House of Representatives
20 November 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 3157

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

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 Falconer, Mr Killen, Mr McVeigh, Mr Martyr and Mr Millar.

Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of Parliament assembled in the House of Representatives, Canberra the humble petition of the undersigned members or organisations listed below and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the thorough nationwide investigations by the Working Party highlighted the need to establish the National Women ‘s Advisory Council.

That we believe the Council consistently and democratically demonstrates its wide representation of the interests of all Australian women, as shown by the Draft Plan of Action for the 1980 National Conference to be held in Canberra in preparation for Australia’s participation in the United Nations Decade for Women World Conference in Denmark, July 1980.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray.

That the Parliament will continue its support of the National Women’s Advisory Council and its recommendations.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Falconer, Mr Holding, Mr Howe and Mr Scholes.

Petitions received.

Education

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

The Petition of certain citizens of NSW.

Respectfully showeth:

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

Government School bear the burden of these cuts, 11.2 per cent while non-Government school will receive an increase of 3.4 per cent.

We call on the Government to again examine the proposals as set out in the guidelines for Education expenditure 1980 and to immediately restore an 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 Charles Jones, Mr Lusher, Mr Morris and Mr Uren.

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 Bryant.

Petition 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 pan 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 ever pray. by Mr MacKellar and Mr Simon.

Petitions received.

Metric System

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

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country is causing and will cause widespread inconvenience, confusion, expense and distress. That there is no certainty that any significant benefits or indeed any benefits at all will follow the use of the new weights and measures.

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed, and that the Australian Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional and familiar units to be restored to those areas where the greatest inconvenience and distress are occurring, that is to say, in meteorology, in road distances, in sport, in the building and allied trades, in the printing trade, and in retail trade.

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

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

Petitions received.

Metric System

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

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

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

Petition received.

Unemployment Benefits

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

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

Petitions received.

Broadcasting and Television

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 because television and radio:

  1. affect our social and moral environment,
  2. are family media watched and heard by many children at all times, and
  3. present too much explicit violence and sex, they therefore need stronger control than other media and the existing standards need stricter enforcement in both national ABC and commercial sectors.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Australian Government will amend the Broadcasting and Television Act, in relation to both national and commercial broadcasters, to legislate:

  1. for adequate and comprehensive programs in the best interests of the general public,
  2. b ) for a ‘ Dual System of Regulation ‘ enforced by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal by Internal regulation and external control.
  3. for an independent consumer body to represent the best interests of the general public, and
  4. for immediate and effective penalties to be imposed for breaches of program and advertising standards.

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

Petition received.

Pornographic Publications

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition 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 negotiations within the Health Department with inside information on drug manufacturing costs and so prevents collusive monopolistic pricing by major transitional 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 Fawmac group of companies.

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

Petition received.

Brisbane Airport

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 proposed re-development of the Brisbane International Airport as shown in the Statement of Evidence and Supporting Drawings presented to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works will cause undue hardship to large numbers of Southside Brisbane residents.

That as a result of this development, noise and air pollution in the Cannon Hill, Morningside, Balmoral, Norman Park and Bulimba areas will increase, adversely affecting private residences, schools, churches, clubs, businesses and sports.

That the approximate $100m allocated for the new Airport will be wasted, as the proposed new runway will be subject to noise abatement restructions from its first day of operation.

That Brisbane residents, whose taxes will be used to transfer the noise problem from one area to another, seek a postponement of the initiation of any works until such time as proposals by Air Traffic Controllers and Air Pilots for a cross runway, which will reduce noise and increase safety, can be considered.

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

Petition received.

Overseas Students

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

The petition of the undersigned, citizens of Australia, and overseas students, respectfully showeth our deepest opposition to the introduction of discriminatory fees for overseas students.

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

  1. Financial Implications and Impact on the Matriculation Overseas Students.

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

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

  1. Aid to developing countries.

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

  1. Discriminatory Effect of the Introduction of Fees.

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

  1. Interchange of cultures.

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

  1. Positive Form of Aid.

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

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

Petition received.

Foreign Ownership of Australian Resources

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That there has been an escalation of foreign ownership and control of Australian industries and resources to the detriment of the national interest. We view with deep concern that (i) over 55 percent of the profits of all companies in Australia is payable overseas, (ii) that the Foreign Investment Review Board in the last 3 years has passed over 3,500 applications for the takeover of Australian companies and has rejected less than 25, (iii) that proposals for an effective resource tax on super profits made by foreign companies in Australia have been dropped, (iv) that foreign investment guidelines have been changed to favour foreign companies ahead of Australian owned companies for new ventures and takeover bids.

Your petitioners humbly pray that the Australian Government reverses policies which place Australian resources, particularly Australia’s mineral energy resources, under foreign ownership and control.

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

Petition received.

Nuclear Reactor

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

That they oppose the construction of any additional reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy Establishment at Lucas Heights in NSW.

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

Petition received.

Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Unemployment

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, electors of Bass, respectfully showeth that there is deep public concern about the effect unemployment is having on our society in the short and in the long term.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House make the highest priority in the economic management of the country the reduction of unemployment and the alleviation of the condition of unemployed people.

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

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 respecfully 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 PJT 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/BHP is enjoying as a result of the increase in price of LPG from $110 to $147 per tonne be direct 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 Short.

Petition received.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

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

The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth submits:

That offshore oil exploration within the Great Barrier Reef Region constitutes a serious threat to the richest and most varied living system on earth.

Your Petitioners request that your Honourable House will:

  1. Declare the whole Great Barrier Reef Region a Marine Park under the Federal Government’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975,
  2. Prohibit oil exploration within the Great Barrier Reef Region (as defined by the 1975 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act)
  3. Retain full Federal Government control over the whole Great Barrier Reef Region,
  4. Provide the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority with staff and resources sufficient for effective management of the Region.

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

Petition received.

page 3161

AIR FARES

Notice of Motion

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

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

That this House:

Notes that since April 1976, the Government has rubber-stamped seven air fare increases totalling 40 per cent by Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines,

observes that assessment of the air fare increase applications was completed in secret by three Department of Transport officers in periods as short as eight days,

deplores the Government’s failure to provide for public scrutiny of, or participation in, application for air fare increase proceedings,

recognises that the existing base domestic air fare formula fails to give adequate consideration to the twin components of ‘flag fall’ and ‘distances travelled’, and

is of the opinion that:

a public inquiry should be initiated forthwith into the base domestic air fare structure to ensure that air fares properly reflect the consideration of the costs inherent in longer flight stages and flag fall charges and to recommend means by which existing anomalies and inequities in current air fare schedules may be removed, and

that all future applications for increases in domestic air fares should be the subject of public examination by the Prices Justification Tribunal to ensure that increases sought are fair and justified and that the interests of air travellers are protected.

page 3161

AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY PROPOSALS

Notice of Motion

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

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

That this House censures and condemns Australian Labor Party proposals to abolish State Governments, to abolish the Senate, and to establish a Socialist-Centralist Republic in Australia against the will of the people of Australia and in total contradiction of the basic principles of free enterprise federalism upon which the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia is clearly based.

It is seconded by the honourable member for Wilmot(Mr Burr).

Mr SPEAKER:

– I indicate to the honourable member for Denison that notices do not require seconding. If the honourable gentleman indicates who seconds the notice he just takes up the time of the House and adds nothing to the notice.

page 3161

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY POLICIES

Notice of Motion

Mr Dean proceeding to give notice of motion-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. Interlaced in what the honourable gentleman is putting forward as a notice are the arguments which he proposes to use. I ask him to reform his notice so that it contains propositions and not arguments.

page 3161

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 3161

QUESTION

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Deputy Prime Minister in simple terms: What is the Government’s definition of ‘ministerial responsibility’?

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

– It is doing one’s job according to the Constitution.

page 3162

QUESTION

ON-FARM FUELS

Mr GILES:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for National Development seen a Bureau of Agricultural Economics working paper in which statistics are produced showing that vegetable oils are the most promising on-farm source of tractor fuel? Is the Minister aware that such oils are being used in Western Australia as a direct substitute for distillate in its pure form? What legislative restrictions may apply to such on-farm use? If an excise payment currently applies, will the Government look at exempting such oils from excise when used on farm as a direct substitute for distillate?

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

-I thank the honourable member for his question. Of course we are aware of reports such as the one referred to. As part of its energy policy the Government is actively pursuing a very vigorous research and development program concerning such things as ethanol and its on-farm production. I think this year approvals under that research and development program will amount to almost $2m. Some of the results that we are now getting are most encouraging. The precise question of on-farm production presents some problems in regard to excise and the supervision of it. The Government is looking at this area very carefully and I hope to be in a position soon to make a policy announcement concerning the on-farm production of this type of fuel. The answer that I have given to the honourable member probably summarises the position.

page 3162

QUESTION

DOMESTIC COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE

Mr INNES:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

-The Minister for Post and Telecommunications will be aware that at paragraph 28 on page 37 of the working group report on the introduction of a domestic satellite it is stated: . . a low powered Domestic Broadcasting Satellite . . . service in Australia might operate under increasing difficulties in the longer term if other countries in the region introduce high powered DBS services.

Is the Minister aware that it is proposed in the working group report that any Australian DBS use low powered, 20-watt transponders operating in the 12 gigahertz frequency range? Is the Minister further aware that Japan intends to use a high powered DBS service and is about to launch an experimental satellite using such high powered, 250-watt transponders operating on the same frequency range as that proposed for Australia? I ask the Minister. Will Japanese satellite communications blanket or interfere with signals from any Australian satellite? If so, what is being done to overcome this problem?

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

– The honourable member has raised important and technical questions. These matters are under close consideration by my officials and officials in all relevant government authorities. I can assure him that such matters will not be overlooked by the Satellite Project Office as it proceeds with studies towards the introduction in Australia of a domestic communications satellite. In particular, with respect to the Japanese system, I make it clear that I was advised early this year about developments in Japan leading towards the introduction of a high powered satellite system for direct broadcasting. Our advisers have tended to believe that a lower cost, lower powered satellite is capable of direct broadcasting services, but it is obviously important that it be capable of direct broadcasting under circumstances of possible interference. I can assure the honourable member that these matters are serious and that they will be kept under very close review.

page 3162

QUESTION

KAMPUCHEA

Mr FALCONER:
CASEY, VICTORIA

– I remind the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the concern felt by many Australians at Australia’s recent support for the United Nations General Assembly decision to accept the credentials of the delegation from the Pol Pot administration in Kampuchea. Is the Minister aware that many Australians were disappointed at Australia’s failure to support the Indian initiative, that is, that the Kampuchean seat at the United Nations be left vacant for the time being? Has his attention been drawn to the reply given by Senator Carrick in the Senate yesterday, indicating that the Government is keeping the recognition question under close and continuing review? Can the Minister confirm the accuracy of reports in this morning’s Press, namely, that the Australian Government is considering withdrawing its recognition of the Pol Pot administration?

