach to the National Companies and Securities Commission in Australia.

Finally, I just say this: Amongst all the people I have spoken to in the business community, I have not found any person who is against the Government’s approach. I have not found anyone who does not regard the Government’s actions in this area as anything but drawing credit to itself and to the way in which the matter has been handled by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and by the officials. I certainly hope that we will press on speedily for the establishment of this Commission. I am sure that other honourable members and those interested in this matter will look forward to the other legislation, most not- ably the takeover legislation and the legislation that comes with the National Companies Act, to ensure that in future the Australian business community will be in a far better shape.

Mr KERIN:
Werriwa

– I was somewhat amazed by the comments of the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). I appreciate that the Opposition has a fundamental, philosophic objection to the measure before the House, and that was expressed in our Bills when we brought them in in 1974. The honourable member for Ryan talked about co-operation, self-regulation and hope. I gained the impression that if we were to dream along and drift along, and all had honest motives, this problem would solve itself in the long run. The honourable member also mentioned risk-taking. I would like to point out that what is worrying us is that it seems to us to be the shareholders who are taking the risks, not so much the directors. The whole problem is that there has been so much evidence of manipulation. There was not just the abuses of the 1970 share boom. There has been so much evidence of manipulation since and it continues. There is simply so much evidence of a need for strong companies and securities legislation. I stand fully behind the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen).

This Bill is not really the main approach that the Government will take in this whole area- it simply sets up the National Companies and Securities Commission- but it gives us a chance to speak in general terms. So a national companies and securities commission Bill comes before the Parliament once more. The last one was talked to death in the Senate, after all the evidence put before a Senate committee. Bills were brought in by Senator Murphy, as he was then, but were referred to another Senate committee. The matter was talked to death before the general election in 1975. In fact June 1979 was the 20th anniversary of the first meeting of State and Federal Ministers to talk about the terms of a uniform companies law. They agreed on a model Bill within a couple of years but, as we all know, the approach did not work out in the longer run. In spite of the hard work by the Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General since the late 1950s, the work of the Eggleston Committee between 1967 and 1972, and the so-called Rae Committee’s efforts from 1970 to 1974, we really are as far away as ever from effective, unified regulation of corporations and the securities industry. The latest variation on the previous approach, devised under the banner of cooperative federalism, will bring us no closer to these objectives, let alone provide us with a model to stand the test of time.

The Australian Labor Party has a very strong view on the need for national laws on securities and exchange and companies. We are opposed to this later mealy-mouthed version of uniform legislation. Our amendment clearly sets out our objectives and, Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The amendment read as follows-

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: whilst not opposing the Bill, the House:

expresses its concern at the Government’s apparent abdication of its responsibility to make national laws for corporations and the securities industry pursuant to the Commonwealth’s own constitutional powers, and in accordance with the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange in 1974 (the Rae Report);

notes that the proposed legislative scheme places uniformity before reform, and creates both the danger and the likelihood that lowest common donominator standards will prevail;

expresses its concern at the lack of effective accountability of the proposed Commission to either the Government or Parliament of the Commonwealth, or to any other single elected Government or Parliament;

expresses its views that the Bill should be improved by redrafting it to provide for

an extension of the scope and enforceability of its financial interest provisions;

a requirement that hearings of the Commission be normally held in public;

the establishment of the proposed Companies and Securities Law Review Committee on a firm statutory basis;

the establishment on a firm statutory basis of an Accounting Standards Review Committee; and

the explicit prescription of the matters on which the Commission must annually report;

while acknowledging that pursuant to the scheduled Agreement any such proposed amendment may need to be the subject of consultation with the Ministerial Council before final acceptance by the Government, nonetheless insists upon this Parliament’s right to properly scrutinise and amend all legislation put before it by the Executive; and

calls upon the Government, in the event of the break down for any reason of the scheme embodied in the Bill, to immediately proceed to the introduction of Commonwealth legislation for the national regulation of corporations and the securities industry’.

Mr KERIN:

– I thank the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife). Before the new system can start, there must be legislative action by no fewer than eight parliaments and by 14 houses of parliament overall. I do not think that I have to elaborate on the scope there for someone, somewhere, to decide that now is not the right time for this type of action. In any event, I do not believe that this scheme will achieve the basic requirement of reform in this area of law. Once implemented it will achieve legislative uniformity but not much else. The weakest legislation of any State will prevail. Companies will simply exploit any weakness; that is the way of the corporate world.

But the new scheme will not even achieve uniformity of administration. Let me remind the House of the basic structure envisaged. There will be a ministerial council giving broad policy directives to a national companies and securities commission which will confine its actions to matters of a ‘national’ character. The corporate affairs machinery of the States will remain in being and will continue to do most of the things that they do now. That is not the way to uniform administration. That is why the Labor Party continues to press for a firm initiative on the part of the national Government. We do not want to see the operation of eight sets of controls. We do not want to see eight capital markets in this country. There is one national market, just as there is one national economy. There should be one effective uniform set of controls.

The constitutional authority of the national Government to act in this way is not in question so far as the securities industry is concerned. It is important to revitalise our economy in the capital market as we approach one of the most important periods of change in our history. The full restoration of investor confidence is critically important to the most effective operation of the capital market in this country. There is the idea now of self-regulation for the securities industry and, quite frankly, I think it is now generally accepted that self-regulation has had its day. It did not work well enough when there was the climate for it to be accepted and it is too late to try again. And the Rae Committee clearly spelt that out.

The ALP is firmly committed to the principle that there should be national companies and securities legislation and that the legislation should be administered by an independent statutory commission. The commission would obviously be one of the most important authorities in Australia and would need to bring together within its professional staff people of outstanding ability, expertise and understanding- and here, of course, I agree with the honourable member for Ryan. The ALP is not necessarily tied to the detailed provisions of the Corporations and Securities Industry Bill that we introduced in 1974 and which died in the Senate, although the thrust of what we were aiming at then was in keeping with our basic approach. In 1974, the need was demonstrated by the extent of public concern at the rampant abuses and patently corrupt practices which had been revealed in certain parts of the industry. The need is now demonstrated just as clearly by the suspicious reservations of the small to medium investors. So far as the present Government’s approach is concerned, we believe that it will create unnecessary duplication and red tape.

When former Senator Murphy, now His Honour Mr Justice Murphy, moved in the Senate on 19 March 1970 for the establishment of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, he referred to the series of company crashes that had occurred in the 1960s and to the widespread evidence of improper practices during the speculative boom in mining shares in the late 1960s andhe specu early 1970s. He drew attention then to the fact that members of the public had been induced by false rumours to buy shares, that insider trading was rife and that selfregulative bodies seemed either powerless or unwilling to act to protect the public against those market abuses and the many other market abuses that were prevalent at the time.

I have heard it said that the boom time in which these market abuses prevailed is over and that there is no point now in introducing legislation which will merely lock the stable door after the horse has bolted. It would be irresponsible for any government to base policies on such a short-sighted view. The need remains for effective legislation which will, so far as is practicable, prevent a recurrence of such abuses at any time in the future. But since the so-called boom and the Rae Committee’s report, and during the dithering and delaying by the Government, other companies have gone to the wall, costing individual investors thousands of dollars and the economy millions of dollars. I need only to instance the most recent ones: Cambridge Credit, Associated Securities Ltd, Gollin; and so it goes on. It is not as if there has been just a once and for all abuse of the share market; it continues. I remind the House of the abuses referred to in the report of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. I know that it was presented a long time ago but the evidence today is as strong as it ever was. That report was very carefully prepared. I do not think former Senator Sir Magnus Cormack was a tearing radical; nor is Senator Rae. I quote one paragraph from the summary of that report:

We discovered numerous instances of improper practices in the making of new issues, and in the distribution of previously issued shares. There has been considerable evidence of insider trading, manipulation and other abuse in the stockmarkets. We have seen much evidence of behaviour among sharebrokers, other intermediaries and advisers in the securities industry and some financial journalists which has fallen short of minimum standards of propriety, competence and financial responsibility.

Mr James:

– The honourable member for Macarthur was wrapped up in that. He was given a parcel of shares to write a favourable offer before he came in here.

Mr KERIN:

– I was not going to mention that. The chapter and paragraph headings reflect the findings of the rogues free to plunder- a horse race without stewards. For example, a few of the chapter headings are: ‘Use of the Financial Press’, ‘Who were the real managers of the company funds’, ‘The role of Patrick and Company’, ‘The construction of a non-physical presence’, ‘The multiple roles of Patrick and Company’s trading account’, and ‘Conflicts of a State Exchange Chairman’. After the tabling of the report, Mr Dowling of Patrick Partners said:

It’s very academic . . . There’s not much importance about what the Committee thinks about actions taken in the heat of the boom.

That was the comment of one person named in the report, and that was after 12,000 pages of evidence and four years of inquiry. It took the report of the Masterman inquiry set up by the New South Wales Liberal Government and carried out by the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission, through Mr Masterman, to show how academic Mr Dowling and Patrick Partners were in their actions. I think the best newspaper summary by responsible and concerned people at the time of the tabling of the Rae Committee’s report was that of Claude Forrel of the Melbourne Age. In part, he said:

The Rae report has exposed a mass of fraud, dishonesty and negligence by stockbrokers and company directors on a scale that staggers the imagination.

Exploiting a boom founded on falseness, filled with fantasy and inflated by greed, they systematically swindled hundreds of thousands of Australian and overseas investors out of millions of dollars.

So wild was the fever of speculation they deliberately kindled that even honest brokers and harassed officials felt powerless to arrest the festering dishonesty on which it was based.

And what protection did our State politicians offer us at that time? Damned little. They were too busy crowing about the splendour of a boom built on shonky snares in the delusion that paper profits are the same as mineral wealth.

Oh, yes, the young ruffian who swipes a little old lady’s handbag on the street corner can expect swift retribution in Pentridge.

But where is the shady company promoter, the snide share pusher, the smart market rigger and the sly stockbroker who have cheated a multitude of small investors out of their life savings?

Chances are that they are still in business, even if business is not so good at present. And if things get a little too hot for comfort there is always Rio to fly to, a Swiss bank account to draw on and a Brazilian mistress to lie with.

Yet, the Liberal-National Country Party Government now wants to introduce only this trifling, insipid, weak legislation. By any measure, the evidence put before us by the Rae Committee’s report shows how clearly there is a need for national legislation. The report of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange clearly showed and recommended the need for the securities industry to be subject to national legislation rather than legislation of individual States and Territories. The report made it clear that the securities industry functions on an Australia-wide basis and that control on any other basis is bound to be inadequate. The requirements of the law and the administrative procedures should be the same throughout Australia. The persons responsible for the administration of such legislation must have direct access to information in all parts of Australia. In addition, there is the consideration that there are many large corporations operating across the Australian continent for which the need to comply with the requirements of separate State and Territory laws involves pointless frustration and unnecessary costs.

One of the problems we have had with company and securities law in Australia has been that the need for changes in the law has occurred more rapidly than the responsible legislatures have been able to make these changes. It is becoming increasingly evident that it is just not enough to have an expert committee examine certain aspects of company or securities law once in every 15 to 20 years or so. There is a need, which was recognised long ago in the United States, and in the first interim report of the Eggleston Committee, for an expert body with continuity of existence to be charged with a responsibility for seeing that the laws are kept up to date at all times. No such body is proposed in the legislation before us. There is also a need for a preventative approach. The experiences of recent years have made it clear that it is not sufficient for legislation in respect of securities to prescribe rules and provide remedies that are available when those rules are broken. All too often the remedies prove to be worthless, either because the trail of the offender is well covered or because he has placed his assets beyond the reach of the persons who have been defrauded. There is a need for more emphasis to be given to the prevention of fraudulent conduct. There needs to be provision for the establishment of a strong administrative agency which will have access to relevant information and effective powers to intervene where intervention appears to be desirable.

I again come to the matter of self-regulation. The management of a stock exchange in Australia is in the hands of a committee elected from its members. The committee has responsibility for a range of matters, including the admission of new members, the disciplining of members who act improperly and the listing of securities to be traded on the market of the exchange. The Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange found that in the discharge of those regulatory responsibilities the stock exchanges in Australia had been seriously wanting. Criticism of the stock exchange committees should not overlook the fact that the committees perform very valuable functions. But there is a need for the committees to be brought under some degree of surveillance by an official body representing the public interest generally. In the United States of America this has been recognised. The Securities and Exchange Commission has been given what has been described as a ‘looking-over-the-shoulder’ role; that is to say, the immediate day-to-day management of an exchange remains with that exchange but the Commission is responsible for ensuring that the rules of the exchange are satisfactory, that those rules are properly enforced and that generally the exchange is conducted with due regard to the interests of the public.

The stock market of a stock exchange is like any other market in the sense that it is a place where the public may buy a commodity, in this case securities of corporations. The public needs protection, as it does in any other market, and the protection should be provided by appropriate laws coupled with a strong administrative agency representative of the public interest. There is also a need for prompt and adequate disclosure by corporations. Legislation cannot protect the individual against his folly or lack of judgment in the making of investments in securities but there is a need, which the legislation should recognise, to ensure that the investor has access to information which is both relevant and up to date. It should not be overlooked that the funds of public companies come from the public. These are not the pressure of directors of those companies. Relevant information should not be regarded as the exclusive property of the controllers of such companies. In particular, there is a need for the financial position of a company to be properly disclosed in its accounts, for information concerning matters significantly affecting a company’s prospects to be promptly made available and for the identity of the persons beneficially entitled to major shareholdings to be ascertainable.

The report of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange disclosed a number of undesirable market practices. Practices such as market manipulation, insider trading, short selling and dealing in undesirable conflict of interest situations, to name a few, are referred to in the report. They need to be dealt with effectively by the legislation if public confidence is to be restored in our stock markets. It is also clear from the report of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange- if it was not clear before the report- that there is a need for prospectuses by which the public is to be invited to contribute funds towards companies to be subjected before issue to a more thorough examination by the administering authorities than has been the case.

The lack of adequate investigation into prospectuses during the boom years plainly led to millions of dollars being subscribed by the investing public for worthless ventures. Apart from the inevitable losses to the individuals concerned, this involved a substantial misallocation of the country’s resources. One of the things that grieves me about this is that the lay public think that some of the companies are shonky. It is not the companies that are shonky but the practices on the stock exchanges. I name Poseidon Ltd as one example of this occurring. Finally, there is a need for appropriate investigatory powers. If one thing has been made clear in recent years, it has been that the existing methods of investigating the activities of companies and the conduct of their officers is altogether too ponderous. All too often reports that are made following investigation do little more than provide a record for history. It is of the utmost importance that company investigations be made in good time and that they be no longer impeded by the irrelevancy of State boundaries. It is for all the reasons that I have outlined that the Opposition is so dissapointed in this legislation. Rogues will be just as free to plunder the private savings of individuals as they ever were.

Mr PORTER:
Barker

-The National Companies and Securities Commission Bill is the first step towards providing a co-ordinated approach to the companies and securities industry. The honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin) detailed complaints he had about practices in the financial markets. He was really talking about the legislation which is to follow this Bill once the Commission is set up. His comments related to the takeover legislation and the companies and securities Act which will come later. Unfortunately he was not dealing with the National Companies and Securities Commission Bill which is before the House.

Let me outline the reasons for the introduction of this Bill and some of its history. For some time concern has been expressed by those in the companies and securities industry that it would be simpler and more efficient if there were one national companies Act rather than a multitude of Acts applying in the different States. Clearly, a company which operates beyond a single State has to be aware of the companies Act which is in force in the States of its operations. This has necessitated companies expending funds to ensure that they abide by the company law within a particular State. If they operate in a number of States the cost can be high. This problem will obviously be overcome to a great extent by a national companies Act. It is in the interests of those operating in the commercial sector that there be a greater degree of uniformity in both the law and administration.

A national approach to the companies and securities industry will avoid wasteful expenditure by business and governments, both State and Federal, in the duplication of parallel authorities. I shall come back to this aspect later but I say now that this is one of the failings of the Opposition’s amendment. A national approach will be capable of providing greater investor protection. I believe that this is important. After all, it is the investor’s confidence in the institutions in which he desires to invest which is basic to our economic system. Without that confidence we will not have a free enterprise system as we know it.

The Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange in 1974 investigated, amongst other things, some of the dishonest dealings during the mining boom. That Committee made the point that the present situation with different companies Acts in the various States meant that the regulation of the securities markets and the company law was fragmented and uncoordinated. The Committee proposed a national system of regulation. The method of the Government ‘s implementation of the Senate Committee’s recommendation, whilst in accordance with the general community view, differs from the Opposition’s view. The former Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) and the present Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) in line with the Government’s policies set out to implement the national companies and securities legislation with the agreement of the States. I emphasise that it was with the agreement of the States. Clearly, it is the States which have the companies legislation currently in force. Therefore, they will be directly affected by a national scheme.

Let me outline the history of this Bill. In 1974 the Rae report was released. Not long after we came to government, on 6 July 1976, the then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs announced that the Government had decided the general approach the Commonwealth should take in the area of companies and securities industry regulation. On 24 September 1976, the Minister met with State Ministers to discuss proposals relating to the scheme. On 1 1 March 1 977 Ministers agreed to recommend to their respective governments a general framework for a cooperative Commonwealth-State scheme. On 17 March the then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs made a statement in this House in relation to the progress of the legislation. On 14 May 1978 the Commonwealth and State Ministers reached final agreement for recommendations to their respective governments on a national scheme of legislation and administration. On 19 June the Commonwealth Government agreed to execute a formal document between the Commonwealth and State governments for a national scheme of legislation. On 1 December 1978 the Commonwealth and State Ministers announced that a formal agreement between the Commonwealth and each State government should be executed by the Prime Minister and State Premiers. That was done on 22 December 1978.

The Opposition in its amendment suggests that we should have acted by imposing a national companies and securities Act on this country without the agreement of the States. It has taken some time from this Government’s coming to power to the signing of the agreement last year but I suggest that the Opposition’s approach is not consistent with our federalism policy or philosophy. Further, I have already stated that the States have a detailed interest in this area and are currently responsible for its administration. Therefore, I believe that in this situation a co-operative approach with the States is a reasonable, responsible and practical attitude to adopt. There is also some doubt as to the validity of an extensive national companies and securities legislation without State co-operation. Clearly, the Federal Government does have some constitutional power in this area. The question is the extent of such power. The safe alternative is to obtain the agreement of the States. This Bill is a good example of the co-operative federalism which has existed between the State governments and the Federal Government.

It is in no small part due to the efforts of the previous and current Ministers for Business and Consumer Affairs that this Bill is now before the House. The introduction of this Bill has been unanimously agreed to by all the States. The States have agreed to introduce in due course corresponding legislation in their own State parliaments. The agreement to which I have referred, which was signed on 22 December 1978, sets out the obligations of all the parties. The obligation of the States and the Federal Government, is to set up the National Companies and Securities Commission which is the subject of this Bill. It is worth while looking at the agreement in order to see just what the intention of the parties was in setting up this Commission. The agreement which is a Schedule to the Bill provides in the preamble that the governments of the Commonwealth and States of Australia agree to provide for the uniformity of laws for companies and the regulation of the securities industry by establishing and implementing a cooperative scheme of objectives to ensure that the legislation relating to the scheme is and continues to be uniform throughout Australia at all times. The legislation is to be administered on a uniform basis through the Commission which is set up by this Bill. The Commonwealth and the States are to co-operate in the administration of the legislation and the legislation is to have the minimum of procedural requirements. Part IV of the December 1978 Agreement states that the Bill now before the House shall be substantially in conformity with the provisions of the various Companies Acts and securities regulations currently in force in the States. The Agreement requires that the National Commission shall have such functions and powers as are conferred upon it by the State governments which will enable it to carry out its functions in accordance with the Agreement.

Clause 9 of the Bill provides that the Commission shall perform its functions and exercise its powers in accordance with the Agreement and shall comply in all respects with the provisions of the Agreement that are applicable to it. The Agreement provides in Part V for the registration of company names. Part VI provides for special investigations. Such investigations in relation to companies or the regulation of the securities industry can be undertaken by the Commission if ordered by members of the Ministerial Council; that is, the appropriate Minister from each State and the Commonwealth either collectively or individually. Each State Minister is empowered to order a special investigation where it appears to that Minister that the public interest is best served by such an investigation. Also the Commission itself can ask an individual Minister or the Ministerial Council to order a special investigation, the cost of such investigation being borne by the Minister or Ministers requesting such investigation.

In order to prevent duplication and to ensure efficient operation of the new Companies and Securities Commission, each State and Territory, in accordance with the scheme as set out by the Agreement, will be required to carry out the administration of such regulations, subject to the direction of the National Commission. Such direction from the National Commission will not relate to the functions that the State administration performs under its own legislation which is not part of the national legislation. It is this prevention of duplication which I believe the Opposition’s amendment overlooks. The co-operative nature of the Agreement is clearly set out in clause 38 of Part XI of the Agreement which states:

The policy direction and general control over the administration of company law and the regulation of the securities industry throughout Australia by the Ministerial Council and by the Commission, in accordance with this Agreement shall, subject to part VI and to clause 25, and sub-clause 2, be exercised to the exclusion of individual ministerial direction and control by the responsible Minister of the Commonwealth or of the State.

Finally, in relation to the Agreement which all States and the Commonwealth have signed, the Commission is required under the Agreement and by clause 52 of this Bill to report as soon as possible after 30 June and not later than 31 October in each year on its operations, together with financial statements in respect of that year. I welcome that particular clause in the Bill because I believe that some reports which are coming to this Parliament arrive far too late. I welcome this first step towards a National Companies and Securities Act. I believe that all Australians and their businesses stand to benefit from a more efficient and effective regulatory system.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– Eleven days ago the Treasurer (Mr Howard) indulged in some back slapping. Referring to this legislation he said:

The Government’s proposals have been publicly supported by the Australian Association of Stock Exchanges and the Chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange.

On the basis of that comment it would seem that the Treasurer thought that there was sufficient evidence in that comment alone to justify success, extensive public support and indeed confidence in this legislation. I think it desirable to recall that the people of whom he spoke are representatives of an industry about which the Rae report reported scathingly. Remember that the people of that industry are the people which the Rae report found inter alia: concealed from the public and delayed vital information; engaged in serious conflicts of duty to their clients and their own personal interests; used advisory functions to push issues in which the adviser had a personal interest; used client’s funds for their own purpose; engaged in short term borrowing for speculative investments; engaged in insider trading and cornering a market.

I repeat that they were only some of the more excoriating findings of the Rae report about the securities industry and its functioning in this country.

Mr Porter:

– Did he say that all brokers were like that?

Mr HAYDEN:

-You might let me make my own speech. It will not have the same quality as yours, but for that I am thankful. All honourable members will recall the circumstances especially of the late 1960s and the early 1970s when the Rae Committee set about its investigations and subsequently its report. It was the most extensive, most thorough and the most searching inquiry of any nature I can recall in this Parliament, and certainly the most substantial one to have been undertaken in this particularly important area, and yet here, several years later, the key thrust of what Senator Rae and his colleagues reported has been totally ignored. This legislation is extremely defective. It will fail; and that I regret. The honourable member for Barker interjected: Are all brokers like that?’. Of course they are not. Some very fine people are involved in that industry. It does have an important role to contribute within our society. But the fact is that the industry has been the subject of substantial condemnation after extensive investigation by an inquiry of this Parliament, headed by Senator Rae. To put it quite bluntly, you would not buy a car with the sort of warranty outlined by the Rae report and to which I made some reference in detailing some of the rather stark and disturbing findings of the Rae inquiry into that industry.

I repeat that I have quite regular contact with a number of people in that industry. I find them a helpful source of information about how the corporate sector is functioning and about how the economy of this country is performing. But the undeniable fact is that those people, in general with that industry, are now labouring under a large disability of the industry’s reputation and its discrediting by its own defaults during the 1960s and 1970s. The little investor in this country had his fingers badly burnt in that period and he is loath to return to the market place. It is as simple as that. I would suggest in the strongest possible terms that if the key recommendations, the central findings of the Rae report had been taken up and adopted in this legislation, it would have been a pre-eminent opportunity to have shored up that loss of confidence that the small investor has suffered to the disadvantage of the securities industry in this country. That is an important view.

I repeat that this is one of the important such topics we could discuss in this Parliament and therefore I am surprised at the limited amount of time which is being made available for this discussion. In that respect I am grateful to my colleague, the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), for allowing me to speak at this stage when the arrangements were that he should be speaking. Let us look at some of the provisions of this Bill.

Mr Neil:

– He would have been better.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Yes, but I am better than you would have been. The proposal to establish a National Companies and Securities Commission is one for an authority which will have eight masters and no captain. Can you imagine such an incredible situation as putting a ship to sea with eight masters at the control at any given time with different temperaments, different objectives, different levels of determination for each objective, different destinations and with absolutely no captain? That is what it boils down to. Let me come back to the Rae report. Senator Rae for his pains and for his valuable contribution to discussion on this matter has been relegated to a permanent position on the back bench of the Senate when he should be in a prominent position in the Ministry of the Government. Senator Rae had this to say in his report:

Our recommendation is that the new national regulations body be established by the Federal Government.

I stress that point, the Federal Government. The report continued:

It is clear from the powers given in the Constitution that this Government was created to meet national needs relating to ‘foreign corporations or financial and trading corporations’ and interstate and overseas trade and commerce. In our view the time has come for the Federal Government to step in and to assume responsibilities for seeing that the securities market is properly regulated.

Senator Rae and his colleagues said two things there. The first thing was that there was no doubt in their considered view, after extensive investigation and learned advice from several sources, that federal authority existed for the national government to initiate its own legislation and for that legislation to stand firmly on constitutional grounds. Secondly, without any equivocation at all, he asserted the need for a federal authority to function in this area rather than to fragment the administration of this responsibility through several different authorities as is proposed in this legislation. Therefore I propose to give a somewhat longer quotation because of its relevance. The Rae report states: it is important to remember that although the Attorneys themselves might agree that legislation should be amended, it is then up to them to persuade their Cabinets and finally their Parliaments that such legislation should be introduced. The delays of getting legislation considered when you need 6 or rather 7 Attorneys to agree on the approach to be taken, the further delays of debating one form as opposed to another of drafting which will be favoured from State to State and finally the political hassles that go in trying to obtain passage of legislation through the Parliaments are bad enough. It is impossible to ensure uniformity when the States disagree amongst each other as to whether a proposal for reform should be adopted. If you are to have truly uniform legislation then if one State stands against the introduction of amending legislation which is regarded as important, clearly the other States should refuse also to introduce these amendments, notwithstanding the fact that it may be regarded as highly desirable by them . . . It is clear that in these circumstances the business community is thrown into chaos and disorder by having to work out what they had to do in the various States.

That criticism is as relevant, as pungent, today as it was at the time that report was compiled. I repeat, for all of his pains, for all of the diligent and intelligent effort that went into that investigation and report, the central proposals upon which the whole thrust of effective companies and securities legislation would stand have been ignored. The trouble with conservatives is that they refuse to learn the lessons of the past. That brilliant exposition of consistency and conformity in 1961 and 1962, uniform companies laws, is nothing more than a dazzling display of confusion and conflict today. It is a catalogue of the way in which, very quickly after its introduction, the States went their different ways in response to pressure groups, greater or larger in their intensity or influence- it was more likely to have been the latter- working upon them. In fact, one legal text book of 1,000 pages on this subject of uniform company law in this country devotes no fewer than at least one-third of its pages to discussing the variations and divergences that exist in so-called uniform company law between the States. It gives me no satisfaction at all to predict the same sort of o predict outcome for this legislation over time, and not over such a lengthy period as we might think.

The Commission is to be subjected to the authority of the Ministerial Council, representative of all of the States, the Northern Territory and the national Government. It has the supreme power to propose amendments. It is often said that if we give a task to a committee it will end up constructing a camel. That would be a remarkable result to come from this Ministerial Council given the fact that it laboured for so long before this legislation was finally produced, and allowing for the fact that there are clear and substantial differences between the various State Attorneys-General. Furthermore, these differences, over time, will become pronounced. The fact is that the way this legislation is drafted, it will fall apart with the pressure of these divergences in the near future.

Let us look at some of the complexities that are going to arise, some of the turgid problems that will swell out and clog the whole process of this legislation and allow field days for the crooks who like to operate in fringe areas- I trust they are restricted to fringe areas; they were and I trust that they are now- of the industries to be covered by it. There will have to be a majority decision in the Ministerial Council before a change can be taken, before it can be authorised. But before that can happen the change has to go through the parliaments of all of the States and of the Commonwealth. That is no small feat in this country. What I cannot understand is why the Government has sold out its responsibility in this area and failed to implement uniform national legislation. Section 51, placitum (xx), of the Constitution extends that power to the Australian Government. The Rae report has quoted it. There is substantial and extensive legal authority to justify that view. Yet the Government has not done so. Why has it not done so? One can only define this abrogation of national responsibility as a clear display of cowardice on the part of the national Government. Article 32 ( 1 ) of the Agreement in the Schedule to the Bill states that the National Companies and Securities Commission is subject only to ministerial Council authority. That gives it splendid remoteness from effective parliamentary regulation and control.

Many of us have experienced in the pastsome are experiencing it now- the bureaucratic in-fighting; the way in which experienced and determined bureaucrats can create a situation, develop strategy and mobilise forces, including the manipulation of Ministers. Those of us who have had this experience can really appreciate the sort of result that is likely to arise here where there are eight masters and no captain to be manipulated. I repeat that this legislation, because of the diffuseness of the authority between the various Attorneys-General, gives the Commission splendid remoteness from the proper authority and surveillance of the parliamentary system. Article 38(1) reinforces the point I make. It states:

The policy direction and general control over the administration of company law and the regulation of the securities industry throughout Australia by the Ministerial Council and by the Commission in accordance with this agreement shall, subject to Pan VI and to class 25 and to sub-clause (2), be exercised to the exclusion of individual Ministerial direction and control by the responsible Minister of the Commonwealth or of the State.

I suggest that this legislation, and the general pattern that the functioning of the various institutions under this legislation projects, will reflect the appearance of a pakapu ticket after a very short time of its authority operating. There will be problems of direction and control with such fragmented authority as is proposed under the Ministerial Council. To reinforce the assertion that I make, I remind honourable members of the uniform companies legislation in this country and the disastrous mess that it is now in. What the Government has done is to settle for uniformity at the expense of reform. This is law of not only the lowest but also the slowest common denominator. In the case of the Queensland Government, there is another fetter to progress, given its prospensity to elevate speculation to a high art form.

All of what I have said very simply boils down to this: I have absolutely no confidence in this system operating expeditiously and effectively in the public interest. What the Government has sought for some curious reason is to buy off some imagined pressures from the States. Certainly, there was some pressure from conservative States, but the Labour States, most certainly in the case of South Australia and New South Wales, made it clear that they would have preferred effective uniform legislation, which they defined as legislation which could be legislated solely by the national Government. The socalled future co-operative arrangement is destined to founder. Honourable members should imagine the sorts of problems that are going to arise when essential amendments are to be considered. Any maverick upper house of any Parliament in this country can reject or impede that legislation or in some way change the thrust of what is proposed.

It will not be very long in the process of things before this legislation will become almost unrecognisable and increasingly less and less effective in its working arrangement. That is the sort of defectiveness that worries honourable members on this side of the House. So the buy off has been at the pressure of the State governments. The buy off presumably has been because of pressure from the securities industry, although in my experience of that industry, which is not minimal, it would have been prepared to accept reasonable federal legislation. But the public interest has been totally abrogated. It is the investor in the community about whom we should be concerned most of all. I repeat what I said earlier: If the investor in this community does not have confidence in the institutions which are handling his investment on the basis of their recent history, if he lacks confidence in the sort of legislation which is brought forward allegedly to control this industry, and if he sees it breaking down, crumbling and falling apart as he inevitably will because of the clear defectiveness of this legislation, he is not going to invest at the rate which is desirable in this community. That is what is happening in the community today. The most repeated complaint I hear from people in the securities industry is that the little investor will not come back and invest in the way in which he used to invest. Why not? Because he has had his fingers burnt seriously once and he is reluctant to do it again. This is an excellent opportunity for the right sort of legislation to be brought in effectively to regulate this industry without being stultifying about it, to re-establish small investor confidence in the community. Let me quote again from what Senator Rae had to say in some relevant areas. He stated:

The evidence has repeatedly established that the securities market is a national market. Each of the stock exchanges functions as part of a national network.

He went on:

Clearly, given the national character of the activities of many companies, nationally uniform standards should apply wherever the place of incorporation.

Why have we not had some explanation of why these central features of the Rae report were not followed? That report thoroughly investigated this industry, brought out its regard and showed why there was a loss of public confidence and more, importantly and I say this with some passion, exposed why people were hurttrusting, decent little people of this community who, in many cases, put their life savings on trust into various sectors of the Australian corporate sector and had their fingers burnt for their pains. Why were these key elements of those proposals not followed? Let me move on. There will be State officers of corporate affairs continuing in their functions. Again I want to quote from the legislation. It states:

The Commission in enjoined ‘to have regard to the principle of the maximum development of a decentralised capacity to interpret and promulgate the uniform policy and administration of the scheme’.

That is a brilliant contradiction in words and declaration. On the one hand there has to be a maximum development of decentralisation and on the other a maximum consistency of administration. It is sheer nonsense. Anyone who has had experience in that sort of decentralised administration at the State level of what is proposed as a national piece of uniform legislation will realise how this legislation will reel and totter and fall apart. This Bill is a declaration of fragmentation and degeneration of the national companies and securities legislation. It is extraordinarily deficient, but it is most glaringly deficient in its obligation to look after the interest of the investor of this community. In that it fails. It is disturbing that it has ignored the central thrust of the Rae report. It is appalling that the Government should have completely abrogated, in the most cowardly way, its undoubted legislative authority to enact uniform national legislation and to administer it efficiently, consistently and properly at the national level.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I support the amendment so ably moved by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen). This legislation is a clear abrogation of national responsibility. I suggest that if shareholders, the small investors, the business community and particularly the community as a whole seek to achieve any sense of stability, comfort or long term security from this piece of legislation and the subsequent complementary legislation- that is, the takeovers and companies and securities Bills- then regrettably they will be seriously disillusioned. The legislation accurately reflects the do-nothing approach of all conservative governments in a particularly critical and important area. It was E. S. Turner who, in the central thesis of his brilliant book Roads to Ruin, best defined this Government’s approachindeed, that of all conservative governments- to this issue when he said:

Gad Sir, I’m a Conservative. I believe in reform provided it changes nothing.

This legislation could be summed up in two simple, brief sentences: If you are an honest investor, beware. If you are a market or company shark, it is business as usual. The Schedule to the Bill sets out the agreement made on 22 December 1978 between the Commonwealth and the States. The object of the agreement is to provide a uniform scheme of legislation and administration in the area of companies and securities industry regulation. There is to be no transfer of power by the States to the Commonwealth; rather there is agreement by the parties to submit complementary legislation once agreed upon by the Ministerial Council. I should make the simple observation that the agreement may not be enforceable in a court of law because of its governmental character. This was the case in the Railway Standardisation Agreement in South Australia v. the Commonwealth in 1 962.

Let us look at some of the bad features of this piece of legislation. Firstly, it provides for the lowest common denominator approach. Obviously, the most conservative States will set the pattern. Secondly, we will use the 1961 legislation of some of the States in the early 1980s. Therefore, we will be behind the eight ball before we even start. Thirdly, we will face enormous difficulties. This includes co-operation. Attitudes will depend on the political colour of the State and Federal governments and each State’s attitude to the Commonwealth Government. Fourthly, in many ways the situation will be worse than it is now. Instead of one body controlling the industry, which would be ideal, there will be a federal bureaucracy superimposed over a number of State bureaucracies. It will be slow, it will be cumbersome. Some States have weak investigatory staffs and this obviously will have a downstream effect. Fifthly, in its submission to the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange about Labor’s proposed Bill 1975, the Federal Attorney-General’s Department rejected the co-operative approach. Why did it do so? Because the problem with joint legislation is that the regulation of it finished up being nobody’s responsibility. Sixthly, the scheme will be, in effect, conducive to public confusion and inevitably will create a sloth-like reaction to market developments. That, I would have thought, is obvious.

The Bill is extremely vague as to the powers and functions of the Commission, although it is clear, firstly, that the Commission will be totally subservient to the Ministerial Council. That is provided for in clause 7 of the Bill and clause 32 (i) of the agreement. Secondly, it will have no rule or regulation making power of its own. That is provided for as set out in clause 22 of the agreement. Responsibility for companies and securities now will be diffused amongst the governments represented on the Ministerial Council. This means that responsibility for the laws operating in a particular jurisdiction cannot be sheeted home to the government of that jurisdiction.

Let me put another perspective on it. In order for the scheme to survive in a uniform state, it is necessary for the Commonwealth Parliament and all six State parliaments to concur with the proposals of the Ministerial Council. If, for example, the Senate were to decide to reject a proposal agreed to by a majority of the Council, it would inevitably put great strain on the cooperative foundations of the scheme. Depending on the significance of the proposal, it could lead to one or more States withdrawing from the agreement. Dr Rose has enlarged on this scenario by stating:

It seems unlikely, given the pressures and controversies which arise in respect of the regulation of this industry, that all Parliaments would for long accept major inroads into their sovereignty and agree tamely with the decisions of the council.

The scheme provides that the substantive regulatory legislation will be in the form of a companies and securities industry ordinance for the Australian Capital Territory and that national uniformity will be achieved by each State enacting legislation mirroring that ordinance. In this way the Commonwealth law will operate only in the Australian Capital Territory and the State laws will operate in each of the respective States. Consequently, any State which found itself in a minority in any vote on the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities would still be in a powerful and independent position. It could at any time dissent from a decision of the Ministerial Council or withdraw from the whole scheme simply by passing appropriate negating legislation in its own State. In addition, as the agreement provides for the maintenance of existing State administrations, there are no consequent practical problems for a State opting out of the system.