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

-It is probably wise that I elucidate this matter a little because some of the premises inherent in the honourable member’s question are not ones that I accept. Firstly, in regard to the question of credentials in the United Nations, the reality is that if one does not accept the credentials of a given state one must, therefore, point to another state with better credentials which can be accepted. If it is alleged to me, or to this Government, that the representatives of the 200,000 Vietnamese troops in Kampuchea are the ones I should recognise and whose presence I should legitimise, that is an argument that I reject unhesitatingly. If it is put to me that the

Heng Samrin regime is allegedly now in a position better to control the affairs of Kampuchea, I point out that it has little influence beyond the perimeter of Phnom Penh. Outside that area the control is Vietnamese or, in the given area where the so-called Pol Pot regime has influence over 800,000 to one million people, there is a contest between the Vietnamese and the Pol Pot regime.

The recognition of the Pol Pot regime was not a move that was taken by this Government. It was a recognition bestowed by the previous Government in what can be described only as rather dubious circumstances. I well recall seeking from the Government of the day the circumstances in which that recognition was bestowed. I sought the rank, name and affiliation of the person with whom it had communicated in so bestowing the recognition. It was days before the Government of the day could give me any response. That belongs to history; that was in 1975. This Government came to power and inherited that recognition. However, it never allowed that recognition to connote support for that regime.

In this Parliament, in the General Assembly and in the Human Rights Commission, the Government made perfectly clear its position as to what its attitude was to the excesses of the Pol Pot regime. Recognition does not connote support, and that ought be remembered at all times. The honourable member chides the Government for not supporting the Indian resolution in the United Nations. I am sorry to have to point out to the honourable member that we co-sponsored the Association of South East Asian Nations resolution for very good reasons. We co-sponsored and supported that resolution, as did 90 other countries in so voting for it, not merely because it addressed the humanitarian problem but also because it called for the withdrawal of the Vietnamese forces in Kampuchea. My recollection is that it was a vote of approximately 91 to 21, although I would have to check the figures.

I well understand the motivation of the honourable member in asking about this question. There have been few, if any, more deplorable regimes than the Pol Pot regime. I do not resile one cubit from that statement and that observation. I have had this very question of recognition under examination. I said that we inherited it and I said that we continued it. We have trenchantly criticised it here and elsewhere, and I have the matter under consideration. In referring to the answer by Senator Carrick as Minister representing me in the Senate, the honourable member asks whether I am aware of the answer that was given by Senator Carrick yesterday. I am aware of the answer and of course I was associated with preparing advice to Senator Carrick on the manner in which that answer should be given.

I share the concern of the honourable member regarding the Pol Pot regime. There are very legitimate reasons for the regime’s credentials being accepted, and the majority of members of the United Nations agreed with that decision. That credentials element is a separate issue from recognition. I have indicated that we inherited that and at the present moment are continuing it, but I have that under constant review. I have it under review because of the concerns which I have with the nature of the regime and, more importantly, because that regime no longer has the overwhelming control that it seemingly had in 1975 to the previous Government. At this juncture, I am not prepared to recommend to the Government that it be changed, but I reiterate that it is constantly under review.

page 3163

QUESTION

TAKEOVER BID BY NEWS LTD

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs aware of an announcement today by the News Ltd group of its intention to seek a controlling interest in the Herald and Weekly Times media group? Will a successful takeover by News Ltd concentrate the ownership and control of the great majority of Australia’s Press and television in the hands of two powerful media organisations? Will the Minister consider the News Ltd announcement in the light of this potential undesirable trend and also in the light of the terms of section 50 of the Trade Practices Act which deals with company mergers?

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

– I have had my attention drawn to published reports of the takeover bid referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. I will do as he has requested and look at it in the light of the provisions of the Trade Practices Act, to which he referred.

page 3163

QUESTION

DISCOVERY OF OIL IN THE SURAT BASIN

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

-My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. He will be aware of the recent discovery of oil in the Surat Basin in Queensland and the extensive oil exploration program planned for inland Queensland? Can the Deputy Prime Minister say to what extent these oil exploration programs have been encouraged by the Government’s oil pricing policy?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

-I think that we all welcomed very much the announcement this morning by

Esso Exploration and Production Australia Incorporated of its intention to spend some $13m in a very extensive exploration for oil and gas in the Galilee Basin in central Queensland. I am sure that the reason for its being prepared to invest such large amounts of risk capital is the policies of this Government, which have encouraged a greater amount of exploration to take place. That has happened because of the pricing policy. I noticed that Esso said that because of the profits it was making in Bass Strait it was able to plough back money into more exploration in Australia. So, in effect, the pricing policy is achieving what we aimed for it to do. It had five essential purposes. The first was to try to recover as much oil as possible from producing wells. Another was to encourage more exploration, and this is obviously what the policy is doing. It was to discourage the wasting of petroleum. It was to foster more rational decisions in the use of various energy sources. It was also to give encouragement to people to do research into alternative types of fuel. I think it is fair enough to say that the pricing policy is having its effect and is the only realistic policy to follow if we want to get the maximum exploration possible and the greatest use of alternative resources.

If we reflect for a moment on what was happening during the period the Australian Labor Party was in office, we will recall that its policies were an absolute disaster. We saw an encouraging exploration program which operated during the 1960s and the early 1970s virtually die away to nothing during Labor’s period of office. I believe that that was one of the most tragic legacies that the Labor Party left behind. If more exploration had been carried on recently who knows, we might have found more oil and been in a very favoured position in relation to self-sufficiency. It is only now, with our new approach and new policies, that we are starting to catch up to the state of affairs that existed in 1 972. We certainly do not want to discourage people from looking for oil, to drive exploration groups away from this country and to put ourselves into such a hazardous position as we were in during the unfortunate years of Labor government.

page 3164

QUESTION

WOOMERA

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister for Defence aware of recent news items which state that the United Kingdom has now completely severed itself from activities at Woomera in South Australia? In view of earlier stated opinions that Woomera would be placed on a care and maintenance basis with the possibility of the United Kingdom returning to weapons testing in the 1980s, what does the future now hold for the township and people of Woomera, other than providing services for the United States of America Nurrungar installation?

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

– I appreciate the sustained interest the honourable gentleman has shown in the Woomera village and in the people of Woomera. He will be aware of the fact that there has been a gradual run-down in the joint United Kingdom-Australia long range weapons project. Subject to correction, I believe that the formal aspects of that project will terminate in approximately June next year. The village then will be put on a care and maintenance basis, as the honourable gentleman said. I inform him that the Services are conducting trials to find out whether there is any scope or opportunity to use the area as an exercise ground. The Army recently completed an exercise in the area, which is now the subject of an environmental study. I will continue to inform the honourable gentleman of any further developments.

page 3164

QUESTION

IRAN

Mr McLEAN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I refer the Minister for Foreign Affairs to media reports stating that the revolutionary groups which seized the United States of America Embassy in Tehran are proposing to release certain of the hostages and to subject the remaining hostages to trial on charges of espionage. I ask the Minister: What is the Government’s attitude towards the release of some of the United States hostages in Tehran? What is the Government’s attitude to the decision to place the remaining hostages on trial, bearing in mind the predictable outcome of the other political trials conducted by representatives of the Islamic Revolutionary Council? Has the Minister expressed this Government’s concern over these most recent developments to officials of the Iranian Embassy in Canberra and to the United States Government?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

-I have expressed the Government’s concern, both through my Department to the charge-d ‘affaires of the Iranian Embassy in Canberra and to the Secretary of State personally and in communications with him from our mission in Washington to the State Department. The statements I have made have also been noted and passed on by the United States Embassy in Canberra. It is pleasing to note that three of the hostages held at the United States Embassy in Iran have been released and that 10 more may soon be freed. However, it is important that these developments not be allowed to obscure the very much more significant fact that the great majority of the hostages are now entering their third week of captivity, apparently with very little prospect of early release. The holding of hostages at the United States Embassy in Tehran quite clearly is in total conflict with Iran’s obligations under international law, and such action cannot be justified in any circumstances whatsoever.

I am most disturbed, and the Government is disturbed, to hear reports that Ayatollah Khomeini and those occupying the Embassy have said that the hostages who are not to be released will be on so-called trial before Islamic revolutionary courts on charges of espionage. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, to which Iran is a party, a diplomatic agent is immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state, and if the threatened action were carried out it would compound what is already a serious violation of international law. I reiterate, although perhaps in different words, the feeling of the Australian Government that it and, I think, every other government which respects the accepted norms of international behaviour would strongly deplore such action.

page 3165

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Mr SPEAKER:

– I wish to inform the House that we have present in the Gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from the Republic of Indonesia led by the Honourable Mohamad Isnaeni, the Deputy Speaker of the Indonesian Parliament. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to members of the delegation.

Honourable members- Hear, hear!

Mr SPEAKER:

– I also wish to inform the House that today we have the honour to have in the House the Honourable Andreas Andrianopoulos, Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the Government of Greece.

Honourable members- Hear, hear!

page 3165

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 3165

QUESTION

EXPENDITURE ON RENT

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Housing and Construction aware that the national accounts published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that in 1974-75 private consumption expenditure on dwelling rent made up 13.7 per cent of total final private consumption expenditure, but that in 1978-79 the figure rose to 17.3 per cent? How does the Minister explain the dramatic increase in the proportion of consumer spending absorbed by rents during this period?

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

– The question of rents has been raised a number of times by the honourable member for Reid. As I have indicated to the House on previous occasions, on the information available from the Bureau of Statistics and on a careful analysis of that information, a person on average weekly earnings is spending a lower percentage of those earnings on average rent in the capital cities of Australia than he was four or five years ago, during the period of the Government of which the honourable member for Reid was a representative and a Minister. As I have said, in the area of rents and in the area of prices for land and for houses, the position has improved significantly while this Government has been in office. The same position applies across the board in most of the important indicators for housing. The housing situation is now far better, on a broad range of statistics, than it was in December 1975 when this Government came to office, and I have referred previously to the situation in respect of building materials.

I know that the honourable member for Reid is particularly concerned about the rental situation. That position is clear; there has been an improvement. As far as home purchase is concerned, there has also been an improvement. We are concerned about those who want to rent and those who are renting houses at the present time. We are equally concerned about improving the position of those who want to purchase a house. I do not mind saying as a Minister that I am a keen supporter of home ownership, and this Government is a keen supporter of home ownership. This Government’s record on home ownership and rental housing is far better than the record of the Australian Labor Party when it was in office.

page 3165

QUESTION

TAXATION ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Treasurer: Has the Foreign Investment Review Board approved the purchase of a grazing property in New South Wales by the National Coal Board of Great Britain? Is it a fact that the profits on this investment are free of tax because section 23F of the Income Tax Assessment Act provides tax-free status for approved superannuation funds? If this is correct, will the Treasurer kindly explain to the House the benefit of this sort of investment to Australia?

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

-It is true that on the recommendation of the Foreign Investment Review Board I approved the acquisition to which the honourable gentleman referred. The honourable gentleman obviously has an interest in the matter. I will check the taxation position of the acquiring company. My recollection, without checking, is that the company was owned to a significant measure by the United Kingdom organisation to which the honourable gentleman referred in his question. As to the exact operations of the Income Tax Assessment Act regarding the profits of that company, I would like to check the position. If there is any further information that I can supply, I will do so for the benefit of the honourable member and the House.

The honourable member asked about benefit to Australia. The foreign investment policy requires the Government and the Foreign Investment Review Board to take into account net economic benefits, including the question of what is offered by the proposed purchaser, be it a foreign purchaser or a domestic purchaser, in terms of the development of the property. On this occasion I was satisfied that net economic benefits would be available in terms of potential development of the property to warrant approval.

page 3166

QUESTION

TAXATION: DEPRECIATION ON TRAVELLER ACCOMMODATION

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. Is there any evidence of increased activity in the construction industry as a result of the introduction of a tax deduction for depreciation on traveller accommodation announced in this year’s most excellent Budget?

Mr GROOM:
LP

-At this stage it is a little too early to gauge precisely the impact of this important decision on the construction industry around Australia, but there are signs to suggest that this important initiative will have a significant impact over time. We have only one set of figures available at present on which to try to judge the impact of the decision. They are the figures for building approvals. In September this year there was a 45 per cent increase in hotel building approvals around Australia- a very substantial increase indeed. Honourable members may have noticed in the Press, I think it was last week, the announcement that a decision had been made to construct a S45m 600-room hotel in Sydney. It is to be constructed by an Asian-based consortium.

I understand that a number of other hotel projects of similar magnitude are under way and going through the pre-commencement stages in various parts of Australia. In fact, independent research reveals that currently around Australia $600m worth of hotel work is in active planning and proceeding toward commencement. As a comparison, in 1978 the value of actual commencements in the hotel and motel sector of the building industry totalled a little under $80m. So we are now looking at $600m worth of projects as against $80m worth of projects for 1978. That is certainly a very substantial increase. It is becoming obvious that this decision will have a very beneficial impact on the building and construction industry in the months ahead, and indeed in the years ahead.

page 3166

QUESTION

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr ALDRED:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– Would the Minister for Industry and Commerce agree that the considerable economic importance that small business has to Australia is now finally being properly recognised?

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

– The honourable gentleman has taken a very close and personal interest in the concerns of the small business community in Australia. I certainly thank him for his suggestion. There is no doubt that the small business community, representing some 370,000 enterprises in manufacturing industries, wholesaling and retail trades, plays a key role in our free enterprise system. In addition to accounting for almost 40 per cent of total private employment, small firms provide a productive outlet for the energies of a larger group of enterprising people who seek independence rather than working for large organisations. Consumers, of course, benefit from the diversity of goods and services which are provided by the small business community, which tends to specialise in the supply of goods and services which larger firms sometimes find it uneconomic to produce. In so doing small businesses therefore play a very important role by competing with larger firms and reducing the concentration of economic power in the Australian community.

I think it is also fair to say that every large business self-evidently was once small. Last week I had the opportunity of presenting national awards to a number of small businesses which had significant success stories in relation to management and enterprise in the marketing of a wide and diverse range of services. In recent years the Government has taken a significant number of new initiatives to assist the small business community. I refer, of course, to the reforms to Division 7 which have cost revenue some $70m, the increased loans by the Commonwealth Development Bank, the abolition of estate and gift duties and an increased budgetary allowance for small business management programs. I agree with the judgment made by the honourable gentleman that this is a very significant part of the Australian community which is receiving, by virtue of the initiatives I have mentioned, proper and increasing recognition by the Government.

page 3167

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is also directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Did the Government announce as long ago as October 1977 that it would concentrate on giving preference in government purchasing to Australian-made goods? Is it a fact that this policy not only has been supported by the Labor Opposition but also has been endorsed by the Australian Manufacturing Council and by the Australian Science and Technology Council? Have those groups called for a more determined application of this policy, among other reasons, to stimulate the development of more sophisticated manufacturing methods? In view of all of this, what effects will the ratification of the multilateral trade negotiations code of conduct on government procurement have on this policy? What does the Government plan to do, particularly for small business, in order to carry out more effectively its promise to assist Australian manufacturing industry by means of government purchasing policies?

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I direct the attention of the honourable member for Adelaide to a Press release dealing with these matters that I put out on 2 October. In fact, I may even lay a copy of the release on the table so that the honourable member can have a look at it afterwards. I inform ‘ him and the House- I appreciate the opportunity to do so- that very shortly we will be producing a booklet entitled ‘How to do Business with the Government’. That will canvass all of these matters.

page 3167

QUESTION

PERSONAL INCOME TAX

Mr SHACK:
TANGNEY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I refer the Treasurer to widespread calls for the introduction of a flat rate of personal income tax to replace the present threetiered rate system. Has the Treasurer examined these proposals? What are their implications for all groups of taxpayers?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

-The honourable member rightly draws attention to the fact that from time to time calls are made by a wide spectrum of individuals and groups in the community for the introduction of a flat rate of personal income tax. I can understand why many people would like to have a flat rate of tax. Removing some of the progressive characteristics of our personal income tax system has been one of the major things that this Government has set out to do. As the honourable member knows, the great innovation of the standard rate system reduced from seven to three the number of steps in the income tax scale and, therefore, was of itself a move towards a system which contained less progression in personal income tax.

I think it is worth while my saying that people who in the past have suggested various rates of flat tax ought to remember the implications of some of those rates. For example, if there were to be a flat rate of tax of 20 cents in the dollar, which is sometimes referred to, and if the tax free threshold were to be retained, that would result in a very significantly smaller amount of revenue being collected. If we were to maintain the present tax free threshold of $3,893 and collect the same amount of revenue, it would be necessary to bring in a flat rate of taxation of 35 cents in the dollar. That, of course, would represent an increase in taxation for about 85 per cent or 90 per cent of the community. Those who at the moment are stridently saying that we ought to have a flat rate of tax ought to remember that fact and ponder whether it would be fair to increase tax for 85 per cent of the community in order to reduce it for the other 1 5 per cent.

Perhaps an examination of some figures- I think that honourable members who are trying to interject will be interested in them- will illustrate the benefit to the taxpayer of the sizable tax free threshold. We often hear people say that they pay such and such an amount in tax. It is interesting that for a person to be paying 20 per cent of his income in tax he has to be earning a taxable income of over $9,850. He does not pay 32 per cent of his total income in tax until he earns a taxable income of $23,000. He does not pay 50 per cent of his income in tax until he earns a taxable income of $72,000. True it is that at the margin for additional dollars people will pay different rates of tax, but I think that those figures illustrate the impact of a flat rate of taxation. They also illustrate the benefit in average taxation terms for the taxpayer of the tax free slice of income that was introduced with the standard rate system by this Government in 1977. 1 believe that the reforms that were brought in then remove much of the progressive element. Those who call for further changes ought be bear in mind some of the implications in the statistics I have spelt out.

page 3167

QUESTION

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the right honourable gentleman adhere to traditional concepts of ministerial responsibility or does he agree with the Treasurer that such notions are highfalutin anachronisms? Does he accept the suggestion of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration that a Minister should not be culpable under ministerial responsibility unless the action which stands condemned was his, unless it was taken at his direction or unless it was action with which he ought obviously to have been concerned? Does each of these provisions apply to the Minister for Social Security, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Administrative Services with regard to the handling of the conspiracy case involving Greeks, in particular the Nakis pardon and the request for an ex-gratia reward payment? Finally, if so, will the Minister ensure that the revised conception of ministerial responsibility is strictly applied and that these Ministers resign their portfolios?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– In relation to the present court proceedings against those people who are alleged to have defrauded the Department of Social Security, I consider that is a sub judice matter and I do not intend to make any comment. As far as the behaviour of Ministers concerned with this affair is concerned, I accept that they have done their jobs in the highest traditions of this Parliament.

page 3168

QUESTION

HEALTH OF PRIME MINISTER

Mr YATES:
HOLT, VICTORIA

– I ask the Deputy Prime Minister a question concerning the Prime Minister’s health. Has he any information to give the House concerning the Prime Minister’s recovery? When he is making those inquiries, will he convey the good wishes of this House to the Prime Minister?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– I am sure that the Prime Minister will welcome the good wishes of this Parliament, although I must question whether it is good therapy for him to know that we are all thinking of him. I did have the opportunityalong with some of my colleagues- this morning to talk with the Prime Minister. I report that he is in very good heart and indeed looks much better than he did when I saw him a couple of weeks ago. In fact, he was very much on the ball and was not hesitant in giving his opinion on many matters. I think it is fair enough to say that his recuperation has not been as rapid as he would have hoped. I think he doubts very much the wisdom of his attendance at the Victorian Liberal Party conference at the weekend because it did take a toll of him. I think anybody would recognise that a normal human being who has pleurisy and pneumonia is told automatically by the doctor to take six weeks off. It seems to me that if one is a public figure then one is expected to get better overnight. I can assure the House that the Prime Minister looks well and is recovering. I hope that he will be back on duty soon.

page 3168

FRASER GOVERNMENT

Proposed Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

- Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Viner:

-The Government is quite happy to accept a motion without the necessity for the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition might ask for leave to move his motion.

Mr Hayden:

– I ask for leave.

Leave granted.

Motion of Censure

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– I move:

Ministerial responsibility is fundamental to parliamentary democracy. It is fundamental to our system of government which has operated in this country ever since we became a nation. If we jettison the concept, if we stand by and allow it to be debased to the point of being meaningless, then we prostitute the whole system. Yet the doctrine of ministerial responsibility is as foreign to this Government ‘s conduct of this nation ‘s affairs as honesty is to the election promises of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Over the last four years, as one Minister after another has sought to extricate himself or herself from the political millstone of their incompetence, no excuse has been too trivial, no rationalisation too threadbare, no tortured explanation too ridiculous.

We have a Minister who cannot hear. We have another Minister who cannot remember. We have three Ministers who seek to excuse themselves because of ignorance. We have a Minister who sees nothing wrong in doing nothing for a year to correct the gross maladministrations of what was supposed to be one of the country’s most vital law enforcement agencies. We have a Minister who believes it proper for the Treasurer of the national Government to manipulate a quick quid in the exploitation of a seedy land deal. We have a Minister who resigned because he could not trust the Prime Minister and then rejoined the Cabinet three days later without any explanation to the people or the Parliament. We have a Prime Minister who insists that ‘justice must be done and must be seen to be done’ when he seeks to protect the interests of an international corporation, but who conspires with his Cabinet for three months to try to bury allegations of electoral boundary rigging made against one of his Ministers by a member of his own party. We have a Minister who comes into this place in defence of a colleague’s conduct and simply dismisses the concept of ministerial responsibility as ‘highfalutin’.

These are the standards embraced by this Government and determined by the behaviour for four years of the man who is now Prime Minister. This is the measure of the contempt in which the people who run this Government hold this Parliament and the people of Australia. The undeniable fact is that the Government is presiding over the dying doctrine of ministerial responsibility. It is determined by its actions, by its practice, to bring about the slow death of ministerial responsibility by the action of a hundred cuts. Every day there is a new slash. It is necessary for me to quote for the record some of the statement of principle which has already been demonstrated in public inquiry and other quarters about ministerial responsibility. It is at the core of credibility and confidence in our system of government. If it is forsaken, if it is ignored, if it is treated with disdain and brought into contempt by the behaviour of a government, as it has on all of those scores by this Government, then there is no longer any respect for the parliamentary institution.

At Question Time today the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), when asked what his understanding of ministerial responsibility was, said to my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) that it consisted in a Minister discharging his duties according to the Constitution. The Constitution makes a statement about that responsibility. Section 64 states:

The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.