If on the other hand the Commonwealth legislation were to be based on the Commonwealth’s corporations power under the Constitution and, as with the Labor Government’s Bill, made to apply to the whole Commonwealth, then it would not be so simple for a State to pass legislation different from that of the Commonwealth. If a State attempted to do so, a challenge in the High Court of Australia would probably ensue in order to determine the validity of the Commonwealth Act. As it stands, the scheme set up by this Bill does not involve the immediate threat of overriding Commonwealth law in the event of a State’s withdrawing from the agreement. Consequently, there is no legislation guaranteeing continued uniformity. Urgent action to remedy weaknesses or difficulties with a uniform law is unlikely. In effect, proposals for change have to be submitted to the Ministerial Council. Fourteen days notice is the general requirement for a special meeting of the Council. Any amendment agreed to will not take effect until the Commonwealth legislates. Long delays in Commonwealth action are inevitable. As a result of clause 44 (c) of the agreement, no individual State government may unilaterally amend its own laws for six months from the date of the amendment approved by the Ministerial Council.

Effective regulation of the securities markets involves the capacity of an administering body to react quickly to market developments. I would have thought that that would have been critically important in any consideration of a Federal Act or uniform law. The proposed format for reacting to market developments with legislative changes is obviously suited to the horse and buggy era. It has little to todays market realities. Fifty years ago the Americans realised what was necessary to deal with the securities market in a federation of States. The United States Government made full use of its constitutional powers to set up its own administrative agency- the Securities and Exchange Commission. That agency was vested with wide enforcement and law making powers. The Australian body has no chance whatsoever of emulating the success of the SEC. The lack of independence and power of the proposed Commission contrasts with the position of the SEC in regard to the rules and regulation making powers. In short, the proposed cooperative scheme is incompatible with strong legislation and with the need to respond quickly and effectively to unforeseen developments in the market place. I suggest that it is a recipe for extremely weak legislation for which no individual government will be politically accountable. It is the very opposite to what the Rae Committee rightly urged was necessary for the regulation of Australia’s securities market. It is worth repeating what the Rae Committee concluded. I do not know whether Senator Rae still supports this view, but this was the Committee’s view:

Our recommendation is that the new national regulatory body be established by the Federal Government. It is clear from the powers given in the Constitution that this Government was created to meet national needs relating to ‘foreign corporations or financial and trading corporations’ and interstate and overseas trade and commerce … In our view the time has come for the Federal Government to step in and to assume responsibilities for seeing that the securities market is properly regulated.

I suppose it could be well argued that no matter what one’s philosophy is, companies and securities industry law should be enacted and administered centrally. There are one or two aspects in relation to the agreement that deserve to be commented upon. Firstly, the part dealing with names and registration is a compromise, I suggest, which only partially solves the problem of companies wishing to carry on business across State borders. The ultimate aim ought to be that a body can register in one place without the need for other jurisdictions to become involved. That is what will happen under this scheme. However, this would require a central index and it would be expensive. The method proposed seems to be the best alternative in the circumstances.

Secondly, the provisions regarding special investigations are a very good example of the difficulty of running a co-operative scheme. It is obvious if one reads them carefully that State Ministers were not prepared to give up their powers to the Ministerial Council or the National Commission. One cannot be too critical of State Ministers in this regard. Ministers who are active in the field and who are prepared to order special investigations could well be prevented from doing so if they did not have the right themselves. This will occur. It is an example of a fairly complex solution to a problem which results from there being a co-operative scheme. Part XI deals with State and Territory administrations. The comment can be made that the Northern Territory ought to be a full member of the Commission. The Minister ought to explain why it is not a full member.

Very little is said about the Act itself. The Commission appears to have sufficient power to act in the area. The legislation provides that it can hold hearings, examine people under oath, summon witnesses, take evidence and, in fact, get to the bottom of any matter if it chooses to do so. I suggest that the real question will be whether the Commission uses its teeth. The provisions exist for the Commission to conduct inquiries, give directions to the States and play a very active role both in the administration and law reform areas. The success of the Commission will depend to a great extent upon the people who are appointed to the Commission. If the Ministerial Council appoints a person who basically regards the position as one for retirement, the whole scheme is simply a wasted effort. If, on the other hand, people are appointed who are active in the field, who know the Companies Act and the securities industry, who are prepared to administer the legislation forcibly and to criticise the legislation when it is inadequate, perhaps there is some chance of it providing some advantages for the Australian business community.

The Securities and Companies Law Review Committee established under the legislation will also have to be active and practical in its approach. In the past years, efforts to review the law have not been altogether successful because there has been no constant review of the law. If the Law Review Committee provides such a constant review and is able to report regularly to the Ministerial Council- I suggest that it ought to equally report to this Parliament- if it forecasts to Parliament areas of difficulty and legislation follows closely upon such reports, then perhaps the scheme will have achieved its purpose. But the legislation does not provide for an accounting standards review committee. The Companies Act provides for accounts to be prepared in a particular way and for those accounts to reflect a true and fair view of the companies’ position.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me make a pertinent observation. The exact meaning of ‘ true and fair’ is unclear. The general opinion is that it means: In accordance with generally accepted accounting procedures’. The existing Companies Act requires the presentation of a true and fair view, not the true and fair view. That phrase suggests that there may be several true and fair views. In particular, I suggest that Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd is a classic case. I think that some of the difficulty could be resolved if the Federal Act defined what it means by ‘true and fair’. I do not think that the legislation can come to grips with this problem until some form of accounting standard review committee is established. Honourable members who have taken part in this debate will know of the terms of Schedule IX of the Companies Act. We are told that the standards set down by the

Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia are far more effective than those provided for in the Schedule to the Bill. The difference between the two is that on the one hand the provision in the companies law is enforceable and on the other hand the standard laid down by the chartered accountants is not. Yet if we transmitted a high proportion of the criteria laid down by the Institute of Chartered Accountants and put that into Schedule IX of the Companies Act, we could do a lot to upgrade accounting standards and make them far more effective and efficient.

I will conclude on this note. Indeed, if the protracted and rancorous gestation period prior to the formal agreement is any indication, in my view the possibility of an efficient and agreeable operation of the scheme is extremely doubtful. The Government’s approach to this legislation is best summed up by Professor Christopher Stone in his book titled Where the Law Ends. He says:

We have arranged things so that people who call the shots do not have to bear the full risks.

In order to overcome this imbalance perhaps the Minister ought to have placed on his staff the Emir of Bokhara. This is set out in that wonderful book by Fitzroy Maclean, A Person From England, where it states:

The Emir … of Bokhara, son of the infamous Nasrullah … A pious Moslem, he had the reputation of enforcing both civil and religious laws with severity, but also with justice.

A close watch was kept on the accounts. Undue luxury or display on the part of others was also sharply discouraged and, while showing relative clemency towards the poor and weak, the Emir would inflict the most severe punishments on the rich and powerful. In this way he had won for himself amongst the people the title . . . ‘Killer of Elephants and Protector of Mice’.

Might I suggest that in Australia it is the reverse. Might I also suggest that he would not have survived very long in the Australian corporate sector. I regret to say that this corporate scheme has got little chance of success. There is only one way in which it can be overcome and that is by a Federal Act.

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

– This has been a most interesting debate. One thing that is quite evident is that both sides of the House support a national initiative in this field. Both sides of the House have expressed general support for Commonwealth involvement in the companies and securities area. But, of course, nothing has changed so far as philosophy is concerned. During the course of this debate the Opposition has made it quite clear that in government it would pursue the same line that it pursued when it was in government before, both in relation to companies and securities legislation and also in relation to any other matter that concerns the States. In the former Administration, Minister after Minister made it clear to State Ministers that given time the States, with a Federal Labor government, would become merely agents of the Commonwealth. If honourable members believe that I am exaggerating let me say to them that when I was a State Minister, Ministers said that to me. Some of those honourable members are still in this Parliament.

The former Labor Government opted for a unilateral action by the Commonwealth insofar as it proposed to legislate in this field without consultation with the States, and it proposed to rely solely on the Commonwealth legislative powers. Today the Opposition continues to pursue this line. On the other hand, this Government has consistently preferred an approach of cooperation with the States rather than enacting unilateral legislation. The Government has recognised the importance of both Commonwealth and State interests and expertise in this area. Accordingly, the Commonwealth negotiated the formal agreement which has been referred to several times during this debate. We negotiated the formal agreement with the States for a Commonwealth and State co-operative- I emphasise the word ‘co-operative’- scheme. It is the Government’s firm view that joint Commonwealth and State involvement is the most effective way of promoting commercial certainty, of bringing about a reduction in business costs, of encouraging greater efficiency of the capital markets, and in maintaining investor confidence in the security markets through suitable provisions for investor protection.

When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) entered the debate he made reference to a statement made by my colleague, the Treasurer (Mr Howard), when the Treasurer indicated that there was wide support for this cooperative scheme. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition set about to ridicule the comments of the Treasurer. Let me say that not only have industry spokesmen supported the scheme, but indeed the six State governments have supported this scheme and these six State governments have asked the Commonwealth to proceed in this way. At the time that the States were urging the Commonwealth to proceed in this field there were three Labor State governments, three Labor Attorneys-General and three other Liberal Party or National Country Party Attorneys-General meeting with me. The six State representatives were as one in urging that this scheme be proceeded with.

There seems to be some misunderstanding on the part of some members of the Opposition. Indeed, it was clear that the Leader of the Opposition does not have a full understanding of how the legislation can be amended. It is true that the initial legislation must be agreed to by all the participating governments and Parliaments before the scheme can be put into operation. But once the legislation has been enacted the Commonwealth companies legislation and the Commonwealth securities industry legislation will be the only legislation that will need to be amended in order to change the law. In accordance with the agreement that has been entered into between the Commonwealth and the States it will be necessary for the Ministerial Council to reach agreement- not unanimously as suggested by at least one honourable member of the Opposition- by a majority vote. If the Ministerial Council, by majority vote, approves of an amendment the Commonwealth Government can proceed to present that amendment to this Parliament for the consideration of honourable members of the House of Representatives and honourable senators in the Senate. I repeat that in that circumstance it will be necessary only to amend the Commonwealth Act.

I now return to the amendments that have been moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen). I want to deal with each of these amendments because of the importance of the legislation, and also because I understand that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be moving detailed amendments in Committee. Some of what I will have to say now will be relevant to those amendments to be moved later in the Committee stages. I want to make it clear that the Government has in no way abdicated its responsibility. This has been suggested by the Opposition. Indeed, all the speakers for the Opposition made this assertion. I repeat that the Government has not abdicion. I ated its responsibility. It has sought to promote the scheme which it considers will be the most efficient means by which the uniform laws for the companies and securities industry can be implemented. It will ensure that administration is immediately effective, particularly given that the National Companies and Securities Commission will be able to utilise the available expertise in this very complex area. The Government has recognised the fundamental need for reform in this area. It has been suggested that this is not so. I repeat that the Government has recognised the fundamental need for reform in this are:..

In the second reading speech of the Bill I said that the Government believes that it has certain national responsibilities in this field which can only be discharged by a significant level of Commonwealth involvement. This is what we have said, this is what we propose, and this is in accordance with the action that we have taken. The States have also recognised the need for a national scheme to provide uniformity in both the companies and securities laws and its administration. The agreement reached in effect will implement the scheme which will attack the problems that have been identified by the Rae Committee.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition further in his proposed amendment referred to the proposed legislative scheme placing uniformity before reform. Let me say at once that uniformity is indeed an important component of the co-operative scheme. We do not deny this. The Rae report in fact highlighted the lack of uniformity in the law and its administration in this field. The legislation, which will apply nationally, will be substantially in conformity with the provisions of the companies Acts, the securities industries Acts and marketable securities Acts in force in the States which are parties to the Interstate Corporate Affairs Agreement. However, the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities has considered and is considering urgent reform which will be included in the substantive companies and securities legislation which will be introduced into this House at a later date.

The Government does not agree with the assertion by the Opposition that there is a lack of accountability. Under the provisions of clause 52 of the Bill the NCSC is required to prepare an annual report and financial statements by 31 October each year. The accounts are required to be audited by the Commonwealth AuditorGeneral, who will report to the Ministerial Council. The Commonwealth Minister is required in turn to lay the NCSC report and financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General before both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament within 15 sitting days of his receiving them. In addition, under the provisions of clause 8 of the Bill the Commission must provide to the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities such reports relating to performance of its functions or exercise of its powers as the Ministerial Council requires.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition draws attention in his proposed amendment to the financial interest provisions. The Government believes that the scope of the laws relating to financial interest provides the public with adequate protection. I refer the honourable member, and indeed all honourable members, to clause 19 of the Bill, which deals with the Register of Financial Interests and to clause 49 of the Bill, which deals with notification of interest. This protection is reinforced by clause 48 of the Bill, which deals with the restrictions on dealings in securities.

The Opposition seeks to make alterations in relation to the hearings of the Commission. I wish to make it clear that this Government would not wish to pre-empt the circumstances in which hearings should be heard in public or private. Such decisions should be made by the Commission having regard only to the particular circumstances of the matter and the subject of the inquiry. The Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities has agreed that the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee, which will assist the Ministerial Council in reviewing the legislation, should not be a statutory body. Creation of another statutory body in addition to the NCSC would in our view create unnecessary administrative difficulties, particularly given that it is to be only an advisory body.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also referred to the establishment of an accounting standards review committee. On previous occasions I have drawn attention to the fact that the Ministerial Council is giving consideration to the establishment of an accounting standards review committee. This matter is still under consideration by the Council. It will be given further consideration and a decision will be taken at a later date. Dealing with the last points that were covered by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, it would be most unusual to prescribe the detail of matters on which the Commission must report annually. The Government is of the very firm opinion that the accountability provisions contained in the Bill are indeed adequate.

Question put-

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Lionel Bowen’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Hon. Ian Robinson)

AYES: 72

NOES: 33

Majority….. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 1 8- by leave- taken together.

Mr NEIL:
St George

– I want to deal particularly with clause 7 and the associated part of the Agreement which deals with special investigations. Clause 7 provides that the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities, the Minister or a State Minister may give directions to the National Companies and Securities Commission pursuant to the Agreement. One of those areas in which directions may be given presumably is that referred to in clause 16 of Part VI of the agreement, which deals with special investigations. The first point to note about clause 7 is the potential for a conflict in respect of policy matters because it may be that the Commission will receive directions from a Minister which conflict with the overall policy of the Commission. Under clause 32 of Part X of the Agreement the functions of the Commission shall be to have and to exercise, subject only to directions from time to time of the Ministerial Council, responsibility for the entire area of policy and administration with respect to company law and the regulation of the securities industry’. What would happen if a State Minister were to give a direction in respect of a special investigation that runs contrary to the policy determined by the Commission?

Mr Jacobi:

– He has to pay the costs.

Mr NEIL:

– As the honourable member says, he has to pay the costs. But there is more to it than that. The Commission will determine the broad policy, as I understand the matter, on prosecutions through the Ministerial Council. This is most important because at present in Victoria and New South Wales the approaches to prosecutions are completely different. In Victoria the general view taken is that prosecutions are launched for summary or relatively minor offences in an attempt to get a quick hearing and to have directors convicted so that they lose their rights to be directors for some years. In other words, simple and quick procedures are taken to put the directors out of business. However, in New South Wales the authorities operate on the grand canvas and they very regularly initiate special investigations into or prosecutions for conspiracy which take months and even years to finalise. In New South Wales there are numerous examples of political witch-hunts by the left wing Attorney-General in that State, Mr Walker, whose sole aim is to try to destroy business wherever he can.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Get out, you fascist.

Mr NEIL:

– You get out. The machinery problems that might arise under the Agreement are important and the evidentiary problems -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Newcastle will withdraw that remark.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Well, I ask for withdrawal of the remark that the honourable member made about the Attorney-General of New South Wales.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Newcastle -

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– He is a gutless type and he knows it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The Committee will come to order. The Chair simply asks the honourable member for Newcastle to withdraw the expression he used.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Well, he is a fascist, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable member for Newcastle knows full well that he cannot challenge the authority of the Chair in that fashion. I require the honourable member to withdraw the comment otherwise I shall be required to deal with him.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Chairman, if he is entitled to use that sort of language in reference to a friend of mine, I am entitled to name him for what I believe him to be.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Newcastle will withdraw.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I withdraw it. I now ask that the term used in respect of Mr Walker also be withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Quite apart from the propriety of the remark alleged to have been made by the honourable member for St George, the Chair was not able to determine whether an offensive expression was used owing to the disorderly behaviour of the Committee. In any event, if such a reflection was made it would not be contrary to the Standing Orders if it related to a member of another place.

Mr NEIL:

– What Mr Walker has been doing in New South Wales by way of special investigations and prosecutions has been to persecute his political opponents wherever possible. He has adopted the practice of issuing warrants for the arrest of persons, very often on Friday afternoons and very often after having given Press handouts before the warrants have been issued, and in many cases the defendants have been arrested without knowing that they were to be arrested. They have been dragged before the courts. They have had television cameras on them. It is all part of an attempt by the -

Mr Jacobi:

- Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. I suggest that the honourable member should get to the substance of the clause of the Bill. He is not dealing with it at all.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The Chair is not yet persuaded to accept that honourable member for St George is not being relevant to the Bill but

I ask him to address his remarks to the clause to which he is referring.

Mr NEIL:

- Mr Chairman, I am dealing with clause 7, which refers to a Minister being able to give directions to the Commission with respect to the performance of any of the functions or powers of the Commission. The directions that can be given by a Minister to the Commission relate to special investigations, which are provided for in clause 16 of the agreement, and to prosecutions. It is interesting to note that in cases such as that of Mr Miller, who is a supporter of the National Country Party and who was put on the board of Qantas Airways Ltd by the Government, and that of a member of this House, extraordinary proceedings have been taken. But what has happened to the special investigation into the Whale Car Wash?

Mr Holding:

- Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. The honourable member has referred to proceedings against a member of this House. That matter is clearly sub judice and should not be referred to. If the honourable gentleman opens up the matter he is clearly in breach of Standing Orders. I believe that he should not proceed in that way and that you should rule his remarks out of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! As a consequence of that point of order, I remind the honourable member for St George that he is required to address himself to the clause and it would be helpful to the Committee in the extreme if he were to refrain from referring to personalities.

Mr NEIL:

- Mr Chairman, I am referring to clause 7 and I am referring to special investigations. I am not referring to prosecutions that have now been brought against any member of this House. I refer further to the special investigation in New South Wales into the case of the Whale Car Wash. (Quorum formed). It is an open scandal in New South Wales that the reason why Mr Walker and his cohorts have sat on the Whale Car Wash investigation for three years -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member is out of order.