That is a reference to Ministers of State. They have a responsibility to administer their departments. They are responsible for them. On the Deputy Prime Minister’s words, they cannot evade that responsibility. But more recently in an interpretative exercise we had the statement of definition of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration, which read:

The evidence tends to suggest rather that while ministers continue to be held accountable to Parliament in the sense of being obliged to answer to it when Parliament so demands, and to indicate corrective action if that is called for, they themselves are not held culpable- and in consequence bound to resign or suffer dismissal- unless -

I stress the word ‘unless’. These are the important provisos- the action that stands condemned was theirs, taken on their direction, or was action with which they ought obviously to have been concerned.

The three principles boil down to this: An action that they took, an action that came from a response to their direction, or an action about which they should obviously, as a matter of reasonable diligence within their administrative responsibility, have been concerned. On any one of those three scores a series of eventsscandals which have happened in the four years of this Government would impute the Ministers concerned as being irresponsible in the discharge of their duties. More specifically, in the past three weeks there have been three major instances in which, even if the first two principles- that is, an action for which they were responsible or an action following their direction- did not apply, at the very least the third principle, that is an action about which obviously they should have been concerned and about which they should have known if they had discharged reasonable diligence, certainly applied. Professor Emy in a submission to the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration, seeking to define this important responsibility, said several things. Let me quote some of them:

Ministerial responsibility contains two aspects: the individual responsibility of ministers to parliament for the administration of their departments and the collective responsibility of Cabinet to parliament (and the public) for the whole conduct of administration.

He also said:

That is, it assumes that the final responsibility for decisions taken and policy made in the name of the Crown will always . rest with an elected government.

Additionally he observed:

Administratively, the corollary of this complete political responsibility for policy is a particular allocation of functions between ministers and public servants. The latter do not take public responsibility for the decisions and policies of their ministers. The duty of the public servant is to advise and to carry out the instructions of his minister to the best of his ability.

Those are significant statements of principle about the proper conduct and discharge of a Minister’s responsibility in office. In all respects they have been ignored and have been treated with disdain by Ministers who in the past fortnight, have been in trouble in relation to the administration of their ministerial responsibilities. In all cases it is clear that there has been a co-ordinated and arranged effort on the part of the Government and on the part of the ministry to cover up and to prevent the Ministers from being brought to account for their irresponsibility in the discharge of their duties. The Government has been prepared to ignore the very grave defects which have been disclosed in the administration of the ministries of these several Ministers.

Let us look at the implications of these statements of principle. We have to be clear that ministerial responsibility does not seep down into every nook and corner of administration within a department. For instance, it would be nonsense to suggest that a serious overcharging for a telephone account by Telecom Australia becomes a responsibility of the Minister. But it is clear, on the other hand, that there are responsibilities that any ordinary man of average common sense would recognise as resting with the Minister. If a Minister is in the know all the time- as was clearly the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) on the actual status of efficiency of the Narcotics Bureau; as has been the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) over the actual status of the prosecution of the Greeks; as have been Senator Guilfoyle, Senator Durack amd the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay) over the cover-up relating to the Nakis pardon and the proposal for ex gratia payments- then the strict principle of ministerial responsibility should apply. Those Ministers ought to resign and, if they will not resign, they ought to be dismissed.

This principle should also apply when a Minister has been grossly deceived by his officials and has not made a proper attempt to inform himself of the correct position. It is insufficient for Ministers to sheet home to departmental officers the blame for gross deception of a matter of major importance about which any Minister, as a matter of proper diligence, should have made himself aware. The Deputy Prime Minister acknowledges that under section 64 of the Constitution a Minister is constitutionally responsible for the administration of his department. This responsibility would extend to gross inefficiency, deception and concealment within his department where he reasonably should have been aware, with ordinary diligence, of what was occurring. He cannot hide behind an effort to try to blame someone else in the Public Service for what is clearly his responsibility, and where clearly he is being recreant to that responsibility.

I repeat that in broad terms Ministers should not be held culpable unless the action which stands condemned was theirs, taken on their direction, or was action which they ought obviously to have been concerned about. In all of those instances one can at least find a principle applying to the cases of the past fortnight in relation to which several Ministers have been responsible for serious dereliction of their responsibilities, as Ministers of the Crown, to the Parliament and to the people. More than that, it is equally obvious that they are culpable for having entered into a strategy designed to mislead and to deceive the Parliament and the Australian people.

We must be clear about the implications of this principle. I repeat that it is crucial to the functioning of our parliamentary system. If it is not accepted then no one is responsible; no one is accountable. Responsibility, when effort is made to sheet it home, will be lost in some sort of futile witch hunt through the Public Service maze as increasingly scapegoatism is resorted to and people at lower levels are dragged in to bear the brunt of responsibility for what should be borne by the Minister himself.

There cannot be a better authority in this House than yourself, Mr Speaker. In 1965 as Attorney-General you said:

If the Minister is free from personal fault and could not by reasonable diligence in controlling his department have prevented the mistake, there is no compulsion to resign.

The corollary of that perceptive statement is, I suggest, that, if a Minister is not free from personal fault and could have by reasonable diligence in controlling his Department prevented the mistake, there is the compulsion to resign. Accordingly, the Ministers concerned should have resigned. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) had stressed repeatedly over some time, but not in the past year or so, the Government’s dedication to responsible and accountable government. On its record, the Government has not fulfilled that promise. As recently as last Monday, the Australian Financial Review disclosed that the Liberal Party Director, Mr Tony Eggleton, had advised the Prime Minister and senior members of the Government that they should, among other things, seek to neutralise ‘ministerial propriety’. Putting to one side the totalitarian quality of that sort of recommendation, one must observe the implications behind it. Very clearly they are that the Government recognises that ministerial propriety is a matter of major embarrassment to it and rather than repair the damage that comes from consistent conduct on the pan of the Government, it would prefer to distort, misrepresent and hopefully neutralise the issue.

The Government cannot function unless the principle of ministerial responsibility is acknowledged and honoured. It is not good enough for the Treasurer (Mr Howard) to suggest that it is a highfalutin principle or that a highfalutin explanation of ministerial responsibility is nonsense; it is not nonsense. Just because the Government won office four years ago with the principles and practices of thieves in the night cannot justify the continuation of its behaviour in that manner. The record of this Government under the Prime Minister in terms of ministerial responsibility and in terms of the scandalous behaviour of Ministers is about equal to the worst excesses of the worst of our early colonial parliaments. The implication will be that the neutrality and the impartiality of the Public Service will be imperilled unless the Government is prepared to acknowledge this principle and to practise it. The abject abandonment of its principle means a surrender by the Government to the power of the bureaucracy. It means that the Government declares that it not only is not responsible but also does not know what has been happening within the ranks of the administration for which it is responsible. It surrenders to the bureaucracy its authority and its role to the community.

There are a number of issues which could be raised in this matter to illustrate that point but I want to focus on three scandalous situations which have occurred over the last fortnight. These are: The Narcotics Bureau, which has been demolished, the Commonwealth Police scandal which is not a Greek conspiracy but rather a conspiracy of Compol against the Greek community which has resulted in the Commonwealth Police being discredited, and the damage done to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation last week with the tabling of Mr Justice Hope’s report on security arrangements in the country.

We now no longer have at the national level a Narcotics Bureau applying its resources to detection and prevention of illicit narcotics trade. We have a Commonwealth Police force which no longer has credibility or respect in the community and which clearly, on its record, is not functioning effectively. We have an internal security agency which is seriously damaged by the latest disclosures and the latest criticisms by Mr Justice Hope as to the way in which it operates. So, we have a law and order government headed by the Prime Minister who is easily the most obsessive of any man I have seen in this Parliament where the matters of security and law and order are concerned. He has almost an unnatural preoccupation with his belief. We have a law and order government which is incapable, in its three areas of administration of law and order and internal security, of maintaining the functioning of effective, credible and respective institutions.

ASIO can no longer have any respect as a result of Mr Justice Hope’s disclosures last week. The Commonwealth Police force is totally discredited. The Narcotics Bureau no longer exists. In all three cases there is nothing functioning as an alternative which would reassure the community that in those three areas of major responsibility the community interest is being preserved. Rather than having effective and efficient institutions in this area, the Government has been responsible for establishing the least effective and most deficient protection systems at the national level in the history of the country. All that the Government does is seek to create a sense of high drama on all these issues. When the facts are divulged to the community, it is revealed that the Government has achieved bathos, not high drama at all. The Government takes us from the sublime to the puerile in one swift movement.

I shall go through the three matters. I mention first the Williams report. No self-respecting government which believed in the principle of ministerial responsibility could support the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) administering affairs on its behalf in this Parliament. He is responsible for the most serious neglect of ministerial responsibility of any Minister in the history of this Parliament. He persists brazenly in the discharge of his duties within the Parliament.

The Williams report showed that the Narcotics Bureau was inefficient, that it would falsify its achievements, that it was paranoically suspicious and unco-operative where other law enforcement agencies were concerned, that it was less efficient than the most inefficient of all the State police forces, and that it was incompetent. I will put another element to honourable members. But first, I quote because this quote is significant. It exposes a serious, a glaring defect in the administration of the laws to control illicit drug trading. I quote from Mr Justice Williams’ report:

The Bureau’s recent seizure figures reflect failure in its declared aim of detecting major traffickers, especially in heroin, and leaving lesser operations to the attention of State police. In 1977 and 1978 over 90 per cent of Narcotics Bureau heroin seizures were of less than 100 grams. Seizure of quantities less than S grams represented over 60 per cent of its seizures in 1 978 and 70 percent in 1 977.

The implication of that is that the Bureau took the easy way out. It was largely busting people on the street. It was busting drug addicts. It was not getting to the people who were organising and distributing this soul-destroying drug in the community.

I put to honourable members as a carefully considered judgment- a judgment which I expressed with some mildness to the Minister and he acknowledged in an earlier debate on this matter in the House- that that to me, as an experienced investigator of crime, indicates corruption on a significant scale within the Bureau. Do not tell me anything else. Honourable members could not explain how on the one hand Mr Justice Woodward warns what everyone knows in the community- that is, that major ports like Sydney are wide open to access by hard drugs like heroin and that Sydney is about to be flooded by the drug- when there are repeated reports over extended periods that hard drugs are coming into Australia from the Golden Triangle. Yet the Narcotics Bureau is only busting people on the street- to use a descriptive term- and other places, who are largely drug addicts. The Bureau is not getting to the big operators in illicit drug operations in this country.

The Minister had the Williams Report available to him for seven weeks. He had the report available while the telephone tapping debate and the debate of extension of powers to ASIO was going on. In that debate reference was made to an earlier expansion of authority in those and similar areas provided or extended to the Narcotics Bureau. He never once took the opportunity to disabuse the minds of honourable members on this side of the House about how effective and trustworthy the Bureau was. On that score we must have the gravest doubts about the integrity of the Government generally and of the Minister specifically.

Let me give another case of ministerial irresponsibility. That Minister knew three days before the Bill was introduced into this House in May of this year, proposing expansion of the powers for the Narcotics Bureau so it could use listening devices, tap conversations and so on, of information that established a very serious doubt and a very likely fact that the Bureau had been infiltrated at the highest levels by organised drug crime representatives. In those circumstances he was prepared to suppress that important information, to behave in this Parliament as though no such thing had occurred, in an effort to facilitate the process of that legislation. He put at risk quite needlessly the lives of agents and informers of the Narcotics Bureau. He undermined the functioning of the Bureau and he deceived Parliament. For all of those matters he is responsible. There can be no exculpation. He is the Minister responsible for the administration of the Narcotics Bureau and he ought to have resigned.

Let me go on to the second case; the Commonwealth Police Force and the Keystone script surrounding the conspiracy against the Greek community in Australia by the Commonwealth Police which has been orchestrated clearly by some Ministers of the Government. The attitude of the Commonwealth Police, and therefore of the Government because it has not dissociated itself from that behaviour, towards the Greeks is a national scandal. It is not good enough to look to the ethnic people of our community- be they Greeks, Italians, Turks or whoever they arewhen they are successful in sport, in business or in public life and to refer to them as Australian success stories, and when something like this goes wrong, to refer to them, in this case as Greeks. That is discrimination, which is intolerable and is resented extensively in the Greek community. In this area there has been an attempted cover up by the Government. Let us see how the drama started. In April 1978 the Age reported:

The Commonwealth Police investigator led his carefully briefed squad of men into Sydney suburbs before dawn on Saturday to begin arrests in connection with the alleged fraud racket. Chief Inspector Thomas continued to arrest people until Sunday morning.

The report alleged that there was a $42m racket and that a conspiracy was involved. There were reports of over 1,000 future charges. There were reports of 350 people being brought back from Greece. Now we find that, in fact, the number of charges is down to 148 and serious doubts exist as to whether they will proceed at all. Look at the severity of treatment inflicted upon these people. The whole case falls apart day by day. It has no underpinnings to hold it up. Consider the bail which was demanded of people involved. Each of the doctors who were charged had to pay $4,000 bail. Each of the agents had to pay $2,000. Bail of $1,000 each was set for 62 other people and the remainder were allowed bail of between $300 and $500 each. They are very high levels of bail. Believe me, very few criminal offenders except the worst would be subjected to the imposition of such severe levels of bail. More than that, a very large number of Greeks had their social security benefits suspended at least while these charges were proceeding.

What is the situation now? What it boils down to is a situation of enormous discrimination against Greek people in the community. It smacks of a sort of racial intolerance on the part of the Government. The southern European people who come to this country very largely go to work at jobs lower on the socio-economic scale. Accordingly- unconsciously I would hope- the Government appears to believe that it can treat these people more harshly than it treats other people in the community. What a bonanza it has been for the lawyers. Eleven lawyers were involved in the case- an army of them- fording a river of gold. The case has already cost the Australian taxpayer $2. 5m.

Let us look at some of the other aspects of this matter. Mr Nakis was offered $30,000 and a concurrent pardon for information. This is called the Nakis fiasco. There was a farrago of dishonesty and a veil of deception, and dishonourable conduct on the part of the Minister. Lanigan, the head of the Department of Social Security, claims that he told Senator Guilfoyle of the reward offer at the time of these matters. Senator Guilfoyle does not remember. She joins her colleague who cannot hear. In the Senate, this is the sort of evasion she attempts when she is asked about a meeting with Lanigan and others on 15 September 1977 at which it was decided, apparently, that a note in the form of a ‘ministerial’ be sent to her as an assessment for recommendations on whether any reward should be paid for evidence in the alleged social security fraud case. That happened on 15 September 1977. When asked a question in the Senate she said:

I have some knowledge of the matters referred to . . . I will make inquiries to see whether there is any matter in the question raised by-

The senator who asked the question- of which I am not aware at this stage.

She was asked later:

Will the Minister also let us know when she became aware of the meeting?

She answered:

I will give the whole question consideration.

That is clear evidence of an effort to form a smokescreen between herself and the Parliament. It is clear that the Government has embarked upon conspiracy on this matter to cover up gross inefficiency and incompetence at ministerial level. It is incredible to believe that Ministers would not have consulted on this.

The third matter concerns the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation which, once again, has been exposed as a totally defective institution. The Protective Security Report of Justice Hope said a number of things. It went to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on 15 May 1979, in the early pan of this year, six months ago. It said that ASIO had shown improper preference in the purchase of equipment, that its counter-espionage was neglected and that it lacked co-operation with other institutions. This House, in September of this year, some five months after the Prime Minister received this report, was debating extended powers for the Government to open mail and intercept telegrams and telexes and the widening of its authority to tap telephones, install listening devices and so on. We were deceived, we were duped once again. The fact is that this Government is a dishonest government. The concept of true ministerial responsibility has always been one of the essential underpinnings of our system of government. But this Government has defiled the concept for nearly four years and, in its most recent disgraceful performance, has shown clearly that it regards the whole principle as something that applies only to others. Mr Speaker, as you know only too well, this Prime Minister and this Cabinet treat the Parliament with contempt. The Ministers responsible ought to resign.

Mr VINER:
Leader of the House · Stirling · LP

- Mr Speaker, I just want to clarify the position and to confirm that I did accept the motion that was moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) as a motion of censure of the Government.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the House indicates in relation to Standing Order 1 10 that the Government accepts the motion as a motion of censure. It has a bearing on the speaking times that are allotted under the Standing Orders.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I second the motion of censure. I do so in the context of what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) has already introduced to the Parliament by way of evidence of recent events that have occurred. One can go back through the whole length of the term of this Government, even in the last two years, to see the number of motions and debates that have been engendered because of ministerial failure to adhere to ministerial responsibilities. The big question now facing the Australian nation is: What type of government do we have in Australia at present that has caused us to move so many motions to try to bring to the notice of the Government the failure of its Ministers to act in accordance with ministerial responsibility. The Leader of the Opposition today had to give some clear indication not only to the House but also to the people of Australia that no matter what we say about this Government, no matter how many failures of the Government we can prove, the Government does not want to debate the matter at all. A difficulty appears to be that the condition of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), who is somewhat unwell, will be used as the excuse for the Government’s feeling that nothing should be done at this stage.

Let me advert to the real issues that are worrying the Australian people at present. When Ministers are appointed by a government they take an oath of office that they will carry out their portfolio responsibilities with ability, diligence and integrity. That is their commission and that is the oath of office that they take. If we can illustrate, as the Leader of the Opposition has done already, in the course of this debate that there is no real integrity and honesty to the Parliamentthere is certainly a lack of ability- we can certainly ask why those Ministers involved are allowed to remain in office. Some of the facts that have already been submitted are worth repeating, but they ought to be repeated in the context of what we have to do later today. According to today’s Notice Paper, we have to amend three areas of legislation- customs legislation, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation legislation, and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act- on the basis that what, we did a matter of a few weeks ago was incorrect.

A few weeks ago this House had a long debate on the question of telephonic interception and the use of listening devices. It said: ‘We will give that power to what is known as the Narcotics Bureau.’ We did it solemnly by legislation in this House. Yet it now appears that at that very time the Minister responsible for the legislation and for the Department had in his possession the report of a royal commission dealing with the Narcotics Bureau. That report stated:

The Narcotics Bureau is not a highly efficient enforcement agency.

Within the judicial system, generally speaking, the Narcotic Bureau’s reputation for efficiency is lower than that of State police forces.

The Bureau spends too much time defending itself and its image.

Mr Howard:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. In seconding a motion, which as I understand it goes to the matter of whether or not this Government has observed fully the very important concept of ministerial responsibility, is it in order for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to redebate the subject matter of an earlier motion put to this House by the Opposition which has been the subject of very extensive debate and questioning inside the Parliament?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will permit the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to continue. I regard him not as bringing up an old debate or anticipating a debate but as stating a ground on which the motion is moved.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Mr Speaker, I assure you that this is not a highfalutin matter. The issue is one of ministerial responsibility. I make the point strongly that if we have incompetent Ministers, if we have to amend legislation, as we do today, then I am entitled to refer to the fact that we were mislead on a previous occasion. I am entitled to ask why, if a Minister had factors within his knowledge on that previous occasion, he did not give that information to the Parliament. Why is the Treasurer (Mr Howard) so sensitive about this matter? Why is he of all people, and I can refer to this later, so anxious to prevent debate on the matter? Everything I am saying comes from the report of the royal commissioner, not from the Opposition. Why was it not led in the Parliament previously? The information has been available for weeks and months. If the Government had that information for so many weeks and months, why did it introduce legislation contrary to such information? The Government should not be in office if it acts in that way. That is the whole point in what I am trying to say. The report continued:

The Narcotics Bureau is not a cohesive force with high morale and pride in its accomplishments.

The training of Narcotics Bureau officers leaves much to be desired.

Here is the crux of the whole matter:

The Commission strongly recommends that the Narcotics Bureau be disbanded.

Here we have information from a royal commissioner which was in the hands of the Government, in the hands of the Cabinet, in the possession of the Minister, but it was not introduced into the Parliament. Instead, legislation was introduced into the Parliament giving that same Bureau powers to tap telephones, install listening devices, and use information and pass it on to other people. Could we find anything more incredible? The Opposition makes further point that surely the Minister knew that the royal commissioner had some justification for making those recommendations. The report went on to say that for those reasons and others, the Narcotics Bureau was bound to fail in the world of today; and it went on to give three reasons. I do not want to dwell on that matter, but I point out that the Minister who was responsible is still in the Government. He should have resigned. There is no second chance when it comes to being incompetent or inefficient. There is no second chance when it comes to misleading the Parliament. A Minister in a Labor government does not get a second chance. He is immediately asked to resign, and in fact that happened to our Labor Ministers. Because a Minister did not remember the date of a letter his resignation was demanded and given, on the basis of ministerial responsibility.

As the Leader of the Opposition has already said, your own words, Mr Speaker- I know you will not object to this- indicate that Ministers may not be vicariously liable for what might be called minor matters, but by a corollary they are certainly liable for matters of major importance. How important are the matters with which Ministers have to deal? They run into millions of dollars and they affect people’s lives. If Ministers legislate in a fashion that gives authority to incompetent people, they endanger people’s lives, and there have been a number of deaths in this country related directly to narcotics. Information available to police, particularly in Queensland, makes one wonder what sort of people might misuse the information and what death and destruction would be caused if it were so misused. In fact that has happened. Let me advert to what the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said when he was talking about ministerial responsibility:

Ten per cent or even SO per cent of the truth is as good a way of misleading this Parliament and the Australian people as a downright lie.

Ten per cent or 50 per cent of the truth is as good as telling a lie, the Prime Minister said, and he was right in that view. Again:

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

Finally, and this is the subject of the debate today, he said:

My Government has demonstrated again and again our fundamental commitment to restoring integrity to public administration in Australia.

We make the point that even though the Prime Minister said that, and he is entitled to say it, his Ministers have not lived up to it; far from it. I have dealt with the Minister who is responsible for Customs and for the introduction of the legislation.

Let me turn to the present matter, which relates to what is called the Greek conspiracy case, and I am now discussing not the evidence but the background to the situation. Let us look at the history as it was put against the Greek community: The Crown will call 250 witnesses; about 5,000 documents will be produced, or 4,000 more than first planned. If five minutes is allowed for each of the 5,000 documents, it will take 600 court hours, or about 28 weeks of hearing days, just to deal with the documents alone. In terms of the taxpayer, about $2. 5m in legal costs is involved in that statement.