Mr NEIL:

-I am referring to a special investigation.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member has been ruled out of order on that point.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

-Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. My point of order is that there is no amendment to these clauses. Not one amendment has been moved by the honourable member. The issue is whether the -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! There is no point of order.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– There is, Mr Chairman. The honourable member has to talk about whether he agrees with the Bill. He obviously agrees with it. That is the point.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There is no point of order. The time of the honourable member for St George has expired.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I shall take up the time of the Committee for only a couple of minutes.

Mr Yates:

- Mr Chairman, I move: That the honourable member for St George be granted an extension of time.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Holt is not in a position to move that motion after I have called the honourable member for Hawker.

Mr JACOBI:

– I suggest that the exhibition of the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) was a disgrace. I suggest also that he should at least study the Bill. He ought at least to understand the legislation he is debating. Insofar as special investigations are concerned, a Minister can act unilaterally within his State. That is the prerogative of a State Attorney-General with regard to special investigations. But he is precluded from doing so if the matter is outside State jurisdiction or if he has failed to get Ministerial Council approval. The honourable member for St George talked sheer nonsense for 10 minutes. We have more important things to do tonight than to listen to such talk. The second matter to which I suggest the honourable member should address himself is simply this: The Commonwealth Minister can act in the national interest, but if he does so it is at his cost. As I have said, we have more important things to do tonight than to listen to the honourable member for St George and I suggest that he should improve himself in the next hour. On this matter, as on every other matter, he does not know what he is talking about.

Mr NEIL:
St George

-The provisions in respect of special investigations state that the power to order special investigations shall be exercisable exclusively by the members of the Ministerial Council either collectively as the Ministerial Council or individually and that the Minister responsible for the administration in one of the States shall be empowered to order a special investigation where it appears in the public interest to do so. Firstly, I wish to raise the question of evidence. I understand that where companies keep records by computer at present the laws of evidence are insufficient to cover the particular situations that we would want to deal with. I expect that subsequently we will have to introduce some uniform evidence laws to assist with the situation, otherwise it will be very difficult in a special investigation or a subsequent prosecution to find out exactly what is the situation. It may be for this reason that no proceedings have been taken against Mr Sid Chambers, a very well known person and a leading supporter of the Australian Labor Party, in respect of whom an investigation has been undertaken because he is part of the directorship of a certain company. The New South Wales Government has been sitting on that investigation for three years.

One would want to know why it is that recently there has been immense criticism about the special investigations procedures in New South Wales. I say to the Committee that before the substantive legislation comes into operation and as soon as possible after this worthy legislation comes into operation, this Government, a judicial inquiry or the National Companies and Securities Commission, if it is within its power to do so, should undertake a comprehensive and complete inquiry into the activities of the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission and the New South Wales Attorney-General in respect of special investigations. It will be completely impossible to apply any uniform law throughout Australia if there are two completely conflicting interpretations of the practice and procedure in respect of special investigations and prosecutions, which we now have in New South Wales and Victoria.

It is of considerable interest to note that in the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission itself, which is charged with most of the special investigations, there is complete turmoil. There is conflict between the accountants and the police officers. There is low morale. There has been a tremendous expansion of personnel in that area. Many hundreds of additional people have been put into the Commission in the past few years and it has had an abysmal record ultimately where convictions are concerned. Many of the special investigations have resulted in no convictions, either because those investigations were originally ill-founded as a matter of law or simply because they were political witchhunts which were designed to persecute people and which had no foundation in law. It is also interesting to note that one of the special investigators appointed some time ago by the New South Wales Government was a Mr Pettit.

Consideration interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House I shall report progress.

Progress reported.

page 2351

ADJOURNMENT

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Fife:

– I require that the question be put forthwith without debate.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2351

NATIONAL COMPANIES AND SECURITIES COMMISSION BILL 1979

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Mr NEIL:

- Mr Pettit was one of the most senior officers of the Corporate Affairs Commission- a deputy commissioner- and he was recently transferred from his job. It is well known that Mr Pettit was one of the most experienced and most respected officers in the Corporate Affairs Commission. For many years he had worked in the Public Service. He was highly qualified and I have never heard of any word of criticism being directed against him. Recently he was transferred out of his job into another job, and the only reason that one can envisage why that occurred is that he refused to find or authorise any adverse findings in respect of this special investigation. That investigation was taken out of his hands and given to Mr Finnane. Mr Pettit, who said that the matter should not proceed, was thrown out of his job. The public wants to know why. The other gentleman was a Mr Greenwood.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Chairman, I wish to raise a point of order. A number of times this evening in this debate you have had to draw the attention of the honourable member for St George to the subject matter of the debate. I would ask that you do so once again. I do not think that this debate is about the honourable member for St George’s alleged history of the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable member for Grayndler has made his point. The honourable member for St George is required to remain relevant and to avoid undue emphasis on personalities.

Mr NEIL:

-I am dealing with special investigations. Another person closely concerned with many special investigations in New South Wales over many years was Deputy Commissioner Mr Greenwood, who has been noted as an authority on the subject. He has given speeches on the subject and he has been very closely involved. Mr Greenwood was transferred out of his job a few weeks ago.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On a point of order, I request that you, Mr Chairman, ask the honourable member to remain relevant to what the Parliament is debating at present, and not continue with his own misguided interest in the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The Chair is not inclined to ask the honourable member for St George again to remain relevant and not to engage in discussion on personalities. If he persists with that practice the Chair will be required to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr NEIL:

-I make it clear that what is essential on two grounds is a complete and full inquiry into the whole operations of the Corporate Affairs Commission in New South Wales, in particular in relation to special investigations which are dealt with by a combination of clause 7 and clauses 16 and 17 of the agreement. If this is not done then we cannot proceed to initiate the main legislation. This Bill enables us to set up the National Commission, which is an excellent innovation but, unless we are able to provide uniformity of approach in the areas of special investigations and proceedings following special investigations- which is what the Opposition is arguing for- it will not be possible in those areas to be sure that a uniform approach is being adopted throughout Australia. I would not wish this Government to be taking under its wing through this National Commission such a situation of grave concern as applies in New South Wales. We are entitled to know that we are taking over into the national system entities which will be able to fulfil properly the intentions of the joint governments in respect of the National Commission’s administration. One only has to look at clause 37 of the agreement that goes with the Bill to see, as honourable members have said, that there shall be administration to the maximum extent by the entities and personnel of the States or Territories. Unless honourable members are able to say with confidence that the activities of those entities and personnel are above reproach and are in accordance with proper principles and proper traditions of the legal profession, then we can have no confidence that the future of this Bill will be as it should be- namely, to provide a proper national framework for uniform companies supervision. The sooner the situation in New South Wales is investigated the sooner this House can have confidence that this Bill will be effective.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– I had not proposed to enter this debate. However, the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) not only traversed issues which by their very nature are sub judice but also, in so doing, was concerned to attack the Attorney-General of New South Wales and Mr Finnane- he agrees with that- as part of an ongoing campaign which suggests that company investigations which have been carried out in that State have been unique in as much as they have involved bias, prejudice and procedures which were completely at variance with any principle of natural justice. If that is so, what I find absolutely extraordinary is why the honourable member for St George and all the honourable gentlemen opposite who have been so vociferous about what has occurred in New South Wales have remained absolutely mute hi a situation where, under a Liberal Government in Victoria, there have been a large number of investigations. Between 1974 and the middle of last year there were no less than 22 companies which were the subject of investigation.

Government members are the people concerned to raise these great matters of natural justice. How was it that all the members in this Parliament who come from Victoria, who must have known about these events, were not concerned? The investigations only affected the directors of other companies. They did not affect company directors who were quite so politically prominent as some of their colleagues. How extraordinary it is that in respect of 22 separate investigations, on every occasion save one the document was tabled in the Parliament, was made a public document and was used by the Press. In less than half of those cases there have never been any subsequent criminal prosecutions. They are the standards that have operated since 1974 under a Liberal Government.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Melbourne Ports is not being relevant to the question before the House, that Clauses 1 to 18 be agreed to.

Mr HOLDING:

– I am following completely the line of argument of the honourable gentlemen who said that he was talking about investigations. Just as you were prepared to hear him analyse the situation in New South Wales -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Melbourne Ports will resume his seat. It is possibly not the intention of the honourable member to reflect on the Chair but it may well be construed from his remarks that, in fact, he was doing so. I make the point to the honourable member that over the difficulties of noise and disorderliness the Chair, eventually satisfied that the honourable member for St George was contravening the Standing Orders, called the honourable member for St George to order. I would suggest to the honourable member that, whilst he may feel entitled to retaliate, two wrongs do not make a right. I am obliged to require the honourable member for Melbourne Ports to be relevant.

Mr HOLDING:

– The point I am concerned to make is simply that honourable members are talking about evidentiary procedures that are followed in terms of reports and investigations into companies.

Motion ( by Mr Bourchier) agreed to:

That the question be put.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. What is the honourable member for Bendigo afraid of in moving to gag the honourable member for Melbourne Ports? It is a clear case on his part of avoiding the exposure that will come in this place. He is a supporter of crooks.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-Order! There is no point of order.

Clauses agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 2353

NEW BUSINESS AFTER 11 P.M

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

That Standing Order 103 be (1 1 o’clock rule) suspended for this sitting.

page 2353

NATIONAL COMPANIES AND SECURITIES COMMISSION BILL 1979

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Clause 19 (Register of Financial Interests).

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I seek leave to take amendments ( 1 ) to (9) together.

Leave granted.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I move:

  1. 1 ) Clause 19, page 1 1, line 3, after ‘he’ insert ‘his spouse or a dependent child’.
Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I will not delay the Committee. Our amendments as circulated have left out the word and’ which ought to be inserted in amendment (5) after clause (c). In other words, the word and’ precedes the alternatives in clauses (d) and (e). I ask that that word be included.

Leave granted.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 20 to 35- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 36 (Hearings before Commission).

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I seek leave to take amendments (10) and (11) together.

Leave granted.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I move:

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 37 (Power to summon witnesses and take evidence).

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 38 to 43-by leave-taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 43A.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clause 44 agreed to.

Proposed new clauses 44a and 44b- by leave- taken together.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I move:

  1. 14) Page 22, after clause 44, insert the following new clause: 44a. There is established by this Act an Accounting Standards Review Committee which shall conduct research and advise the Ministerial Council on the setting of adequate standards to ensure that the true and fair view of the position of a company is reflected in the accounts of the company, and to ensure adequate protection to persons who deal with the company. ‘.

Note: There are many examples of other companies being saved from failure by the injection of substantial funds from their shareholders, for example FCA, IAC and CAGA. Although the suppliers of capital to these companies did not suffer direct loss, the shareholders did suffer through a decline in share prices and dividends.

The shareholders of the Bank of Adelaide have for example recently suffered significant losses because of the support the bank offered FCA. The losses will be realised by the shareholders upon the merger with the ANZ Bank.

Mr JACOBI:

– This table is really a scathing indictment. I will go through the companies briefly. There is Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd, Minsec, Gollin Holdings Ltd, Associated Securities Ltd, Commercial and General Acceptance Ltd and Industrial Acceptance Corporation Ltd. There have been court actions against the auditors Fell and Starkey and Ian Cameron and Co. I wish to quote the previous Commissioner for Corporate Affairs in New South Wales. I commend his words to the Minister and to the Government. Quite recently he said:

What is required is legislative support for the standard setting process and the legislative endorsement of the standards so produced.

Although a number of other options might be canvassed I believe the successful implementation of whatever course may be selected would require the co-operation of the professional accounting bodies as the repositories of the very considerable expertise which they have developed in the research and formulation of exposure drafts.

This is the course which is supported by the New South Wales Attorney-General. As you will be aware he has called for the establishment of an Accounting Standards Review Board comprised of five persons experienced in industry, commerce, economics, law or public administration. As he saw the Board it would not be concerned with the promotion or development of proposed standards; its functions would be confined to reviewing and either endorsing or rejecting standards proposed, although not necessarily exclusively so, by the accounting profession.

Although the Attorney-General has not said publicly very much more than that about his proposal … it might provide that the Board would have power: to invite or receive draft standards from the accounting bodies to negotiate with those bodies as the priorities to be followed in the development of specific standards and as to the timetable to be followed (subject to the provision for relief) to require the general adoption of a standard endorsed by the Board to reject a proposed standard and refer it to the originating body for modification.

I just make these last observations to the Minister; I think they ought to be taken on board by the Government and I hope that the Senate will consider them in some detail: This is a very important area. The available evidence suggests that a partial cause of some, but not all, of the company failures in recent years, particularly in the case of the large companies, has been an inability for the accounting profession to enforce its own standards. This federal scheme should provide some machinery to assist in that enforcement. Secondly, Frank Ryan has made suggestions which much be considered now, long before the scheme comes into operation. He has not suggested government regulation. I support that view. I do not think the taxpayer should have to carry that burden. The industry should carry the burden. Support is critically needed for the professional program. Finally, Commonwealth companies legislation which fails to tackle this problem successfully is likely to be ineffective, inefficient and unsuccessful, as its State counterparts have been.

I emphasise what I said to the Minister earlier. There seems to be a tragic dichotomy between the schedule line of Commonwealth companies legislation and the criteria laid down by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. If we could transmit that criteria and put it into the schedule line of the Commonwealth companies legislation we could make it much more effective and efficient. I think it is critically important- I trust that the Minister and the Government will look at this matter- that this board of review be put into operation before the whole scheme is implemented. I sincerely trust that the Senate will take this proposal on board, give it sincere consideration and send the Bill back to this House with it inserted.

Mr Yates:

- Mr Chairman, this is a very important debate. Could the honourable member for Wills and the honourable member for Grayndler put down the evening newspaper so that we can get on with the debate?

The CHAIRMAN:

– There is no point of order, if that is what was intended. No offence has come to the notice of the Chair.

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

– The question raised by the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) in relation to proposed amendments Nos. 14 and 15 dealt with a proposed accounting standards review committee. The honourable member seeks to have this committee established by way of this legislation. The Ministerial Council has given consideration to this question. The Government also has given it some initial consideration but no decisions have been taken by the Council or by the Government. I give an undertaking to the Committee that the matter will be further considered both at Ministerial Council level and by the Government, but at this stage I do not propose to accept the amendments moved by the honourable member for Hawker. I do state again my undertaking that the matter will be considered further.

Proposed new clauses negatived.

Clauses 45 to 47- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 48 (Restrictions on dealings in securities).

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– by leave- I move:

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– For the sake of the record I point out that I appreciate that the Government is so inflexible about these amendments that it is not likely to take any notice at this late hour. We have no objection to people dealing in securities but we want to say that they deal in them at their peril. If there is any information that will affect the price then, as we say, that is a matter that creates the offence. The big issue is that they would have to prove the other points, that is, that the price is likely to be materially affected. What we are saying is that there are three elements to be considered in this clause. The words: ‘engaged or authorised’, ‘information that is not generally available’ and ‘would be likely … to affect the price’ weaken the issue. A person can certainly deal in securities but he does so at his own risk. It is not what the Minister says that we are trying to prevent. We want to make certain that a person will not do it on the basis of insider trading.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I would like to reinforce what the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) has said. This is a clause relating to secrecy. It restricts dealings by persons connected with the Commission. It is in my view regrettable that the clause is insufficiently wide enough to provide the protection to which the public, in fact, is entitled.

Amendments negatived.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– by leave- I move:

Now we say that that is not fair for this reason. The problem could be that a person suffers a loss but he may not be able to find out who was responsible until some other person has been brought to justice. As the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) knows, the wheels of justice turn slowly and could well take over two years to turn from the date on which the loss occurred. Therefore, we feel that people who have suffered a loss should be given the option of bringing an action after the person has been convicted. The Opposition’s amendment allows such an action to be brought within 12 months of such a conviction. We do not want any particular points taken against people who suffer a loss. The whole idea would be to give them compensation. A position can be reached where, in the course of trying to get the evidence, the first trial takes over two years to come to fruition, and the person who suffers the loss is disbarred by that time lapse. What we are saying is that once the aspect of the conviction is established, then 12 months would be a reasonable time in which to bring that action. The Minister would agree that normally under the statute of limitations the period of time is a lot longer than is allowed here in this legislation. But to have people excluded because there is difficulty in getting the case proven within a specified period could well mean that people who have suffered the losswhich is what the clause is about- could be denied compensation.

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

– The Government opposes this amendment moved by the Opposition. In indicating the Government’s opposition to the amendment I would like to point out that we believe that two years after the date of transaction is adequate particularly given that the provision deals with the administrators of the legislation. I think that it should be agreed by honourable members on both sides of the House that the requirements on administrators are quite adequate.

Amendment negatived.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– by leave- I move:

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 49 (Notification of interests).

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– by leave- I move:

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 50 and 51- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 52 (Annual report and financial statements).

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– Clause 52 relates to the annual report and financial statement of the National Companies and Securities Commission. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) thought that the clause was quite adequate and satisfactory, but the Opposition believes that it has a basic weakness. Any report that this Parliament receives will be in accordance with the form that the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities approves. We have responsibility for the legislation. As a national Parliament, we ought to know the type of report that we want. Accordingly, we will move amendments that delete reference to ‘in such form as the Ministerial Council approves’. This is our legislation and not the Council’s legislation. The National Companies and Securities Commission annual report is the sort of annual report that the people of Australia would expect to get and we would be asking for that report in their interests. Our amendment 25 to clause 52 seeks to delete the words ‘in such form as the Ministerial Council approves’. It can receive the report but it is not going to dictate to the Parliament in what form we ought to get the report. This amendment will be moved in the public interest. The Parliament passes legislation that guarantees that the national Parliament gets a report that can be the subject of a debate.

We have a nonsensical situation here with the Ministerial Council indicating the form of the report and virtually dictating what it thinks we should be given by way of information. That is not good enough for the Opposition. It would not be good enough for any national Parliament. I would not think that any national Parliament would be so confined as we would be with this legislation. Accordingly, in amendment 25 to clause 52 the Opposition is proposing to omit reference to the Ministerial Council. In amendment 26 to clause 52 we are making reasonable suggestions as to what an annual report should include.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Before the honourable member proceeds, I point out that he has not sought leave to move the two amendments together.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I seek leave to move two amendments together.

Leave granted.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I move:

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of the Bill- by leave- is taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2361

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE A

Mr GILES:
Wakefield

-I have to report that Estimates Committee A has examined the proposed expenditures contained in Schedule 2 of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) 1979-80 which were referred to it and has agreed to certain expressions of opinion in relation to them. Copies of the Committee ‘s report have been circulated.

Motion (by Mr Fife) agreed to:

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

page 2361

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE B

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

-I have to report that Estimates Committee B has examined the proposed expenditures contained in Schedule 2 of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1979-80 which were referred to it, and has agreed to a resolution and an expression of opinion in relation to certain of them. Copies of the Committee’s report have been circulated.