Mr Ellicott:

– I raise a point of order. I think the House is probably concerned, as I am and as I hope you are, Mr Speaker, about the comments of the court that is hearing the pre-trial proceedings in this case. Already there has been comment by the magistrate concerned, and I gather also by counsel, about what is being said about this case both inside and outside the Parliament. There is no presumption that what is being done by the Crown is otherwise than a proper attempt to bring to justice people who may- I stress the word ‘may’- have breached the criminal law of this country. That matter, which is involved and complex and admittedly will take some time, as the honourable member has indicated, has to be dealt with in a cool judicial atmosphere. It will not assist the hearing of the case if honourable members in this House constantly rake over the facts- they say they are the facts- before the case is completed. They constantly rake over the facts that existed, they say, before the case started. As a former law officer, Mr Speaker, you would know that these facts are very relevant to the hearing of the case. They go to questions of crossexamination. They are matters that would have to be dealt with by the magistrate, and they relate to evidence which would have to be weighed up. I suggest that this line of argument in this House is completely inside the sub judice rule and ought to be ruled out of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I had to give a ruling the other day on a motion that had been put by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I ruled, on the sub judice basis, that he could not proceed with it. I am very conscious of the fact that the trial is proceeding. I have no direct knowledge of what the magistrate said. I have read what he said, and it seems that the magistrate was concerned about reports in the Press of evidence that had been given before him, to which the honourable gentleman has referred. I am not aware of any comment by the magistrate indicating concern about anything that has been said in Parliament. Under the sub judice rule, I have a duty to ensure that nothing is said that would prejudice the trial. I will remain alert to that danger. However I must indicate to the honourable member that it is a more difficult situation for me now to judge in this debate, as this debate is in fact a debate on a censure motion. As it is a censure motion the competing priorities between the sub judice rule and the right of the Parliament to comment on national events are of a different order. I do not believe that so far the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said anything which should be ruled out of order under the sub judice rule but I will remain alert to the possibility of an infringement of that rule.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like the House to remain alert to the fact that the honourable member for Wentworth knows full well what happened in the Sankey case.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Let me make it very clear -

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Ellicott:

– I raise a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat.

Mr Ellicott:

– I know -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Morris:

– He and his cousin!

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Morris:

– He and his cousin - the conspirators!

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– This is a censure motion. This is irrelevant.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member for Shortland to cease interjecting- and the honourable member for Lalor.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I said nothing.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I interjected. I said that it was a censure motion and that he should not be permitted to do that.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Well, the honourable member for Hughes will remain silent. I am not going to permit this debate to be conducted in personal acrimony by members of this House. The motion will be judged on its merits. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will not comment on the point of order. He will proceed with his argument.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I was proceeding. I was not taking a point of order. I was proceeding. I accepted your ruling, Mr Speaker. I have lost about 10 minutes of my speaking time because of specious points of order that have nothing to do with the debate. The conspiratorial evidence here today is reminiscent of what happened in the past to Labor Ministers.

Mr Ellicott:

-I raise a point of order.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-You know very well what you did to Connor and others. He is in his grave now and you put him there; you know it.

Mr Ellicott:

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

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-What happened to your integrity on that occasion?

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Ellicott:

- Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation and I seek to make it now. It has been -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. There is no facility-

Mr Ellicott:

- Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation and I ask to make it now. I am sick and tired -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no provision under the Standing Orders to make a personal explanation now.

Mr Ellicott:

- Mr Speaker, I give you notice now that I want to make a personal explanation about these constant abuses against me.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat.

Mr Ellicott:

- Mr Speaker, I ask to make a point.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Minister to resume his seat.

Mr Ellicott:

- Mr Speaker, I ask to make a point.

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Honourable members on my left will remain silent. I ask the Minister to resume his seat. There is no provision in the Standing Orders for the Minister to make a personal explanation at this stage.

Mr Ellicott:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Minister to resume his seat.

Mr Ellicott:

- Mr Speaker, I do not want to canvass your ruling. I simply ask that the abusive statements be withdrawn.

Mr Holding:

– What is abusive about them?

Mr Ellicott:

– The honourable member knows full well what he said. He said of me -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat.

Mr Ellicott:

– He said of me that I am responsible for putting Rex Connor in his grave. That is the substance of what he said. It is absolutely untrue. It is what the former Prime Minister has been saying, but I will not have it said again.

Mr Keating:

– You sat on a decision to pay the defendants ‘ costs for three months. You fraud !

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Blaxland will resume his seat. The standard of behaviour in the House at the moment is appalling.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Who started it?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I do not propose to call any honourable member to speak while the House is misconducting itself in this way. I am not going to attribute blame to any one member. Many members have contributed to this shouting session. When the House appears to be calm enough to proceed I will call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Mr Speaker, you know that I will not get an extension of time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will proceed with his speech.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I am making a point about the interjections and the fairness of this debate. Let me put on the record what was said by a Labor Minister, who is now deceased, when he was defending himself in this place. We do not want a lack of integrity now. I want to put before the House the point that we have had nothing but conspiratorial evidence adduced both in here and elsewhere of what was wrong. We now come to this case- -

Mr Ellicott:

– Ask what your former Prime Minister said.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-You ask the former Prime Minister. What about this case? We want to make the point about ministerial responsibility but I have only four minutes left in which to speak. I am not adverting to anything but the evidence before the Parliament. In the Senate we find that Senator Guilfoyle in her defence said: Well, I knew nothing about telephone taps. I relied on the Minister for Administrative Services to tell me, and the Minister told me in a letter of 27 March this year that there had been no telephone taps’. Of course we now know that there had been at least three illegal telephone taps. The Minister for Social Security said: ‘Well, I am ignorant. I had to rely on another Minister. He wrote a letter and told me there had been none’. Surely we can have a better standard of conduct than that. The Minister for Social Security said: It ought to be made perfectly clear that I am not the Minister responsible for Commonwealth Police matters’. Who is the Minister responsible for police matters? That is a clear indictment of her colleague. Senator Durack, who is the Federal Attorney-General, presented evidence in the Senate that he promised indemnity against prosecution, that he also promised a pardon and then virtually arranged for the gentleman to be arrested. Later on he said: ‘The question of a reward was also discussed but quite frankly at the time that the pardon was mentioned I didn’t know the status of the informant’. Is this the way to run the legal position -

Mr Ellicott:

– It is not what he said.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It is what he said. He said: ‘I did not know the status of the informant’. Evidence has been introduced into the Senate that Mr Lanigan -

Mr Ellicott:

– Stick to the facts.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The honourable member is worried about evidence in the court. Have a look at the evidence in the Senate as to what has been said. Mr Lanigan said: ‘Look, there were discussions among a number of departmental heads of the police department, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Social Security Department in August 1977 on question of a pardon and the question of a reward’. The issue surely is that those Ministers knew what had been discussed. Is it any wonder that the Governor-General called in the AttorneyGeneral on Friday, perhaps, to consult on the basis of why he had an executive submission, that is a submission from the Cabinet, that a pardon should be given to somebody who had already been promised a reward. As the Attorney-General said: ‘It is without precedent in this country’. The big issue in this case is that if Ministers cannot carry out their duties or fulfil their responsibilities, why should they remain in office? Why is it there is without precedent what I would call contrived evidence on the basis of a pardon and a reward? Why is it that Ministers could not answer these questions earlier last year when information was sought from them? Is it just good enough to leave many people in this country with the smear that they were going to be arrested or were likely to be arrested and to say: ‘Look, I leave that to administrative arrangements’?

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I move:

That the honourable member’s time be extended.

There was an interruption of about 10 minutes to the speaking time of the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will give no reasons.

Question resolved in the negative.

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

– The Government has no hesitation in rejecting this motion. It seems quite clear that the Opposition is trying to rehash matters that it has already raised in this House and in the Senate. I remind the House that within the last week or so this House rejected a censure motion against my colleague the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) and that last week the Senate rejected a censure motion against my colleague the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle).

At the outset let me refer to the question of ministerial responsibility. In this respect I note that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has said that on the general principle of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility his views are a matter of public record and he refers to his own Sir Robert Garran oration of 14 November 1977, which is a detailed consideration and exposition of the principle of ministerial responsibility. Having rejected certain notions that have been put forward by a former adviser to the Whitlam Administration, the Prime Minister said:

Let me emphasize the point further. It is certainly true that ministers cannot be aware of everything that occurs in their departments. They ought to be aware of all the major matters and therefore can be clearly and directly responsible for them. But if a major blunder occurred in a department, of real importance to Australia, and if the minister were unaware of it, that minister should accept responsibility for the mistakes of his department and offer to resign. It is for the prime minister to accept or reject that resignation. In the convention it is then open to the parliament by debate, by questioning and by censure to test whether or not the government or the particular minister concerned still has the support of the parliament.

I emphasise that this House recently refused to accept a censure motion against my colleague, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I might say that it quite properly rejected that censure motion. The Senate also rejected a censure motion against the Minister for Social Security. Again, I emphasise that the Senate quite properly rejected that censure motion.

Having listened to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) in what was a rather turgid and laboured speech, it was quite obvious that his argument lacked sincerity of approach. The strength of the attack may be judged by the audience that stayed to listen to it. I noticed that even some members of the Opposition vacated the chamber, and certainly the Press Gallery was not interested in the attack that the Leader of the Opposition was mounting. This motion of censure of the Government is as miscalculated as the two censure motions of my ministerial colleagues. I am quite sure that the Leader of the Opposition, launched this censure motion, being sensitive to what has been said about him by the Combe report, that is, the report of David Combe, the secretary of the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party strategy papers are most revealing in what they say of the Labor Party’s standing in the community, its electoral strategy leading up to 1980 and the electoral standing of the Leader of the Opposition. The strategy of the Labor Party quite apparently advises Labor spokesmen to use every media opportunity for cynical political pointscoring, to put party propaganda before public interest.

Mr Holding:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I draw your attention to the terms of the motion which are:

That this House censures the Government for abusing the proper standards of ministerial responsibility.

I cannot see how some papers alleged to belong to a political party and which refer to the Leader of the Opposition can be enjoined in a defence by the Leader of the House (Mr Viner) of the thrust of his argument in response to the motion which is concerned with ministerial responsibility in respect of a particular item which is before the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I rule that the matter is very relevant. The Minister is trying to expose the reason for the motion and is therefore relevant.

Mr VINER:

– I thank you for your ruling, Mr Speaker, and I also thank the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) for verifying the authenticity of the document to which I am referring. It is quite evident that Labor Party strategy is not only to put party propaganda before public interest but also to do so by way of a catalogue of catchy phrases to be used at every opportunity; in other words, prepackaged political rhetoric. We have seen a pretty paltry attempt at that today by the Leader of the Opposition. It is also noteworthy that the Combe strategy paper refers to the swinging voters, the electors of Australia, as being ignorant, ill-informed and selfish. From the content of the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition and of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) it is quite clear that they accept that view of the electors of Australia. But not only that, the Combe strategy paper says this of the electoral image of the Leader of the Opposition:

  1. . they (the swinging voter) will be only vaguely interested in voting for Bill Hayden if, and only if, they can get some kind of line on him, preferably one involving some sense of hope for Australia’s future. Giving Bill Hayden some kind of profile in the minds of these people, therefore, is the only communications objective that offers the slightest hope of success.
Mr Keating:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Those remarks are not relevant to the censure motion moved against the Government. It is just a piece of political garbage from the Government and it is time the Government got back to the issue of ministerial accountability and a proper defence of its actions.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Blaxland will resume his seat. The Minister is carrying the matter further than is necessary for the purpose of the debate.

Mr VINER:

- Mr Speaker, I was quoting directly from the document. I believe that this House will appreciate that it was a rather desperate attempt by the Leader of the Opposition, in launching this censure motion, to lift his profile. I venture to suggest that anybody listening would not really have understood what the point of his attack was. I certainly did not and I am sure that every other honourable member on this side of the House did not appreciate the line of the attack of the Leader of the Opposition. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition got himself so tangled up in what he was trying to say that he could not even complete his speech or make any points. Quite properly, my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott), took umbrage at some of the things that were being said from the Opposition side. I ask members of the Opposition to answer this simple question: Is their Leader sensitive to criticism of his leadership by his own party?

Mr Martyr:

– No answer.

Mr VINER:

– No answer was the stern reply. We on the Government side of the House know what the answer is.

In the Senate, my colleagues the Minister for Social Security and the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) have answered a barrage of questions levelled at them in respect of court proceedings taken against persons alleged to have defrauded the social security benefit system. They have been open and frank in their answers, while they have been properly careful not to contravene the sub judice rule. We had a debate about the sub judice rule last week and, Mr

Speaker, you quite properly ruled in that situation. It behoves us in this debate and throughout the course of this week not to transgress that rule by trying to get behind it through the back door because it is a very important rule in the administration of justice that anything concerning criminal prosecutions that are before the court and that would in any way taint or hinder the administration of justice should not be debated in this House.

I take, for example, the position adopted by my colleague, the Minister for Social Security. She quite properly pointed out that the answer she gave on the question of the tapping of telephones by the Australian Federal Police was on the basis of advice given to her. She was open and frank with the Senate as to the content of that advice and the way in which it came into her hands. As she pointed out- this is recorded at page 2238 of the Senate Hansard- she was reading from a brief from the Commonwealth Police which was given to the then Minister responsible for the Commonwealth Police. The Minister for Social Security is not the Minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police. Nothing that has been said in the Senate or in this debate can in any way accuse that Minister of not exercising proper standards of ministerial responsibility, either in regard to that matter or in regard to the administration of her own Department, because her Department was the client department of the Federal Police who were quite properly brought in to investigate allegations of defrauding the public revenue.

In all this debate, I have not heard one word from the Opposition about the propriety of the Government of the day being concerned that there should not be any defrauding, any abuse of the public revenue. Why should not the Department of Social Security, which has responsibility for the administration of the Social Services Act, inquire into allegations of fraud or abuse under the Act. Quite properly, the Minister for Social Security has seen to it that inquiries, as appropriate, were made. I have not heard from the Opposition any support for the propriety of the Commonwealth Police carrying out investigations once matters were put into their hands by the client department, the Department of Social Security. I have not heard from the Opposition about the propriety of the Attorney-General of the day, through his law officers, giving advice where appropriate to either the Australian Federal Police or the Department of Social Security in a matter of this kind. I think that the closest examination of all that has happened will show that all Ministers have acted with the propriety that their responsibility calls for. It is not unknown in criminal matters for a reward to be considered for a witness or an informant. It is not unknown for the Attorney-General to offer immunity from prosecution for a witness -

Mr Holding:

-Name one case.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Melbourne Ports is continuing to interject. I ask him to remain silent.

Mr VINER:

– I was making the point that it is not unusual for the Attorney-General, whether he be the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth or for any State, to offer immunity from prosecution to a witness whose evidence may incriminate that person. In this case, the Attorney-General quite properly granted immunity to a key prosecution witness. That immunity having been granted, it appeared that private prosecutions were to be or had been launched against the witness for the apparent purpose of circumventing the immunity which had been granted by the Attorney-General. Therefore, to give that Crown witness, a key witness in the proceedings, complete immunity so that he was safe to give evidence for the Crown, the Attorney-General recommended to the Governor-General that a pardon be granted. The Governor-General, acting on the advice of the Attorney-General, granted the pardon. The whole point of the pardon was to give complete immunity to that key witness. Much has been said in this House and in the Senate concerning the evidence of Detective Inspector Thomas. I noted that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that Detective Thomas had admitted three acts of illegal phone tapping. I wish to contradict that statement.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

-I take a point of order. I did not mention the inspector’s name.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. That is a point of explanation on which the honourable gentleman can make a personal explanation as distinct from taking a point of order. I caution the Minister that he is on the threshold of offending my judgment about the sub judice rule.

Mr VINER:

-I am certainly concerned not to transgress that rule, as I have said before, but I thought it important in this debate to contradict a statement by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I will not name anybody. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that a witness admitted to three illegal acts of tapping telephones. That admission has not been made. The point that I made before is that whether the conduct of a police witness was unlawful is itself a matter of law to be determined by a court in appropriate legal proceedings and not by way of debate in this House. That is a fundamental point made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this debate by which he seeks to allege that the Attorney-General and the Minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police have been in dereliction of their responsibilities as Ministers.

The Opposition has sought to accuse the Government of a lack of a proper sense of ministerial responsibility because of the activities of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. It is not so very long since we debated at length in this House and in the Senate- if I recall correctly we debated for over 50 hours- legislation introduced by the Government to replace earlier legislation establishing ASIO, to establish the responsibility between the Director-General of ASIO and the Attorney-General and to give the Parliament an appropriate measure of control over the activities of ASIO. It was this Government which substantially accepted the report of Mr Justice Hope from an inquiry into ASIO instituted by the former Government. That cannot in any way be a dereliction of duty but rather in the strongest possible way the carrying out of the responsibility of the Government towards ASIO in the face of the recommendations by Mr Justice Hope. That legislation which has now passed the Parliament enacts the most modern comprehensive legislation dealing with the security forces of any country. It provides for an extensive measure of ministerial and parliamentary control of the activities of ASIO. I simply point out that the legislation requires the Director-General to report periodically to the Leader of the Opposition so that there may be a truly bipartisan approach to the activities of ASIO.

The Opposition seeks to redebate and recen.sure the Government over the handling of the Williams report into the Narcotics Bureau. I point out to this House that the report available to this stage is an interim report. The final report is not yet available but the Government thought that the recommendations in the interim report were so important that it should act immediately to do what the Williams report recommended; and that was to transfer the responsibilities of law enforcement within the Narcotics Bureau to the Australian Federal Police. That was reported to this House. It was debated by this House. Now, in consequence of the Government’s accepting the Williams recommendations, legislation has been introduced to transfer to the Australian Federal Police the powers in relation to telephone interception previously held by the Narcotics Bureau. In all respects this Government acted appropriately and promptly to see that the recommendations of that interim report were introduced. I also point out that Mr Justice Williams at first considered that the interim report should be withheld- that is, kept confidential- until such time as his final report was introduced. But the Government in consultation with Mr Justice Williams thought it appropriate that we should act on it with promptness before the final report was introduced.

As I said before, the way in which this motion was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, labouring as he was to make his points firstly to try to outline what is ministerial responsibility, then to give some particulars of dereliction of duty by Ministers, has not carried any weight whatsoever either with this House or, I suggest, with the listening public. We have already had two censure motions of two of the Ministers involved. Neither of those censure motions was accepted. We have had extensive debate in this House on the transfer of powers of the Narcotics Bureau to the Australian Federal Police. We have had extensive debate on the ASIO legislation. We will be having further debate on Bills already introduced into the House to transfer to the Australian Federal Police the power to intercept telephone communications under warrant which was previously held by the Narcotics Bureau. It seems to me, therefore, that there is no reason whatsoever why this Parliament should accept this censure motion. It is more than apparent that on the third last day of the Budget sittings of this House the Opposition is trying to dredge up something so that it can continue to stir the pot rather than get down to the serious matter of debating serious issues before the Parliament. Therefore, I have no hesitation on behalf of the Government in rejecting this motion. I move:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 76

NOES: 31

Majority……. 45

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put-

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

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

AYES: 32

NOES: 76

Majority……. 44

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 3182

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BUREAU

Mr STREET:
Minister for Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– Pursuant to section 126R of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 1 present the annual report of the Industrial Relations Bureau 1978-79.

page 3182

CRIMINOLOGY RESEARCH COUNCIL

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

– Pursuant to section 43 (5) of the Criminology Research Act 1971 I present the annual report of the Criminology Research Council 1979.

page 3182

FAMILY LAW COUNCIL

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

– Pursuant to section 115 of the Family Law Act 1975 I present the annual report of the Family Law Council 1 979.

page 3182

AUSTRALIAN FISHING ZONE

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Primary Industry · Gippsland · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable members I present an agreement with the Kailis Kaohsiung Fishing Co. Pty Ltd relating to Taiwanese access to the Australian fishing zone.

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on the motion by Mr Scholes) adjourned.

page 3182

CAPITAL TERRITORY HEALTH COMMISSION

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

-For the information of honourable members I present the interim report of the Capital Territory Health Commission 1 978-79.

page 3182

HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION

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

Pursuant to section 42 of the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973 I present the annual report of the Health Insurance Commission

1977- 78.

page 3182

COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION

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

-Pursuant to section 122 of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 I present the annual report of the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation 1978- 79.

page 3182

SNOWY MOUNTAINS HYDRO-ELECTRIC AUTHORITY

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · Bass · LP

– Pursuant to section 32B of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act 1949 I present the annual report of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority 1978-79.

page 3183

RIVER MURRAY COMMISSION

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · Bass · LP

– Pursuant to section 21 of the Commonwealth River Murray Waters Act 1915 I present the annual report of the River Murray Commission 1979.

page 3183

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

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

– Pursuant to section 28 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 I present the annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal 1978-79.

page 3183

SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a report on financial assistance granted to each State under the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1 979.

page 3183

TIN ORES AND CONCENTRATES

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the Industries Assistance Commission report on tin ores and concentrates.

page 3183

PERSONAL INCOME TAX SHARING ARRANGEMENTS

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

– Pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 I present the Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission report 1 979-80 on the distribution of funds under the personal income tax sharing arrangements.

page 3183

AUSTRALIA COUNCIL

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · Wentworth · LP

– Pursuant to section 38 of the Australia Council Act I present the annual report of the Australia Council 1978-79.

page 3183

DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · Wentworth · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the first annual report of the Department of Home Affairs 1978-79.

page 3183

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– Pursuant to section 33 (4) of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act 1962 I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority 1978-79.

page 3183

DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Department of Science and the Environment 1978-79.

page 3183

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr HOWARD:

-Yes, I do, Mr Speaker. During the debate on the censure motion that has just been dealt with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) twice referred to a statement that I made in the course of a debate on 7 November on a motion to censure my colleague, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife). He referred to the use of the words ‘highfalutin explanations of ministerial responsibility’. I wish to inform the House of two things. Firstly, I do not regard, never have regarded and never will regard the concept of ministerial responsibility as being anything other than a very important centrepiece of the Westminster system of government. I did not describe the concept or principle of ministerial responsibility on that occasion as being highfalutin. I used that, in retrospect, rather unfortunate word in description of the explanations of ministerial responsibility which had been used during the debate by, amongst other people, the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett), who in all other respects made a good contribution to the debate. I would like to correct that misrepresentation by the Leader of the Opposition, which I regret has been repeated on at least two or three occasions by the Australian Financial Review in both comment and editorials, and perhaps by other newspapers. That word was used in the honourable gentleman’s explanation and it does not represent in any way my views about the concept of ministerial responsibility.

page 3183

QUESTION

CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING

Ministerial Statement

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

-by leave- I wish to inform the House that the Government has decided that the next census of population and housing will be conducted by the Bureau of Statistics on 30 June 1981. Regulations specifying the topics to be included in the census, in addition to those set out in the Census and Statistics Act, will be tabled shortly. In order that the Parliament and the general public should be fully informed on the questions to be asked in the census, I shall seek leave at the conclusion of this statement to table two papers. The first deals with Topic Evaluation and Proposed Questions and the second, entitled ‘The 1981 Census of Population and Housing’, is a more general description of the topics included and the methods of conducting the census. Nearer the date of the census, additional regulations will be tabled on census procedures. These will take into account the relevant recommendations by the Law Reform Commission in its report ‘Privacy and the Census’ which was tabled on 15 November by the Attorney-General.