Motion (by Mr Fife) agreed to:

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

page 2361

SOCIAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL 1979

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-The Opposition opposes clauses 35, 41 and 42. We will have one division on clause 35 in order to indicate our opposition to the three clauses. The Opposition will be voting against clauses 35, 41 and 42.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-The Opposition is dealing with this episode devised by the Government whereby a person who is a member of a trade union is stood down, and that trade union has taken some industrial action elsewhere. The person being stood down will not be entitled to unemployment benefit. The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) has since responded to the questions I raised earlier this afternoon as to how the Department would identify the union those people would be members of, and how the Department would make this sort of decision. If I am correct the Minister said that the person involved would be asked to furnish information. I suppose he means some sort of union membership card, or that the employer would be asked to furnish information. In most cases I would have thought that unless the employer deducted the union dues he would not have a record, and the Department of Industrial Relations would have to furnish the information. Of course, that means that the Department of Industrial Relations would then have to be furnished with the information by the Industrial Registrar. From what the Minister has said one can see exactly how cumbersome this whole system will be in trying to deny a few people unemployment benefit as a result of action taken by people who belong to the same union.

The Minister for Industrial Relations is in the House and I wonder if he could tell us whether the Industrial Registrar has been consulted- the word ‘consulted’ seems to have been popular in this place for the last couple of weeks- about the new role he is going to have to play in furnishing the Government with information so as to deny unionists unemployment benefit. It does not seem to me to be the type of role that the Industrial Registrar would like to play; nor does it seem to me to be the type of role the Department of Industrial Relations ought to be playing. It ment does not seem to me that it helps industrial relations very much in this country to have the Department that is there to assist in the good relations between the parties involved in this affair setting itself up as some police authority to furnish the Department of Social Security with information so as to deny the unemployment benefit to a person who is a member of a union which is taking industrial action.

The whole idea, the whole concept, of denying the unemployment benefit to a person who has been stood down ought to be rejected. I cannot for the life of me understand how such a proposition got through the Government party room. Obviously there was no discussion or debate on the matter. We are not just dealing with people who are on strike. We are dealing with people who are involved in industrial disputes, whether they are on strike or whether they have a ban on 5 per cent of their work which leads to the standing down of other people. How a person can be found guilty when he is 1,000, 2,000 or 5,000 miles away from where the decision is taken to go on strike is completely beyond me.

Mr Hodges:

– Collective responsibility.

Mr YOUNG:

– The honourable member for Petrie says: ‘Collective responsibility’. How does a person working at General Motors-Holden’s Ltd in Brisbane have a responsibility for a person working at Uniroyal Pty Ltd in Adelaide.

Mr Hodges:

– It will have effect. It will have good effect.

Mr YOUNG:

– The honourable member for Petrie says that it will have effect. What he sees is that the person in Brisbane would put pressure on the person in Adelaide not to take that industrial action. Obviously he does not have very much experience in industrial relations. That is not what will occur at all. One can conceive that many more people will be needed in the Department of Social Security should we have a spate of industrial disputes leading to the standdown of numbers of people and it becomes necessary to identify what unions they are members of. What if those people say that they are not a member of a union at all? That would delight the Government. If a person turns up at the Department of Social Security and says: ‘I am not a member of the union,’ he will be paid his unemployment benefit. In that situation why will they all not say it?

Mr Hodges:

– There will be an investigation of it.

Mr YOUNG:

– There will be another investigation with the field officers. What will they investigate? Will they raid his home and take his wallet to see whether he is carrying a union ticket? Will the field officers ask the Industrial Registrar to give them a list of the members of all unions in Australia? It is incredible- the interjections just make it worse- that a government could have conceived this idea of denying unemployment benefits to a person who in no way is responsible for the action that has been taken. If we were to say that this Government were responsible for the situation in Kampuchea, everybody would have his arms up and be protesting about the charge we were making. To say that someone is in any way responsible for industrial action taken at another plant over which he has absolutely no power of decision making, of course, is to deny justice to the person who is stood down.

We have to consider what the person does if he is denied the unemployment benefit. How does he live? Does the honourable member for Petrie have an answer to that? How does he buy food for his family? We are not all as fat and healthy as the honourable member for Petrie and I. How do the people supply the food for their families if they are stood down and do not get the unemployment benefit? The welfare agencies in Queensland will have to hand out the food and clothes needed by the people who are stood down and not paid the unemployment benefit. It is just another illustration of the thinking and the mentality of a government when it thinks up such a scheme. It drags more and more people in. It drags in the Department of Industrial Relations and the Industrial Registrar. Look at all the mechanisms that will have to be used to prove that someone is in a union so he can be denied the unemployment benefit. To make the position worse, the person who is to be denied unemployment benefit can have been working with people who will be paid unemployment benefit because they are not members of the unions involved in the industrial dispute in some other plant in some other city in some other State. It is just incredible to me that Government supporters allowed this provision to go through without debate in their party rooms, without question, without realising exactly what they were voting for. Obviously honourable members on this side of the chamber, as has been exposed, will be voting against it.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-Earlier in this debate I raised two matters which were somewhat distorted by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier). Nevertheless, I think I should reiterate at least one of those matters. The situation as it exists in this legislation- I think the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) has made clear that he feels it should exist- is that people are to be fined not less than $300 if they leave work for circumstances which they cannot satisfy an assessor warranted their leaving their employment. I do not think the honourable member for Petrie has ever worked for wages under an employer in his life, certainly not if his attitudes expressed here mean anything.

Mr Hodges:

– That is not correct. I have worked a damn sight harder than you with my hands too.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! There is no need for any member of the Parliament to justify comments made. This is a Committee debate and honourable members are entitled to express their points of view in due course.

Mr SCHOLES:

-I point out to the honourable member who suggested that people should just go and get a job that there are over 1,000 girls seeking clerical and administrative employment registered in my electorate. Some of them have reached the stage of absolute frustration at turning up at the same places week after week genuinely looking for employment. Fewer than 10 jobs are registered at the local Commonwealth Employment Service office. If the honourable member for Petrie can go to Geelong and put 1,000 girls into work next week, as he suggests they ought to go to work -

Mr Hodges:

– What are you doing about it?

Mr SCHOLES:

-The honourable member said that they should go and start work tomorrow. He should go to my electorate. I will show him 1 ,000 girls and if he can put one of them into a job he will have done a good turn to everyone; if he can put them all into jobs he will have performed a miracle. The honourable member is talking through his hat when he suggests that people should work when his own Government’s organisation has less than one job vacancy for every 20 people registered as unemployed. I return to the provisions of the Bill in regard to these circumstances.

Mr Hodges:

– Aren’t they getting the dole?

Mr SCHOLES:

– For the honourable member to go back to making such comments is to run away from what he said before. He said there was work available for these people. There is not.

Mr Hodges:

– Who said that?

Mr SCHOLES:

– The honourable member said they ought to go out and get a day’s work. I refer mainly to the position of girls. I am extremely concerned about the effect that this law will have on their situations. If a girl goes to an employer and obtains a job now she will have no protection under the law against harassment either of a moral or a physical nature. Like the rape victim, now she will be placed in the position in which she must prove that she was offended against. She must prove it to a person who may well have no real training to be an assessor or a person who may have no sympathy for her position. I do not attack anyone, but it is fair to say that it is usual for this type of judgment to be made by an assessor who, because of his employment, because he hears the same type of story week in week out, can become quite hardened to the human situation. He has no discretion in many cases. He has to act in a manner which originally may have offended him but which finally becomes an automatic reaction. It is also not unusual for people to become disbelieving. If a girl is harassed and leaves employment because she feels she cannot continue to be employed in that situation, under this legislation she will have to prove that she was justified in losing work or face the loss of the unemployment benefit for six weeks.

I raise another matter concerned with this matter. Honourable members opposite see great virtue in punishing those on the lowest incomes in our society.

Mr Porter:
Mr SCHOLES:

-The honourable member made an interjection a few minutes ago which indicated to me that he thinks it is wrong to punish those people who pinch millions but that it is all right at every opportunity getting to the people who get $50 a week.

I raise a matter which is very serious and which I think the Government ought to know about because I cannot believe that a government which knew about the situation would allow it to continue. I refer to people who undertake Citizen Military Force training in the military reserve. I hope that honourable members opposite will not say that these were the types of people they call dole bludgers. If they go into camp as part of their army reserve training, when they cease the camp they are forced to serve a week’s waiting period before they are restored to the unemployment benefit. Honourable members opposite might like to know that because it is a fact. I think it is one of the most scurrilous acts that any government could possibly perpetrate on an organisation in relation to which the Government is currently spending thousands of dollars in advertising to seek employer co-operation. Yet if a young man who joins the CMF is unemployed at the time of his camp he is penalised a week’s unemployment benefit because he went into camp. That is a situation which I think at least the Government could deal with, even if it does not give a damn about the other people it is punishing.

I turn to the matter of extensions. The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier) made quite clear what his position on this is when he said that since the unions contribute to the Labor Party any union member should cop whatever consequences are necessary. If the Government were taking legislative action which would prevent persons who are not entitled to the unemployment benefit from receiving it I do not think anyone would object. But the Government is bringing down legislation which is designed to carry out an industrial purpose. The honourable member for Bendigo made it quite clear that that was what he saw this legislation as- a piece of industrial legislation designed to punish those people who, although not being involved in a strike but being members of a union, happen to be stood down for a period in excess of one week.

I do not disagree with the key man theory involving small numbers of persons being pulled out of an industry and stopping the whole industry. Here we have a situation where persons who have no say, who have no input at all or who receive no benefit as a result of an industrial dispute will be punished. I give a parallel situation: In the case of two men who are working beside one another in a plant which is not on strike and who ultimately are stood down, the person who stands to benefit financially by the results of the strike but who is not a member of the union will be paid unemployment benefit because he is not a member of the union. The man beside him who is a member of the union and who may have no beneficial expectations as a result of that strike will be punished by not being paid the unemployment benefit. There is no discretion. The person who is a member of the union may have had to join the union in order to get the job that he has got. He may have been on the job for two days after being two years out of work but he would still be fined his unemployment benefit because he did what every working man needs to do to protect his own position, and that is he joined his union. It is clear from the honourable member for Bendigo ‘s remarks that what the Government is about is, under the Social Services Act, using people’s traumas caused by lack of income to carry out what it sees as an industrial purpose that it thinks will be popular. It is legislation by slogans, and not by any other form.

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

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

– I take this opportunity to register my opposition to and revulsion at the provisions of clause 35 (4), which reads:

  1. if the Director-General is satisfied that the person’s unemployment during that period was due to another person or other persons being, or having been, engaged in industrial action- that the first-mentioned person was not, during that period, a member of a trade union of which the other person was a member, or of which any one or more of the other persons was or were a member or members, during that period.

It is necessary to look at the amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which were passed last week, in order to understand the full intent of the words in clause 35. This clause is of particular relevance to proposed new section 33A of the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill, which provides for the expeditious hearing of stand-down applications either before a single member of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or the Full Bench. The provisions in proposed new section 33 A of the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill and the provisions in clause 35 of the Social Services Amendment Bill have to be looked at in conjunction with each other. It is obvious that the Government’s plan is to expedite the standing down of workers who, through no fault of their own, may be affected by a dispute and then to deny them eligibility for unemployment benefit in order to starve them and their families into submission. If the Government wished to select an issue on which to create industrial confrontation- I believe that that is its snide, ulterior motive in this instance- it could not have selected a more certain means of doing so than expediting the standing down of workers and unionists and then denying them and their families sustenance in the form of unemployment benefit. The denial of unemployment benefit to these people is certain to create industrial disruption. It will inflict industrial hardship on the whole community. The Government is taking this action in an attempt to control wage and salary increases by the use of industrial hostages.

The trade unionists who may be affected by clause 35 will be aware of the reason why the Government is attacking them and their colleagues. They will know that their fellow trade unionists are fighting to maintain their living standards. They also will know that these same workers have seen, as they themselves have seen, their real wage reduced by between $25 and $30 a week in the last four years. I am referring to the decline in real wages, the rise in health insurance contributions, the erosion of family allowances and so on. The Government should examine the root causes of industrial disputation and not seek to achieve industrial peace by the use of savage, repressive legislation of this type.

Let me deal with the practicalities of this matter. We could see a situation arising under clause 35 in which a small number of workers in the flat product centre at the Australian Iron and Steel works at Port Kembla who belong to the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union go on strike. As a result of the workers in that area being on strike there could be stand-downs of members of the AMWSU in the motor vehicle industry in South Australia or Victoria. It could be argued that they should be stood down because no steel is available and that they should be denied the unemployment benefit. That is the sort of thing that could happen with the combination of new section 33a of one Act and clause 35 of this Bill.

Let me give another hypothetical situation. Waterside workers employed at Australian National Line terminal in one Port could be stood down and denied unemployment benefits because their colleagues at another port are on strike over an issue which might have nothing to do with them. No doubt the next move of the Government would, be firstly, to effect standdowns and then, secondly, to deny the unemployment benefit to those people and their families along with members of other unions who may be affected by a strike or disputation. This would be the road to complete and utter industrial confrontation. Let us examine what happened in the container terminal dispute in Melbourne last year when a number of maintenance workers belonging to the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union were in dispute with the employer. For the first time members of the Waterside Workers Federation were stood down as a result of other men being out on strike. Until then it had been a small industrial dispute involving a few fitters and turners in a container terminal in Melbourne. The inevitable result was to convert that small dispute into a nationwide waterfront dispute. That is what happened as a result of the Government’s stand-downs. Now the Government is going further. After having stood-down the workers and created the strike the Government wants to pour oil on the flames by denying unemployment benefits.

Mr Fisher:

– What would you have done in that strike?

Mr WEST:

– I would have worked towards the real long term answer, and that is to create industry unions. The honourable member’s Government has not even a policy on that. When some unions come out and try to say that the real answer to these small interminable demarcation disputes is to set up an industry union covering a whole industry, honourable members opposite oppose it simply because they do not wish to see unions becoming powerful. They are quite prepared to see multinational companies dominate the economy. But when a number of unions want to get together and form their own cartel to protect the interests of their own members, honourable members opposite oppose it.

I submit, in conclusion, that this clause is unfair. It is aimed at creating hardship for workers and their families. It is aimed at creating industrial hostages to try to prevent other people from fighting to maintain their living standards. It is proposed in the vain hope of controlling disputation. It just will not work. All it will do is inflame confrontation. It will be unpopular. It will cause more industrial unrest than it will prevent. It ought to be withdrawn. It ought to be dropped in the interests of industrial harmony.

Wednesday, 24 October 1979

Mr HOWE:
Batman

-I want to refer to clause 41 which is the clause which has the effect of withholding the unemployment benefit from certain people for a period of not less than six weeks and for a maximum of 12 weeks. This is to be done in cases where people are in the situation of voluntary unemployment, that is, where people leave a position in a socalled voluntary manner. Neither the original legislation nor this clause makes any real effort to define the circumstances in which one could be liable for the loss of unemployment benefit for that particular period. Of course the result of that is that there is once again- this could equally be applied to clause 35- a great deal of discretion for the Department of Social Security and for the officer concerned of the Department of Social Security. As has been previously pointed out in this debate, the officer who may make a decision about someone who is voluntary unemployed or who has failed to take acceptable work could be a relatively inexperienced or junior officer. Furthermore, the circumstances in which someone left work may well be, as has been suggested earlier, circumstances which people are not anxious to communicate, certainly not to an officer of the Department of Social Security and quite possibly not to an officer at that particular level. This discretion, then, which is present in this clause of the legislation is of course dangerous.

But I think that we ought to recognise that underlying the clause is a quite mistaken commitment on the part of this Government to the work test, that is, the Government still believes, despite the fact that we have this massive unemployment- one has to keep repeating that it is massive unemployment- and particularly unemployment concentrated amongst the young, that somehow morality is involved in the decision as to whether someone is employed or unemployed. It is unfortunate that the Government is so caught up and so preoccupied with this question of morality, that is whether someone deserves to be paid income support or deserves to be paid unemployment benefit rather than to be supported by the community. It is quite clear that if the overwhelming majority of the people who are unemployed had a choice, their choice certainly would be to work. One recognises that the work that is available for the people who are unemployed is work that in normal circumstances very few people would want to choose.

The Parliament, as I have remarked at earlier times, is becoming more and more unrepresentative of the Australian population. There are of course- an exchange that took place earlier illustrated this- very few people who have a sense of what it is like to work in the marginal work situations which currently provide opportunities to work for people who are without skills or specific training. Of course, in those circumstances people very often find it extremely difficult to adjust to working on a regular basis, and so they ought. It seems to me that if we could relax to some extent this commitment, particularly on the Government side, to the work test and to the concept of people deserving unemployment benefit rather than receiving unemployment benefit as a right, then we might see the situation as it exists much more clearly. I just want to read a brief quotation from David Griffiths who wrote a study called ‘Whither Work?’. He says:

The degree of severity of the work test is irrelevant when there is a shortage of jobs. Many people could be forced to accept socially unacceptable work, but the government won’t be able to force the majority of the unemployed to accept jobs that do not exist.

I think that the point that Griffiths is making, which is not all that original, simply picks up the argument which is central to the Myers Inquiry into Unemployment Benefit Policy and Administration and which, after all, was an inquiry commissioned by this Government. It suggested that in a situation of extremely high unemployment the work test is irrelevant.

I refer to some of the points made by the Myers inquiry in relation to the work test. It pointed out that the test cannot be effectively applied where the number of job seekers greatly exceeds the number of jobs, that the function of the Commonwealth Employment Service to fit jobs to workers and workers to jobs is inconsistent with the requirement to refer all applicants to appropriate employers as a test of willingness to work, that the administrative load carried by the

Commonwealth Employment Sevice in doing so interferes with its more constructive purpose, and that the application of the test as a deterrent to those unwilling to work is objectionable to genuine job seekers. Myers went on to make the point that the consequence of encouraging the reluctant worker into the work force, unless an additional job is created, is that another worker is displaced from the work force and becomes eligible for benefit. Thus there is no saving in cost to the community, and presumably a willing worker is replaced by a reluctant one.

We need to give a lot more thought to what is meant by work and how we define it. We have grown up with the notion that somehow work is related to participation in a particular kind of economic system, that it is related to working in organisations that are primarily devoted to a profit rather than being related essentially to making some sort of contribution to community welfare. It is my feeling, having met perhaps hundreds of unemployed young people over the last few years, that essentially their problem- I think this is increasingly the case- is that they are becoming increasingly alienated from the community in any real sense. They do not feel that they are part of the community. They do not feel that the community recognises them or wants to receive any kind of contribution from them.

In a sense, I think the attitudes which are present in this legislation, attitudes which are reflected in clauses 35, 41 and 42, are designed essentially to increase alienation within the Australian community, to increase division and bitterness, to make people feel that, if they do not match up to a test which most of the people in this Parliament have rarely matched up to, somehow they are less than equal and somehow they do not have the same rights as the rest of the community. We are continuing as a Parliament to cultivate mythologies about contribution to the community. We are continuing to cultivate a mythology about what work may have been like when we were young or when our fathers were young or in some earlier situation. We are not taking seriously enough the fact that work is increasingly unrelated to the wealth of the community as it is currently being created, and some things were said about that earlier today during the discussion of the matter of public importance.

The clauses to which I have been referring are clauses that this Committee ought to reject. Implicit within them are concepts of social control, of coercion, of conflict within the community, where we repress people in a certain section of the community and deny them basic rights, where we subject them to harassment, where we pursue them rather than seeking to understand how they can make a contribution to the community.