Among the many recommendations made by the Law Reform Commission in that report, there are two on which the Government considered it desirable to take immediate decisions in view of the stage reached with preparations for the 1981 census. The first is the recommendation by the Commission that the Census and Statistics Act 1905 be amended to require that the precise questions to be asked in a census are set out in the regulations. The Government has decided not to accept this recommendation in relation to the 1 98 1 census for which the passage of regulations is now urgently required to enable the printing of forms to commence and other census deadlines be met. In respect of later censuses the Government will give further consideration to this recommendation. The Government does, however, agree with the basic intention of the recommendation, which is that Parliament be fully informed at the time it considers the regulations. Consequently the first of the documents I have already referred to sets out proposed question wordings, together with information on the uses of data to be collected and the results of the Statistician’s evaluation of question tests. Final wording of questions and definitions, and the sequencing of questions, will be decided in the light of further tests and any comments received on these aspects.

The second recommendation of the Law Reform Commission, on which the Government has made a decision, is the recommendation that information on identified persons and households should not be destroyed but should be transferred in some form to archives, with access for most purposes forbidden for 75 years. The Government has noted that the recommendation is expressed as a provisional view of the Commission and that its Chairman considers it to be a matter on which the Commission should not put forward a recommendation. The Government has carefully weighed the arguments for and against the proposal and has decided not to accept it.

The purpose of the census is to gather statistical information and the legal obligation on people to answer census questions- except one relating to religion- is accompanied by strict measures to ensure the confidentiality of the information provided. The Government believes that it would be inconsistent with that purpose and with that guarantee of confidentiality to retain information on identified persons or households for the research purposes referred to in the Commission’s report. Consequently the present practice of destroying all records of names and addresses and of not entering into the computer record such names and addresses will be continued.

The census is the most wide-ranging collection undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics as it involves contact with every household in the country. It provides a considerable amount of information used extensively by government bodies for policy formulation and monitoring. It provides a statistical profile of the whole population in terms of number, age and geographical distribution, and in terms of a range of demographic and social characteristics. Users include government agencies at the Federal, State and local level; welfare and social service organisations; research institutions; bodies undertaking regional, manpower and educational studies; demographers; business organisations; and private individuals.

Because of the need to contain costs, and mindful of the reporting burden on the community, the Government has decided that the census will seek a total of 43 responses from households compared with 68 in 1976. The inclusion of many additional topics was requested by users, but the topics selected by the Government are considered to represent a reasonable balance between the need for information, the appropriateness of the census as a means of collecting particular kinds of data, the difficulty with some topics of formulating questions likely to get accurate and consistent answers, and the desire that completing the forms should not impose too great a task on the public.

The Government recognises that asking questions of householders in order to obtain statistical information involves a degree of intrusiveness and places a burden on the community. The Government has aimed to minimise both burden and intrusion, but, nevertheless, accepts that some degree of each is a necessary corollary to the collection of statistical data.

In an exercise such as the population census which affects every household in Australia, it is essential that public co-operation and acceptance be obtained in order to achieve a high level and quality of response. For this reason the Government has decided that a substantial public awareness campaign should be conducted prior to the census. The aims will be to make known the availability of assistance for those who may, for language or other reasons, experience difficulty in completing the form, to explain the measures taken to ensure the confidentiality of the information provided and to explain the uses made of the statistics obtained from the census.

Honourable members will recall that, because of budgetary constraints, detailed processing of the data from the 1976 census was delayed for one year. Also, detailed processing was carried out on a sample of 50 per cent of census forms, with the exception of the Northern Territory where all forms were processed. The Government has decided that forms collected at the 1 98 1 census will be processed fully and without delay so that detailed, timely information is available to all users as soon as possible. This decision highlights the importance which the Government places on the census as a means of collecting important social and economic data, which is of primary concern to a wide range of users.

The Australian Statistics Advisory Council has given a lot of time to considering plans for the 198 1 census and their conclusions have been of great assistance to the Government in reaching its decisions. I now table the two papers to which I referred earlier.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-I seek leave to make a short statement on the same subject.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-Is leave granted?

Mr Howard:

– I am only too happy to grant leave but in doing so I extend in advance my apologies to the honourable member for not being able to remain in the House while he delivers his remarks.

Leave granted.

Mr WILLIS:

– I wish to make a few short comments on the statement made by the Treasurer (Mr Howard). The first point I note is that the

Government intends to process fully the 1981 census. There are a number of points that I would like to make on that matter. Firstly, the statement made by the Treasurer seems to be somewhat premature. What happens to the 1 98 1 census will be determined by the Hayden Government rather than by the Fraser Government. I assure the House and the public that the 1981 census will be fully processed by the Hayden Government after that census has been completed. The Opposition is appalled at the fact that the Fraser Government took the approach to the 1976 census which it did, which was to take a sample of only 50 per cent of the population during the 1976 census, thereby wasting the time of 50 per cent of the Australian people in filling in the 1976 census forms and also, of course, making that census data much less reliable and useable. In other words, the census was only a sample.

The census is the base data for a vast array of statistical analyses in this country. If that base data has statistical error in it, because it is a sample, that reduces the usability of that material and makes all future statistical analyses based on the census that much more subject to error. We regard this as a quite deplorable approach of the Government to sample only some 50 per cent of the population in 1976 and to delay any processing at all for one year. Both of those actions demonstrated an extraordinarily cavalier approach to this very important action of government, which is periodically to undertake a census of the nation to understand exactly what is happening in a whole array of human activity within the country. Our second point is that the Government has decided that the census will only ask 43 questions compared to 68 questions in 1976. We would like to make a number of points on this matter. We understand that we do not need to ask the same questions every time. Various questions were asked in 1976 which had not been asked before and it was important that they were asked then. I suppose it is not essential that they are asked every five years. Perhaps every decade will do.

We understand that there are other questions which may have been shown to be not worth asking. The response to the questions was poor. People objected vehemently to asking them, or they were not able to understand the reply to make it statistically helpful. So, such questions are better abandoned. This example surely does not apply to this vast number of questions- some 25 out of 68- which were asked last time but which are not to be asked in the 1981 census. We can only conclude that the reason for there being such a considerable reduction in the number of questions asked is the lack of resources of the Bureau of Statistics. I remind the House that the latest annual report of the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that the total operative staff of the Bureau has declined from 3,670 in June 1975 to 3,445 in June of this year, that is, a reduction of 225 members. With that reduced staff, the ability of the Bureau to undertake various activities, including census activities, is accordingly reduced. That must be one of the reasons which accounts for this considerable reduction in the number of questions asked.

If there was to be a sample survey on some of the topics which were raised in those questions and which are now not to be asked, this would in our view make it less annoying that those questions have been dropped from the census. If sample surveys had been carried out about child care for instance- that is one of the questions being dropped- such surveys may give us the kind of information that we need. But those sample surveys to get that information will clearly not be held because the Government has not given the Bureau the resources it needs. Not asking those questions in the census means that that information is simply not available and will not be available whilst this Government remains in office. A measure of the extraordinary inability of the Bureau to undertake basic sampling surveys is shown by the fact that such items as household expenditure surveys which are basic to information in a whole array of areas, not the least of which are those areas which are the bases on which the consumer price index is established, are not to be undertaken in the near future. I mention also the consumer finances and expenditure survey. This is an extraordinarily important survey to find out about wealth distribution in this country. It has never been held. It was planned but it has had to be abandoned by the Bureau because of lack of resources. In that situation it is clear that we will not get the kinds of questions asked by way of sample surveys which we should have had if those questions are not going to be in the census. This indicates the real difference between the Government and the Opposition on this matter of information.

We, as a party of reform and change, have a great interest in getting as much information as possible about what is going on and what the facts of life are in this country. We regard the census as tremendously important in that respect. But the Government, as a party of status quo and as a party which is not interested in change, is not interested in providing that information. Indeed it is concerned in many areas to hide the information which would be usable by a party of reform.

Finally, I refer to some of the issues which are not going to be the subject of this census. I mention child care and the area of ethnicity. We find that the question regarding language regularly used is not going to be asked. That was a question put in 1 976 that will not be asked this time. I think that it is a pretty important question to get some information for policy in regard to education and other matters. Surely it would be interesting to know how retirement benefit cover in this country was operating and who has not such cover. We know from sample surveys that many blue collar workers have no such cover. We should be able to examine those trends. The source of people’s income will not be asked this time although the actual amount of their income will. We regard the question of the source of income as being a very important question, not least as a check against the income question itself. There are various other issues which I will not go through at this time.

We do applaud the Government’s public awareness campaign. As the Treasurer said, the Government intends to hold a public awareness campaign to obtain public co-operation and acceptance of the census. That is an extraordinarily sensible thing to do. I understand that the campaign has been called for by the Australian Statistics Advisory Council. We fully applaud the Government in undertaking that measure. The other two measures mentioned by the Treasurer, and which were recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, are not matters which I have had the chance to consider at this stage. I will make the Opposition’s view on those questions known at a later date.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-by leave- I welcome the recognition by the Government that a new approach is needed to the census. I suppose that I could justly and rightly claim to be the father of reform of the Government’s attitude to the census. I remember very well being vilified in the past for protesting at some of the approaches which had been utilised in the eliciting of information. I wish to refer to the comments of the Treasurer (Mr Howard). He said:

The Government recognises that asking questions of householders in order to obtain statistical information, involves a degree of intrusiveness and places a burden on the community.

I respectfully suggest that the previous Australian Labor Government in respect of the last census and the Liberal-Country Party Government in 1971, when the previous census was done, were each as guilty as the other in their approach. I believe that the Commonwealth Statistician was the victim and the prisoner of those who simply wanted information for information’s sake.

I have promised my beloved Whip that I will not speak at great length this afternoon although I could go on for hours and hours on this subject. I impress upon our absent Treasurer, through the Leader of the House (Mr Viner) who is present as the Government Minister on duty in the chamber- I notice how carefully he is listening, and as a member of the Cabinet he can pass my message on- that I will cause problems in 1981 as I did in respect of the last census for the Statistician and for the Government if the question of privacy is treated as lightly as it has been in the past.

Lest people think I be obsessed by this subject, let me conclude by citing one very valid example of the trickery which was indulged in during the last census. We were told in special briefing programs how envelopes would be provided for members of the public who wanted to keep their information secret. They could put their information in the envelope and seal it. I later found out- this is when I really started to jump up and down- that there was only about one envelope printed for every 100 people in the population. The only way one received an envelope was by asking for one. Nobody made any effort to advertise the fact that envelopes could be obtained if information was desired to be kept secret. It was about that time that I jumped up and down once again and all hell broke loose