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

Question put-

That the remainder of the Bill be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 65

NOES: 30

Majority…… 35

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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

Third Reading

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

page 2368

NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 11 October, on motion by Mr Garland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2368

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 1 1 October, on motion by Mr Garland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2368

REPATRIATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 1 1 October, on motion by Mr Adermann:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The level of conversation in the chamber is too high. I have requested honourable members to remain silent. I can understand some honourable members feeling a little excited about being allowed to remain up late but I ask them to maintain decorum.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

The Bill.

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

– I wish to make an explanation regarding some of the early clauses of the Bill. Certain matters were raised with regard to service pensions to allied veterans. For the convenience of the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) I passed him some indicative work we had done on some papers. I mentioned to him that I might table this information but I will not do so at this stage. It is indicative only. I cannot guarantee that it is absolutely final. I thank the honourable member for Prospect for his co-operation in dealing with that matter. I seek leave to move together the two amendments to clause 1 1 circulated in my name.

Leave granted.

Mr ADERMANN:

– I move:

I deal now with clause 12 of the Bill, which is likely to affect many more people than those people in the benevolent homes. That clause relates to the extension of the application of provision of Division 5 of the Act to certain members of the forces of an allied country. In other words, it seeks to make allied exservicemen, other than Commonwealth exservicemen, eligible to receive the Service pension. Whilst the Opposition strongly supports the aim of the legislation- in fact, it forms part of our Federal policy- we would like to draw the attention of honourable members to some of the difficulties of interpretation. Under the short title Interpretation’, the Bill provides the following definition of ‘government-in-exile ‘: in relation to a country, includes any person -

That is, just one individual- or group of persons, claiming to represent, or administer, the country or a part of the country or the people of the country;

That seems to indicate quite clearly that it covers any what might now be called ‘guerrilla forces’; for example, the Tito Government which existed in parts of Yugoslavia for part of the Second World War. The only point against that is that the term is ‘government-in-exile ‘. In other words, Tito was in fact in Yugoslavia and was not outside it, but certainly, in my interpretation, all the rest of the definition would apply to his Government. I am informed now by officers of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs that the term government-in-exile’ will not include that type of government. I am not sure whether the Minister will reply to my question tonight and give me a clear assurance on that.

The second point I raise is that the Bill emphasises that a reference to forces raised by a country shall be read as not including a reference to irregular forces’. The definition of ‘irregular forces’ is vague. I would think that during the Second World War the people within any occupied countries who were serving in guerrilla forces may or may not be considered to have been regular forces. I do not know whether the wearing of a uniform is important to being defined as a member of a regular force. Probably the people concerned did not wear uniforms because, after all, they were in occupied enemy territory and could not walk around in uniforms. Ignoring the uniform, I assume that most of them were in some type of regular force in the sense that they belonged to the French maquis or to the different kinds of resistance forces in Yugoslavia and other countries. I think there will be grave difficulties with interpretation in this section of the legislation.

I hope that the Government will interpret it as liberally as possible and that as many of these people as possible will be included. Let us remember that all these people are entitled to is an age pension or what corresponds to an age or invalid pension because these people are no longer employable. They receive it five years earlier in the case of an invalid or age pension. The actual extra cost to the Government compared with giving them sickness benefits or other special benefits is minimal and really refers only to the fringe benefits. Otherwise no extra cost is involved, as I see it. I hope that the Government will interpret this provision liberally and give instructions to the departmental officers to do likewise. I think the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann), in his second reading speech, made the point that a number of people in his Department have been working on this issue to try to come to some definition insofar as eligibility is concerned. I would be pleased if the Minister were to give an assurance at this stage that the people who served in the major groups that I have mentioned in Greece, France and Yugoslavia, and probably in other countries occupied by Germany during the Second World War, will be eligible for this benefit.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-I want to raise similar matters to those raised by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman). A number of groups fought at a very high level of organisation and efficiency with allied servicemen during the Second World War but there could be some doubt as to whether they were regularly raised forces. There could also be some doubt as to whether governments in exile with which these forces could have been associated actually existed. Nevertheless, these groups carried out tasks of regular forces, quite often under the command of allied officers, including those of the United States and Britain, and under the direction of the Allied Command Headquarters in Europe. The groups I have mentioned relate specifically to Europe, but a similar situation exists with regard to the war against Japan in which in a number of cases persons not in regularly raised forces served at great risk to themselves. I instance East Timor. It would have been difficult for a regularly raised force to exist there because Portugal was not involved in the war and East Timor was technically a Portuguese colony. I recognise that there are difficulties of establishment and definition. Nevertheless, in some of these areas the risks taken by persons on behalf of Australian servicemen were very great. Every effort should be made to give them the benefit of this extension of the legislation.

Whilst some Vietnamese would be disqualified by subsequent actions, it is a fact that a substantial proportion of the forces of Vietnam fought with the Americans against the Japanese during the Second World War at a time when the French forces which had control of that area were subject to Vichy control. A good number in that Vietnamese force would have ceased to be eligible for this benefit because they continued on as servicemen of the Viet Cong and fought on an enemy side. But there are quite obviously some persons who would not have been involved in the subsequent war but who nevertheless would have taken great risks. In fact, I recall MacArthur’s saying that such people had served the Allies well and had tied up a number of

Japanese divisions by their activities in that area. Under the definitions before the House at the moment, members of those forces are excluded from receiving benefits.

I recognise the difficulties. I also recognise that the definition of a government in exile is one which will very much make it a lottery situation. If some substantial personage went into exile and was able to form a government, those who fought with the allies would be able to obtain some degree of recognition. Where it was not possible for that to be done but where the degree of contribution was the same, they would be excluded from receiving benefits under the interpretation being put before the House. I raise this matter because the Government has moved to extend the payment of a service benefit. The honourable member for Prospect indicated that a person has to be 60 years of age and to have been in Australia for a number of years so it is not something which a person could walk in and claim. I think it is fairly readily establishable whether or not a person served with partisan forces or in some other force which fought on our side during the last war. I hope that the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs (Mr Adermann) will pursue the matter and extend the provisions to the maximum breadth to cover service men who served with allied forces during the war, particularly those who took the greatest risks on behalf of Australian servicemen. Some who were not in regular forces took extremely great risks. That is all I wish to say on the matter.

Government members interjecting-

Mr SCHOLES:

-I find it quite disheartening that members opposite consider this to be a joke. There were people who daily risked their lives on behalf of Australian servicemen. I think that members of this House are entitled not only to recognise the contribution they made but also, at this late hour with some minor inconvenience, to recognise that if we are extending the benefit to persons who served with allied forces, those people who were not able to be members of forces raised by governments because they were in places where governments could not exist, should also be covered. I hope that the Minister is able to find a formula by which those persons can be covered.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-I do not want to detain the House for more than just a few moments. I ask the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann), in the light of the advances made in this legislation whether he would have an in-depth inquiry made into the qualifications of members of the merchant navy. I understand the conventional wisdom and explanation given as to why members of the merchant navy have never been granted the service pension. What I am asking for, in the light of the time that has elapsed since the war, is that the justification for their exclusion from receiving benefits be fully examined and there not just be a regurgitation of the previous answers given. I think that the time has come when the members of the merchant navy who served during the war and would qualify if the benefits were extended to them should have the reasons for their previous exclusion thoroughly reviewed and reassessed.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I would like to reply very briefly to the comments of the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) when he suggested that members on this side of the House had less than a passing interest in the welfare of our returned men. I want to remind the honourable member for Corio of the way members of his party undermined the effort in Vietnam in the earlier part of this decade and how that made it more difficult for our soldiers to fight So many of them lost their lives unnecessarily as a result of the campaign which was being waged by members of the Australian Labor Party. Mr Acting Speaker, when one looks at the boat-loads of people that are leaving Vietnam and realises that people risk their lives day after day, and many lose their lives, one sees that the soldiers who fought in Vietnam were fighting for a just cause. So much for the clap trap of the honourable member for Corio. Mr Acting Speaker -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drummond)- The comments which the honourable member for Fadden has made are hardly relevant to the Bill. If he wishes to have the indulgence of the Committee, he should firstly address me as the Deputy Chairman of the Committee and not as Acting Speaker, and secondly, he should speak to the Bill.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I will abide by your command, Mr Deputy Chairman. I wish to make the passing observation that I hope that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) who is at the table will bear in mind that whilst what we are doing in this Bill will gladden the heart of many an allied exserviceman who has since come to this country, it is very hard to sell this to the Australian serviceman who was prepared to serve overseas but, because of circumstances that were beyond his control, never got out of this country and into a situation where he served in an area declared a war zone for the purposes of the Act. I would just remind the Minister that whilst I also subscribe to helping all people, there are some Australians who, through no fault of their own, were prepared to lay down their lives in the name of this country but who were not called upon to do so. In times like these they are being unfairly disadvantaged.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-I do not really think that the remarks of the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron) warrant an answer, but if he were concerned about the Vietnam war he was of the age to have gone himself instead of staying here. The fact of the situation is that there are persons who risked their lives on behalf of Australian servicemen and there are honourable members now in this House who owe their lives to some of those persons. Those persons are not covered by this Bill. I have asked the Minister a question which has nothing to do with foreign policy or the rights or wrongs of the involvement of Australian servicemen or our Allies in various forms of conflict. We have argued that matter. That is not the responsibility of the servicemen. It is the responsibility of politicians. Those who would seek to hide behind servicemen in order to justify their political decisions should be prepared to stand up and accept the responsibilities for their political decisions, right or wrong.

I reiterate what I said before. I believe that the legislation, if at all possible, should be extended to cover those persons. I make no other plea and I make no argument against the rights or wrongs of some other action. I think the honourable member for Fadden is well out of court. I do not disagree with his comment about Australian servicemen. I hope that the same position does not apply under the existing arrangements. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) is aware of a case which he has before him of a British seaman, whether Service or otherwise, and the establishment of that case is becoming extraordinarily protracted. I do not want to raise that matter tonight either. There are people who contributed greatly to the allied cause, especially in the Second World War, to whom Australia owes a great debt of gratitude, and who will not be covered by this Bill. If it is at all possible a formula should be devised whereby they can make application if they are living in Australia.

Mr YATES:
Holt

-Mr Deputy Chairman, you and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) will appreciate that during wartime certain people carried out services on behalf of the Government. Those services were not quite recognised by the Government because they were virtually unknown. I ask: Does this Bill provide that we will be able to look after those people provided that the Government can certify that they were on active duty with the Special Operations Executive or any organisation which was known to the Government? Will they be protected by this Bill or not?

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

– I will respond briefly to some of the questions which were asked. First, the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron) raised the question of Australian servicemen and servicewomen who volunteered to serve overseas but did not go overseas. They made that offer and they were prepared to go. He asked that we consider them in that context. That action would defeat the purpose of the Service pension. The Service pension was introduced in the first place to allow for and to compensate for the indefinable, often indiscernible, effects of war and action. We know that service in action does affect a man. It can destroy his capacity to enjoy life and that is not always discernible. The whole purpose of Service pensions is to compensate for such loss. If we were to do otherwise, we would be doing something altogether different from what the Service pension was meant to do. That, I think, is the short answer to that question.

The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) raised a question which has concerned me, my Department and the Repatriation Commission. I can only say to him that we have had a good look at all of the aspects of that case. It has to be looked at very carefully. It has some vexing complexities. I am concerned about that matter.

The honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) did raise a matter which was not unrelated to what the honourable member for Holt (Mr Yates) said. We did say in the second reading speech that we recognised the bravery, the valour and the tremendous contribution of irregular and partisan forces. Nobody denies that at all. Unfortunately, if I heard the honourable member for Corio correctly, he said they should be ascertainable. The identification and the proof of those who served in those forces are the problem. This provision is not a denial of their right or of their valour in any way. We have looked at the very great difficulty of identification of those people. We must consider also that many people served in the Australian Forces in an irregular or similar capacity who because of the same problem presently are not entitled to the benefit. If we extend this area of qualification, in allowing the benefit to those people we may extend eligibility beyond what some Australian ex-servicemen would be entitled to. When I say ‘ex-servicemen’, I am talking of the same category of people. The problem is difficult, and our stand is not taken because of any lack of recognition of that situation or of those people. But I must say that there is a great difficulty in relation to identification. I thought that I made that point clear in the second reading speech. That was the whole rationale and reasoning. I do not want to gloss over these matters, but I think I covered some of them in the second reading speech.

The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) raised one other question to which I should like to respond briefly. He spoke of the patient in the benevolent home going out for Christmas or going out with a family. He said that that person put himself in queer street as far as the legislation is concerned. But so long as he remains an inmate of the home he is covered; and is not discharged. A patient transferred between benevolent homes is protected by the legislation. A person who is allowed out on leave from home and is not discharged will continue to receive those benefits. That is the short answer to that question.

I hope that we will not have the types of complications of which he spoke. The question is whether a patient is discharged from the home. If he is not discharged and if he goes on leave or those other factors apply, of course he is not disqualified. I think that that brief responseunfortunately more brief than I would have liked- covers the question. I also hope that in relation to the matter of the service pension the indicative paper that I gave to the honourable member for Prospect shows the type of examination that we are undertaking and the degree of detail in examining all of these matters that have been raised. I have undertaken to keep him up to date on any adjustments that I might make to the thinking on that indicative paper.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-This is an opportune time for me to raise another matter. It is not even one o’clock yet. I will take only a couple of minutes. We are dealing with the Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979. 1 would like to draw the attention of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) to a very small number of Australian ex-servicemen who, to my mind, have been wrongly treated. I am referring to Australian ex-servicemen who were prisoners of war in Germany during the Second World War and who, for reasons known only to the then German Government, became inmates of concentration camps. The Federal Republic of

Germany has agreed to treat British and other prisoners of war as victims of war crimes because they were not prisoners of war. They were wrongly held in German concentration camps.

Britain signed an agreement in the mid-1960s to have those people paid special compensation. I am now talking about the British ex-servicemen who were in the concentration camps. For some reason the Australian Government did not try to come to any agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany to get special compensation for those people. As far as I know- the Department would know much more about it than I do- there is only a small number of Australians involved. I think the least that should be done is to make representations to the Federal Republic of Germany pointing out that a certain number of people claim to have been inmates of concentration camps in Germany. This was illegal under the Geneva Convention. These people should get special compensation from the Federal Republic of Germany which has taken on the responsibility for payments for those who were adversely affected by the war crimes of the then German state during the Second World War.

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

– I will undertake to get advice on that matter and to discuss it with the Department because I do not know its background.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Third Reading

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

House adjourned at 12.54 a.m. (Wednesday)

page 2374

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Indo-Chinese Refugees (Question No. 1941)

Dr Cass:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. How many boat people from Indo-China:

    1. ) have arrived in Australia and
    2. have been deported since 1975.
  2. To which countries were they deported.
  3. 3 ) On what grounds were they deported.
Mr MacKellar:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) I assume that the honourable member is referring to persons from Indo-China arriving in Australia without prior authority. The answer is 20 1 1 .

    1. None.

  2. and (3) See 1(b).

Fuel Pipelines (Question No. 3231)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the comment in the 5th Annual Report of the Pipeline Authority which states that the use of pipelines to replace road and rail transportation in the process of transporting fuel supplies to market centres where economically justified, would result in a significant contribution to fuel economy.
  2. If so, has the Government considered this aspect of fuel conservation and what plans does it have for construction, or to assist in the construction of pipelines, which would contribute to fuel economy.
  3. Has the Government considered the use of coal slurry pipelining in Australia.
Mr Newman:
Minister for National Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. I would also direct the honourable member to the 4th Annual Report of the Pipeline Authority which lists the advantages of pipelines, particularly in the transport of petroleum products.
  2. There are, of course, several petroleum product pipelines already in operation in Australia and the Kurnell/Silverwater pipeline in Sydney is nearing completion. In addition, Australia was among the early users of slurry pipelines with the construction of the Savage River iron ore pipeline in 1967.

The Government believes that any undertaking to construct pipelines should be based on normal commercial principles.

  1. Transportation of coal by slurry pipelines has not yet been used commercially in Australia. The Pipeline Authority is, however, monitoring overseas developments in practical applications and theoretical studies into the transport of solids in slurry form by pipelines.

Octane Rating of Regular Grade Gasoline (Question No. 3306)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for National

Development, upon notice, on 28 February 1979:

  1. Did he, on 1 June 1978, give the Government’s support to a recommendation by the Royal Commission on Petroleum (5th Report) that the octane rating of regular grade gasoline be increased from 89 to 92.
  2. If so, (a) what progress had been made in achieving this recommendation and (b) what action has the Governmenttaken to facilitate this change.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. (a) and (b). The Government has asked the oil industry to proceed to change the octane rating of motor spirit sold in Australia. The octane rating of premium grade motor spirit was reducedfrom 98 to 97 on 1 August 1979 and one major company introduced a new grade of motor spirit of 92 octane on 15 August 1979.

Commissioner for Community Relations (Question No. 3631)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Ministerrepresenting the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 3 April 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Commissioner for Community Relations who is a statutory officer appointed under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, received financial assistance, either direct or indirect, by way of air fares and accommodation from any organisation or person to enable him to travel (a) within Australia or (b) overseas, in the performance of his duties.
  2. If so, what organisations or persons provided the assistance and what was the amount of assistance provided in each case.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. to enable him to travel within Australia in the performance of his duties the following organisations have provided assistance since 1 July 1978:

State College of Victoria

Rotary Club of Highton, Geelong

Australian College of Education, Townsville

Restaurant and Caterers’ Association of Melbourne

Standards Association of Australia, Melbourne Branch

United Nations Association of Australia, South Australian Division

Sutherland Shire Council, Sydney

Rotary Club of Surfers Paradise, Queensland

Burdekin Club, Ayr, Queensland

Kernewek Lowender Inc., South Australia

NSW Department of Education, Wollongong

Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia, Melbourne

Australian Society of Accountants, Mildura

Rotary Club of Doncaster, Melbourne

City of Prahran, Melbourne

Butterworths Pty Limited, Sydney.

  1. The assistance has been by way of the provision of air tickets and/or road transportation.
  2. He has not received any assistance to enable him to travel overseas in the performance of his dudes.
  3. Assistance was received in past years for similar purposes to that received in 1978-79 from similar organisations. Records have not been specifically maintained which would enable the details of such assistance provided before 1 July 1978 to be extracted with any degree of accuracy or completeness but it would not have been as great as that received in 1978-79.

Sydney Telephone Charging Zone (Question No. 3682)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 1 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many additional telephone subscribers would be able to take advantage of shifting the centre of the local call rate zone from Sydney city centre to Parramatta (a) using the same radius that exists for the present Sydney local call rate zone and (b) extending this radius by 35 kilometres.
  2. What is the estimated cost of introducing each of these 2 measures.
  3. What are the major components of these cost estimates and on what broad assumptions are they based.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. (a) The Sydney telephone charging zone consists of the land area enclosed by an arc of 24 km radius drawn from the GPO. Surrounding this zone are 6 outer metropolitan zones in the land area enclosed by an arc drawn at about 40 km from the GPO. Calls within a zone and between adjoining zones are charged at the local rate.

If the centre of the Sydney charging zone were deemed to be Parramatta and if the same radii were used to determine the Sydney zone (24 km) and the outer metropolitan areas (40 km) then approximately 40,000 additional services would obtain local call access to the Sydney zone.

In drawing the boundaries in this fashion approximately 160,000 services would be transferred from the Sydney zone to the outer metropolitan zones and whilst retaining local call access to the Sydney zone would lose significant local call access to other areas. The losing areas concerned are served by the exchanges of Mona Vale, Terry Hills, Narrabeen, Dee Why, Harbord, Balgowlah, Coogee, Maroubra, Matraville, Kurnell, Cronulla, Miranda and Sutherland.

  1. 1 ) (b) If the radius of the outer metropolitan area were extended from 40 to 75 km a further 85,000 customers approximately would obtain local call access to the Sydney zone.
  2. and (3) Under the existing 7-digit numbering system, the proposals would involve wide spread number changes to existing Sydney services to enable the extra exchanges to be incorporated in the Sydney local call area. Many subscribers would be seriously inconvenienced in both business and domestic matters by such a change.

The costs of introducing the proposition would be approximately-

  1. using Parramatta as the centre of the arc initial cost (including engineering, directory and administration)- $5.0m; annual call revenue loss-$ 1 .7m.
  2. based on Parramatta but with a radius of 75 km initial cost (including engineering, directory and administrative)- $7.5 m; annual call revenue loss- $4.9m.

An alternative solution would be to introduce 8-digit numbering in Sydney to accommodate the enlarged local call area.

Without producing a detailed plan, accurate costs of this alternative are difficult to estimate but it is doubtful whether it would be less than $20m at today’s prices and would probably take between 7 and 10 years to implement.

Naturally, the Sydney area could not be extended in isolation and similar treatment would have to be extended to other capital cities and country areas. This would require a re-drawing of the charging plans for telephone calls throughout Australia and would be a long and extremely costly process.

On the other hand, the recently announced Community Access 80 scheme will amongst other things extend low rate access to the Sydney zone (9c for 3 minutes 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. daily, 9c for 3¾ minutes 9 p.m. to 8 a.m. daily) for approximately 76,000 customers in the areas adjoining the outer Sydney metropolitan zones without disadvantaging existing customers. The scheme will also provide similar benefits to subscribers around the other metropolitan areas, as well as rural subscribers in many areas throughout Australia.

Power Industry (Question No. 4033)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 29 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did he agree with other Ministers at the International Energy Agency Governing Board Meeting of 2 1 and 22 May 1979 that (a) the international nuclear fuel cycle evaluation is incomplete and needs to be completed successfully by early 1980 if effective action is to be taken to resolve long term waste disposal and non-proliferation questions and (b) there is an urgent need (i) for national and international efforts to ensure adequate safety systems to minimise the occurrence and consequence of nuclear plant accidents and (ii) to inform the public of the results.
  2. ) What steps has he taken to meet these urgent needs.
  3. Does the statement make no declaration regarding other power sources and so conflict with previous assurances by Ministers that (a) safety of the nuclear power industry was higher than that of alternative power producing systems and (b) remaining technical arrangements to achieve commercial exploitation of solar power production are more complex.
  4. Does he support the New South Wales Government’s decision to build a pilot solar power plant in western New South Wales.
  5. What hazards are likely and what precautions should be taken, for this project.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1) (a) The communique adopted by theIEA Governing Board Meeting at Ministerial level in Paris on 2 1 and 22 May 1979, on which occasion I represented Australia, reads:

Ministers noted that nuclear projections have been lowered repeatedly in recent years. They also noted that the recent accident at Harrisburg has renewed public concern about safety. However, they also recognised that oil or other alternative energy sources would not be sufficient to meet growing energy demand in the short and mediumterm and that undesirable economic and social consequences would therefore result if more nuclear power is not available. They therefore agreed on the need for projected additions to nuclear power supply to be realised in timely fashion and exceeded wherever possible, having due regard to legal and constitutional provisions. They also agreed on the urgent need for effective national and international efforts to ensure that safety systems are sufficient to minimise the possibility of nuclear plant accidents and their consequences, and to adequately inform the public of the results. They also recognised the need to bring the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE) to a successful conclusion by early 1980, and to ensure that effective action is taken to resolve long-term waste disposal and non-proliferation questions. ‘ (b)Yes.

  1. Australia is participating fully in the various international forums where these issues are under discussion including INFCE, OECD-NEA, IEA and IAEA.
  2. No. The communique included statements regarding other sources of energy, viz coal, oil, natural gas and nonconventional energy technologies.
  3. Yes.
  4. This is a matter for the Government of New South Wales, but I understand the hazards most likely from such a project are those normally associated with high temperature sources and the use of steam.

Relations with United States (Question No. 4049)

Mr Lionel Bowen:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 30 May 1979:

Has he on any occasion, and in any way, in correspondence or in conversation, indicated to the Government of the United States of America that it had an obligation to provide trade access for Australia, or otherwise assist Australia in trade negotiations, because of the presence on Australian soil of American defence installations; if so, when and why did this occur.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

See my answer to the honourable member’s question without notice on 25 September 1979 (Hansard, pages 1454-5).

Government Schemes for the Unemployed (Question No. 4053)

Mr Kerin:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 30 May 1979:

Has he stated, publicly, at any time during 1979, that 400,000 persons have been assisted by his Government’s various schemes for the unemployed; if so,

to what schemes was he referring,

how many persons have benefited from each scheme and

to what period was he referring.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

Yes: This has been stated at least twice in 1979; ( 1 ) In a statement to Parliament on 22 February (Hansard, page 265) and (2) in an address to the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce on 9 March.

I refer the honourable member to the table presented in the reply by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs to Question No. 4060 (Hansard, 9 October 1979, page 1787). The period referred to was that covered by the three Budgets then presented by this Government and included the budgeted figure for 1978-79.

National Telephone Network (Question No. 4106)

Mr Ewen Cameron:
INDI, VICTORIA · LP

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 31 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many local manually connected trunk and STD telephone calls can the Telecom national network carry at any one time.
  2. At what capacity is the Telecom national telephone network being currently utilised on a percentage basis on each hour throughout the average week day.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The National Telecommunications Network is dimensioned to satisfactorily meet the demands of customers at the busiest time of the day. During the busy hour of the day the average number of simultaneous calls that the network is capable of handling is shown in Table 1 below:
  1. The daily busy period on an average week day generally occurs between 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. Hourly network traffics throughout the day are lower than the maximum average and typically follow a pattern shown in Table 2.

Natural Gas and Oil (Question No. 4171)

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 5 June 1979:

  1. What are the reserves of (a) natural gas and (b) oil located in Australia.
  2. What are the names of the companies exploiting the areas in which (a) natural gas and (b) oil, have been discovered,
  3. Which of these companies are (a) wholly Australianowned, (b) partly Australian-owned and (c) wholly owned by overseas interests.
  4. What oil prospecting leases are held by those companies which are wholly overseas-owned.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. The most recently published summary of Australia’s reserves of natural gas and crude oil is given in the Petroleum Newsletter No. 76 published by the Bureau of Mineral Resources of my Department. A copy is available in the Parliamentary Library.
  2. and (3) The companies involved in natural gas exploitation in Australia are:

The companies involved in oil explorationin Australia are:

  1. The Government’s foreign investment policy, which was introduced in April 1976, does not require any specific level of Australian participation at the exploration phase and details of foreign participation in individual exploration leases are not maintained.

Energy Conservation (Question No. 4187)

Mr Jacobi:

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

  1. 1 ) Did the Government institute studies to monitor the effects of the new pricing formula for crude oil as recommended in the proposals for an Australian Conservation of Energy Program by the National Energy Advisory Council in September 1977; if not, why not; if so, what were the results of the studies and by whom were they undertaken.
  2. Has the Government organised any training programs and provided an advisory service in energy conservation in conjunction with State Governments as recommended by the Council in 1977; if not, why not.
  3. Has a detailed study been made or commenced into desirable future fuel economy standards for new motor vehicles as recommended by the Council; if not, why not.
Mr Newman:
LP

– The answer to the honourable members ‘s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) Yes. The Department of National Development is presently conducting an extensive survey of fuel users and suppliers throughout Australia. It is intended that the results from his survey should be made available during 1 980.
  2. The main activity in this regard is the preparation by Commonwealth and State officials of a standard set of manuals on energy usage in industry. The manuals provide advice on energy practices in regard to specific industries and various energy intensive processes. When completed these manuals will be made available to consumers by Commonwealth and State Governments.
  3. After discussions between Government and industry, it has been agreed to proceed immediately with a voluntary program of national fuel economy goals for passenger vehicles as recommended by NEAC The fuel economy targets require the weighted average fuel consumption on new passenger cars to be reduced from the present 1 1 litres/ 100 km by 1987 to 9 litres/100 km by 1983 and 8 litres/100 km by 1987. This should result in savings of motor spirit of approximately 5 per cent in 1983 and 12 per cent in 1987.

Treasury: Motor Vehicles (Question No. 4289)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Treasurer, 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 part1).
Mr Howard:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the reply to House of Representatives Question No. 4299 provided by the Minister for Administrative Services (Hansard,11 September 1979, page 972).

Foreign Affairs: Motor Vehicles (Question No. 4290)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Foreign 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 Peacock:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Minister for Administrative Services to Question No. 4299 (Hansard, 1 1 September 1979, pages 972-3).

Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Lucas Heights (Question No. 4338)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Attorney-General’s attention been drawn to a minute, reference GAC: FRB, signed by Mr G. A. Creef, Manager HIFAR Operations Section, Australian Atomic Energy Research Establishment. Lucas Heights, N.S.W., dated 25 May 1979, to sub-section leaders relating to security arrangements at the Establishment (Hansard, 5 June 1979, page 2950)?
  2. Has the Government investigated claims that Japanese anti-nuclear activists are training local anti-nuclear activists in Australia: if so, (a) what is the nature of the alleged security threat?, (b) how many Japanese anti-nuclear activists are suspected of being in Australia?, (c) how and when did they arrive?, (d) is there evidence that they are training local activists or anti-nuclear groups to use nonlegitimate methods to express their anti-nuclear activity: if so, what are these methods? and (e) what is the nature of security arrangements taken to counter this alleged threat for the purpose of protecting (i) employees at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and (ii) residents living in close proximity to the Commission at Lucas Heights.
  3. How many persons have been placed under surveillance (a) in order to determine the validity of the alleged threat and ( b ) as a result of the investigations.
  4. For what period have persons been placed under surveillance because of the investigations.
  5. Does the Government consider that (a) residents who have expressed legitimate concern about the siting of the Research Establishment and the levels of radioactive discharges in the atmosphere and in the Woronora River (b) all or any Australian opponent to the nuclear industry, and (c) opponents to the Government’s decision to mine uranium, pose serious threats to Australian security.
  6. Does the Government have the right to place any opponents under surveillance at any particular time whenever allegations of security risks are made relating to the operations of the Commission, mining of uranium and the nuclear industry.
  7. What action is available to individuals who suspect their privacy and civil rights have been infringed and who wish to protect themselves from this infringement
Mr Viner:
LP

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

Eighteen members of a Japanese anti-nuclear group known as ‘Japanese Against Atomic and Nuclear Bombs and Power’ arrived in Australia on 19 May 1979. All members of the Group departed for New Zealand on 2 1 May. In accordance with the practice of successive Governments I do not propose to comment on any security measures which may have been adopted as a result of the visit of this Group.

Telecom Australia: Employees in Electoral Division of Shortland (Question No. 4340)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many (a) males, (b) females and (c) persons in total were employed by Telecom Australia in the Electoral Division of Shortland as at (i) 30 June 1976, (ii) 30 June 1977, (iii) 30 June 1978 and (iv) 7 June 1979.
  2. What was the employment in each of the divisions of Telecom in the Electoral Division on the same dates.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

(1)-

Unemployment and Job Vacancy Statistics (Question No. 4355)

Mr Young:

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

What was the distribution of registered unemployed and job vacancies between (a) metropolitan and (b) country areas in each State expressed in (i) adult and (ii) junior status for (A) males and (B) females as at 3 1 May in each of the years from 1976 to 1979, inclusive.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

Commonwealth Employment Service statistics relate to the Friday nearest the end of the month. Classification of vacancies by sex was discontinued in December 1978. At the same date registered unemployed adults and juniors, males and females were first published for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas in each State- as were adult and junior vacancies. Prior to that date, data on total males and total females were the only figures published on a regular basis. Subject to these reservations the information sought by the honourable member may be found in the May 1979 issue of the Monthly Review of the Employment Situation published by my Department.

Spina Bifida (Question No. 4428)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 22 August 1 979:

  1. Is it a fact that certain treatment for bladder stimulation for children with spina bifida is available at the Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, but not in Melbourne.
  2. If so, why are children requiring this treatment and living within 200 km of Melbourne not eligible for assistance to travel to Sydney under the National Health Act, whilst all other families are.
Mr Hunt:
Minister for Health · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes, I am informed that a particular research project involving bladder stimulation is being undertaken at the Prince of Wales and Prince Henry Hospitals in Sydney. I understand that it is too early yet to know whether the results of this particular form of treatment are encouraging enough to set up similar facilities in other major centres.
  2. The Isolated Patients’ Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme (IPTAAS), authorised by the National Health Act, was developed to assist people living in remote areas of Australia who, following referral by a medical practitioner, are required to travel at least 200 kilometres for treatment by the nearest suitable medical specialist. It was not designed to assist people living in major metropolitan centres, such as Melbourne (which is regarded as a centre of medical excellence), who have ready access to specialists in each of the specialists groups listed by the National Specialist Qualifications Advisory Committee. There are a number of recognised medical specialists practising in Melbourne who are qualified to treat children with spina bifida.

While I am fully sympathetic to the difficulties experienced by children suffering from spina bifida, I do not regard the problem you have raised as a matter for IPTAAS. As the provision of health care, which is considered appropriate for the citizens of each State, is primarily the responsibility of the State Government concerned, I feel it is a matter that should be taken up with the appropriate State authority.

Aboriginal Affairs: Uranium (Question No. 4451)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1 979:

What are the (a) maximum and (b) minimum estimates of the (i) past and (ii) projected proportion of the costs of administration of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs devoted to the marketing, use, supervision, control and assessment of Australia’s uranium ore and/or the products, services and activities derived from its existence.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

My Department is not involved in the kind of activities indicated, although some officers are engaged full or parttime on activities related to the monitoring of the impact of uranium mining on Aboriginals in the Alligator Rivers region.

Aborigines in Aurukun Shire (Question No. 4484)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 28 August 1979:

  1. Have Aborigines been expelled from Aurukun Shire for possession of liquor; if so, was this done by specific decision of the Aurukun Council or on the initiative of a paid official.
  2. Is possession of liquor on the reserve forbidden by Council regulation.
  3. Do regulations also forbid anyone leaving the Shire without authority; if so, whose authority.
  4. What regulations peculiar to Aurukun and/or Mornington Shires have been adopted on the recommendation of any Government official or any employee of the Council appointed or recommended for appointment by a Government or Government instrumentality.
  5. In what other Aboriginal communities in Queensland do similar regulations apply.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Not to my knowledge.
  2. No.
  3. , (4) and (5) No by-laws have yet been adopted by the Aurukun or Mornington Island Councils or been approved and gazetted under the Queensland Local Government Act.

Investment Allowance (Question No. 4509)

Mr Willis:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a statement by the Australian Industries Development Association that the timing of the investment allowance created a bank-up of orders prior to June 1978 which has led to an increased reliance on overseas suppliers of capital equipment; if so, is there any substance in this statement.
  2. How much of the increased imports of capital goods during (a) 1977-78 and (b) 1978-79 are estimated to have been due to the timing of the investment allowance.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) My attention has been drawn to the statement by the Australian Industries Development Association to which the honourable member refers. As to the substance of the statement, available data point to large increases in investment in plant and equipment in the June quarter 1978 and throughout 1978-79. This pattern is consistent with the assumption that the phasing down of the investment allowance for orders placed after 30 June 1978 did create a build-up of orders prior to that date. It is not possible to provide any direct evidence as to whether there has been increased reliance on overseas suppliers. A large share of capital investment goods in Australia has always been supplied from overseas. The evidence available suggests that there has also been an increase in local production of capital equipment.
  2. Imports of capital goods and industrial transport equipment, as defined in table 5 of the ABS publication 5406.0, increased by 13.1 per cent in current prices in 1977-78 and by 43.5 per cent in 1978-79. Those increases compared with increases of 7.3 per cent and 23.1 per cent in the two years for total merchandise imports. Since the investment allowance was only one of many factors affecting these imports it is not possible to estimate with any degree of confidence the extent to which the increases reflected the timing of the investment allowance.

Canberra City Post Office (Question No. 4536)

Mr Innes:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the recently released plans for a tourist centre on the Jolimont site in Canberra City; if so, is the new Canberra City Post Office still to be included in this site.
  2. Is the planning and design of the new post office in progress; if so, is it so oriented as to achieve harmony between the 2 conflicting uses of the site.
  3. When will funds be made available for the construction of the new Canberra City Post Office.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Preliminary planning for the new post office has been carried out. Further progress is dependent upon the outcome of impending negotiations on a submission for development of the site, which is in the hands of the Minister for the Capital Territory. Harmony between the component sections of the multi-purpose development will be of fundamental importance.
  3. Funds will be available when construction is to commence (see (2) above).

Telephone Call Revenue (Question No. 4540)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:

How much revenue was received from (a) country local calls, (b) country STD and trunk calls, (c) metropolitan LSA local calls and (d) metropolitan LSA, STD and trunk calls in each State during each year from 1 970 to date.

Mr Staley:
LP

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

The information requested is set out in the following tables, figures are shown in financial years to 1977-78. Telecom Australia advises that details for 1978-79 are not available as the accounts for that year have not been finalised.

Distillate Prices (Question No. 4557)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Business and

Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 30 August 1979:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to estimates of the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council, published in

National Farmer of 19 July 1979 that distillate prices have shot up 181 per cent in the last five years, while petrol prices have risen 1 10 per cent by comparison; if so, is there any substance in the estimates.

  1. Has his attention also been drawn to comments by the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation in the same article where oil companies were criticised on the grounds that they were exploiting a captive market by raising distillate prices at rates not justified by the overall lift in crude oil prices.
  2. 3 ) If so, in view of these and other allegations against oil companies, will he (a) ensure that the Prices Justification Tribunal is given sufficient funds and staff to thoroughly investigate the pricing of distillate and other petroleum products and (b) urgently introduce legislation to prevent oil companies exploiting the present shortage of some products.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. My attention has been drawn to the news item in question.
  2. Yes.
  3. Amendments made earlier this year to the Prices Justification Act 1973 gave particular attention to the need to provide for the inquiry into and the surveillance of particular prices.

Consistent with these requirements, the major petroleum companies are presently required to notify the Tribunal of proposed price increases in respect of a range of petroleum products which includes distillate. The Tribunal’s Public Inquiry Report dated 17 August 1979 dealt with the prices of petroleum products including distillate.

I have been informed that the PTJ’s resources are adequate to meet its responsibilities in respect of the examination of petroleum product prices and I am satisfied that the present arrangements are working satisfactorily.

State Funds for Housing (Question No. 4582)

Mr Uren:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Housing and

Construction, upon notice, on 11 September 1979:

  1. How did each of the States fulfil the requirements relating to matching fund arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States for housing during 1978-79.
  2. What level of funds did each of the States raise.
  3. What were the sources of these funds.
Mr Groom:
Minister for Housing and Construction · BRADDON, TASMANIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) Under the agreed procedures applying to matching funding arrangements in 1978-79 each State was required to provide by15 October 1978 a program of proposals to attract matching advances including a brief description of the nature of each scheme and estimate of expenditure on each scheme in 1978-79.

In addition, each State is required to furnish, as soon as possible after the end of the financial year, a statement showing actual expenditure during the year on approved schemes, that statement to be certified as to its correctness by a person appointed by the State Minister for Housing. These have yet to be received.

The following is a summary of proposals for expenditure in 1 978-79 submitted last year by each State to attract its pro rata share of the available matching advances of $130m, together with the sources of State funds.

Gift Duty (Question No. 4635)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that gift duty acted as a deterrent to income splitting between members of a family.
  2. If so, does the abolition of this duty leave the way open for tax evasion and avoidance and a serious loss in taxation revenue.
  3. What is the estimate of the cost in tax revenue foregone by the abolition of this duty for 1 979-80.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. Gift duty did no more than put a constraint on the transfer of capital assets in that, where a person’s gifts to non-exempt donees within a stipulated period exceeded $ 10,000, duty was payable at progressive rates. The gift duty legislation did not deter transfers in the sense of stopping them or necessarily making them unattractive.
  2. Abolition of gift duty is not seen as relevant to tax evasion practices which are, of course, illegal. To the extent that abolition resulted in the lifting of a constraint on the transfer of capital assets, it has, to a degree, made tax avoidance that much less complicated and costly. As against that, the Government has moved firmly against tax avoidance, including avoidance through certain lands of trusts, and will be monitoring other developments in the area of trusts generally.
  3. At the time of the announcement of the abolition of gift duty in November 1 977, it was estimated that the annual direct loss to revenue would be $ 1 3m.

Licensing of Aerodromes (Question No. 4637)

Mr Calder:

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

  1. Does the licensed aerodrome haveto be inspected daily by the reporting officer; if so, at what time of the day.
  2. What training does the reporting officer receive from his Department.
  3. How manytimes per annum are licensed aerodromes physically checked by his Department ‘s airport inspector.
  4. What criteria is used for delicensing a licensed aerodrome.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1) A licensed aerodrome does not need to be inspected daily. The frequency of timing of inspections depends on the type of airline service and staff arrangements at the aerodrome.
  2. The training of reporting officers is done by visiting airport inspectors, through the Reporting Officers Handbook and by courses arranged in my Department’s Regional Offices.
  3. The required frequency of inspections varies from two to twelve a year depending on whether or not the aerodrome has an airline service and also on the types of aircraft operating to the particular aerodrome.
  4. Delicensing of an aerodrome would occur in the following circumstances: on the request of the owner if it does not continue to meet physical or other licensing requirements (excluding temporary unserviceability) if the aerodrome owner cannot provide reports on the serviceability of the aerodrome.

Aircraft Accident Probability (Question No. 4650)

Mr Humphreys:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 18 September 1979:

What is the percentage of accident probability in (a) take-offs, (b) flight time and (c) landings for all types of aircraft owned and operated by TAA.

Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

An aircraft accident is defined as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until suchtime as all those persons have disembarked, in which:

any person suffers death or serious injury, or

the aircraft suffers substantial damage.

During the past ten years, TAA aircraft have been involved in five accidents in Australia. Three of the accidents resulted in substantial damage to aircraft but no injuries to occupants, and two arose from in-flight turbulence which resulted in serious injuries to occupants with virtually no damage to the aircraft.

Based on the records of all TAA operations in Australia for the ten year period from 1 January 1 969 to 3 1 December 1978, the accident rates in respect of aircraft owned and operated by TAA were:

1 in 303,000 take offs (3 accidents in approximately 910,000 take-offs),

if it is accepted that the honourable member’s reference to flight time is meant to include only en-route flighttime, the accident rate in this area was 1 in 455,000 sectors (2 accidents in 9 10,000 sectors),

there have been no landing accidents recorded in the ten year period during which TAA aircraft made approximately 910,000 landings.

Because of the small number of accidents involved, any determination of accident rates in respect of individual types of aircraft operated by TAA would not be meaningful.

National Energy Bodies (Question No. 4655)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 1 8 September 1979:

What is the difference in function between the National Energy Advisory Committee and the National Energy Research Development and Demonstration Council?

Mr Newman:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to my statement of 17 February 1978 on the National Energy Advisory Committee and my statement of 26 May 1978 on the National Energy Research Development and Demonstration Council.

Medical Facilities in Aircraft and at Airports (Question No. 4674)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 September 1979:

  1. How many persons died (a) on Australian aircraft flying over Australian territory, (b) on other aircraft flying over Australian territory and (c) at Australian airports in each of the years ended 31 May (i) 1977 (ii) 1978 and (iii) 1979.
  2. What method or procedures does his Department use to record such incidents.
  3. Has his Department completed consideration of a submission made in February 1 979 to him by the Doctors’ Reform Society, concerning unsatisfactory medical facilities in aircraft and at airports in Australia.
  4. If so, what were the results of that consideration.
  5. ) When will he comment publicly on the submission.
  6. What steps has his Department taken to better assure the safety of Australian passengers in the light of incidents at Sydney Airport in June 1978 and in the light of criticism of present medical facilities made by the Doctors’ Reform Society and transport unions.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Reported deaths for year ending 3 1 May:
  1. While deaths not associated with the operation of an aircraft are not required, under the Air Navigation Regulations, to be reported my Department does nevertheless seek information about deaths in flight or at airports. Deaths on airports are reportable by Airport Directors under procedures established in 1974. Information concerning deaths in flight is obtained under the above procedures and/or by the Aviation Medicine Branch of the Department from the Medical Directors of Airlines.
  2. Yes.
  3. The Doctors’ Reform Society submission has been examined in the light of a wider review of medical facilities at airports and in flight carried out by officers of my Department. While two of the specific recommendations made by the Doctors’ Reform Society have merit, five were found to be already operative and two are considered not to be feasible.
  4. The Doctors’ Reform Society made a submission to me and I have responded direct to them. The question as to public comment does not arise at present.
  5. Steps are already being taken by myDepartment to rectify any deficiencies which have become apparent during the course of this review of medical facilities at airports.

Patients’ Travel and Accommodation Assistance (Question No. 4682)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for

Health, upon notice, on 19 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that a number of patients living in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth regions requiring specialist medical treatment or services are unable to obtain those services in the city in which they reside.
  2. If so, will he extend the assistance granted under the Isolated Patients’ Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme so that needy patients from those cities are not excluded solely on the grounds of their residence.
  3. If assistance is not to be extended, what alternative measures does the Government propose to take to assist patients who live in the excluded capital cities to obtain specialist medical treatment or services which are not obtainable in their own city.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Specialists in each of the specialist groups listed by the National Specialist Qualifications Advisory Committee, and therefore recognised for purposes of the Health Insurance Act, are located in each of these major metropolitan areas. However, there have been some cases where a patient has preferred -treatment by a particular specialist located outside the metropolitan area in which the patient lives.
  2. The Isolated Patients’ Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme (IPTAAS), authorised by the National Health Act, was developed to assist people living in remote areas of Australia who, following referral by a medical practitioner, are required to travel at least 200 kilometres for treatment by the nearest suitable medical specialist. It was not designed to assist people living in major metropolitan centres who have ready access to specialists in each of the specialist groups listed by the National Specialist Qualifica- tions Advisory Committee.
  3. As the provision of health care, which is considered appropriate for the citizens of each State is primarily the responsibility of the State Government concerned, I would suggest that, enquiries regarding the availability of assistance in cases where treatment is sought in another capital city should be directed to the State Government concerned.

Sandy Hollow-Maryvale Railway Line (Question No. 4734)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his Department carried out any feasibility studies, either unilaterally of jointly with the New South Wales Government, into the completion of the Sandy HollowMaryvale Railway line, or any part thereof; if so, what are the cost estimates, in current prices, for whole or partial completion of this line.
  2. Have any feasibility studies provided estimates of new jobs which will be created during (a) construction and (b) operation of the new line.
  3. Have any commitments been made by the Commonwealth Government to the NSW Government regarding Commonwealth involvement in this project; if so, what are they; if not, why not.
  4. Has he or his Department had discussions regarding the completion of this railway line with any of the principals of White Industries, the coal mine operator at Ulan; if so, what was the substance of those discussions.
  5. If it is currently intended to complete only the section of this line between Sandy Hollow and Ulan, will he give consideration to the provision of Commonwealth assistance for the simultaneous completion of that section of the line between Ulan and Gulgong.
  6. What other railway lines are available which allow rail traffic to bypass the Sydney metropolitan area and what is the current condition of these lines.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. An economic evaluation of the completion of the Sandy Hollow-Maryvale railway was undertaken by the Bureau of Transport Economics. The project was considered in two stages: Sandy Hollow to Ulan to Gulgong, which will service potential export coal traffic, and Gulgong to Maryvale which will service other freight between western New South Wales and Newcastle. The results of this evaluation are contained in the BTE report entitled ‘Sandy Hollow-Maryvale Railway: Economic Evaluation of Proposed Completion’. This report is currently with the Government Printer and will be forwarded to me in the near future. The Bureau’s construction cost estimates are $34.4m for the Sandy Hollow to Gulgong stage and between $8.2m and $1 l.5m for the Gulgong to Maryvale stage (depending on the construction period).
  2. The BTE ‘s evaluation did not directly consider the employment effects of the construction and operation of the line.
  3. No commitments have been made. New South Wales Government officials have been provided with copies of the draft BTE Report on a confidential basis.
  4. BTE’s evaluation required close contact with the principals of White Industries. White Industries provided cost estimates of mine and railway construction and forecasts of coal flows from the proposed mine.
  5. I have no information on the intentions of the New South Wales Government with regard to this railway.
  6. I have no information which would allow me to comment on other railway lines available for rail traffic to bypass the Sydney metropolitan area. Information concerning these lines should be sought from the New South Wales Government.

Taxation Deductions: Overseas Conferences (Question No. 4743)

Mr Hurford:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the fact that the Australian Road Transport Federation held its 1979 annual conference in Hong Kong.
  2. If so, is it a fact that many more organisations are holding conferences overseas, with those persons attending the conferences then claiming their expenses as a tax deduction.
  3. If the position is as stated, does this action create a burden for the rest of the taxpayers of this nation, who in effect, subsidise about SO per cent of the cost of these trips; if so, how will the Government relieve ordinary Australian taxpayers of this burden.
Mr Howard:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)I was not aware of this Conference or where it was held.

  1. I am aware that some organisations hold conferences overseas on occasions but I have seen no evidence that this is happening more now than in the past.
  2. Expenditure on attending a conference is deductible for income tax purposes only to the extent that it is incurred in gaining or producing assessable income, or in carrying on a business for that purpose, and is not of a capital, private or domestic nature. In other words such expenditure is treated like any other business expense. It is a long-standing principle of income tax law that business expenses are deductible in ascertaining taxable income.

Manufacture of Penicillin (Question No. 4750)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 26 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) When will the Government decide whether the Commonwealth Serum Laboratory or the American firm Abbott Laboratories Pry Ltd, will be chosen as the sole manufacturer of penicillin in Australia.
  2. Have both his Department and the Department of Defence recommended that penicillin should continue to be manufactured in Australia in the national interest.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Government still has its policy on the continued support of the manufacture of penicillin in Australia under consideration and, at an appropriate time, a statement will be made.

Northern Land Council (Question No. 4766)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 27 September 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister able to say whetherthe Northern Land Council failed in its duty to satisfy itself that the Oenpelli land owners understood and accepted before signing an agreement allowing Queensland Mines to move ore by road instead of by sea as originally proposed.
  2. If so, what steps has the Government taken to ensure that the Council (a) is properly constituted pursuant to the events alleged to have occurred in question No. 4593 and (b) adheres to its obligations under land rights law. (3)Do the recent decisions of the Walpiri, Aranta and other peoples to form land councils independent of the N.L.C. indicate a growing disillusion with the bona fides and /or capacity of the N.L.C. to represent diverse Aboriginal interests in its region.
  3. If so, will the Government facilitate more direct access of Aboriginal communities to legal, anthropological and administrative aid not provided by the N.L.C.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The agreement concluded between the Northern Land Council and Queensland Mines Limited does not provide for the movement of ore by road or sea. The ore will be processed in a mill located at the mine site. It is my understanding that both the traditional owners of the area concerned and the Aboriginal community at Oenpelli had agreed to the location of the mill at the mine site prior to the agreement being concluded.
  2. See (1) above. I have no reason to believe that the Northern Land Council is not properly constituted. (3)I have received no recent requests for the formation of new land councils. The Walpiri and Aranta people are in the area of the Central Land Council. The Chairman of the Central Desert Land Trust, recently nominated to hold title to land recommended to be granted by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner in his report on the Walpiri land claim, issued a public statement correcting reports indicating that a new land council was being formed and expressing support for the Central Land Council.
  3. See (3) above.

Air Fares Between Australia and Japan (Question No. 4770)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the Official Report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Japan in July 1978, and to its recommendations, and in particular to the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to question No. 4496 (Hansard, 25 September 1979, pages 1530-1) with respect to recommendation No. 4 of the report;
  2. If so, what action is being taken to reduce air fares between Australia and Japan and what consultations have taken place as at 26 September 1 979.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Details of discussions that have been held recently between Qantas and Japan Airlines on Australia-Japan air fares were provided in the answer I gave to Question No. 2851 (Hansard,1 May 1979, pages 1687-8).

Since providing that answer a further round of discussions between Qantas and Japan Airlines was held in Tokyo on 7-8 June 1979. Talks to date have not resulted in a revised fares package acceptable to both airlines. Consideration is presently being given to courses available to the Government in its further pursuit of reduced air fares for travel between Australia and Japan.

Radioactive Waste (Question No. 4779)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 27 September 1979:

What areas in Australia are being considered by the Government as national repositories of radio active waste.

Mr Newman:
LP

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

None. In my Press statement of 19 September 1979 I announced that the Prime Minister had written to the Premiers and the Chief Minister, Northern Territory, seeking their cooperation in developing co-ordinated policies on the management of radioactive waste and arising from medical, research and industrial use of radioisotopes. I also noted that these consultations would provide an opportunity to discuss proposals raised from time to time that a national repository or repositories for such wastes be established.

Recovery of ‘Lady Southern Cross’ Aircraft (Question No. 4780)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 9 October 1978:

What action is the Government taking to assist the project of Mr Ted Wixted of the Queensland Museum to recover the bodies of Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith and J. T. Pethybridge and the aircraft Lady Southern Cross lost in 1935.

Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

Several years ago, a Mr Wixted organised an expedition to Burma to search for the wreckage of the aircraft, Lady Southern Cross which disappeared in 1935 while on a flight from Britain to Australia. The Commonwealth Government was able to assist the entry of the expedition into Burma.

I am advised that a further expedition is being planned but I have not received any requests for assistance.

Damage to Australian Embassy in Paris (Question No. 4781)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) What was the extent of the damage caused by heavy rains at the new Australian Embassy in Paris, France, in June 1979.
  2. What was the total cost of repair, cleaning and. replacement of damaged materials.
  3. Was the extent of the damage anticipated.
  4. What was the reason for the extent of the damage.
  5. What action has been taken to prevent a recurrence of extreme water damage.
Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. Flooding at the Australian Embassy in Paris on the evening of 3 June 1979 was confined to the second basement (lowest) level beneath the apartment block. Water rose to a height of one metre and caused damage to pumps, electrical installations, flooring and a quantity of maintenance spares.
  2. The cost of repair, cleaning and replacement of damaged equipment and materials is estimated at $250,000. Action to recover costs through the contractors’ insurance companies is being pursued by the Embassy’s lawyers with the assistance of the Commonwealth Crown Solicitors Office.
  3. No.
  4. The flooding resulted from an inspection plug on a sewerage/storm water line in the basement being blown out under pressure by an abnormally excessive build-up of water in the public drainage system. The rainfall in the area was officially recorded as being 38.5 mm in the space of one hour. It is also reported that there were 300 other buildings in Paris with flooded basements after the storm.
  5. A new inspection plug has been installed and strengthened with additional bracing. A team of consultant experts has been engaged to examine and report on the drainage system, including its design.

Diplomatic Relations with Malta (Question No. 4815)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 9 October 1 979:

  1. 1 ) When did the Government of Malta withdraw its High Commissioner to Australia.
  2. When did Australia withdraw its High Commissioner to Malta.
  3. What discussions have taken place with a view to raising the status of representation from Acting High Commissioner to High Commissioner.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The High Commissioner for Malta in Australia was recalled in January 1978.
  2. The Australian High Commissioner left Malta in October 1978 on his retirement from Government service.
  3. No such discussions have taken place. My colleague the Treasurer did, however, at my request discuss the bilateral relationship with the Prime Minister of Malta, when he visited Malta recently to attend the Commonwealth Finance Ministers’ Conference, and conveyed to him directly the Australian Government’s desire for good relations with Malta. I hope that that initiative will prove to be the first step towards restoration of the relationship to its former warmth. In that process, consideration will of course be given to the level of our representation in Malta.

Nursing Homes in Electoral Division of St George (Question No. 4822)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:

What are the names of registered nursing homes in the Electoral Division of St George and how many beds are there in each of those nursing homes.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The names and approved bed capacities of nursing homes located in the Electoral Division of St George as at 10 October 1979 are as follows:

Maningrida Aboriginal Community (Question No. 4856)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) What conditions were imposed, foreshadowed or suggested for restoration of Federal funding to Maningrida Council at or about the time of cessation of that funding.
  2. What action was taken by the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to exclude former employees of the Council from Aboriginal land at Maningrida and under what authority.
  3. What was the response of the Maningrida community to this exclusion.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) None. As indicated in the Minister’s Press statement of 16 January 1978 grants were terminated because the Council was not operating effectively and it was made clear that there would be consultations ‘with the aim of establishing a new Council which could progressively resume responsibility for community affairs ‘.
  2. No action was taken by the Minister, but an officer of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs gave notice in writing to former employees of the Council that their authorisation to be on the reserve was terminated under the provision of the Social Welfare Ordinance.
  3. I am informed that representations were received from some members of the Maningrida community seeking the return of three of the former employees of the Council.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 23 October 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1979/19791023_reps_31_hor116/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant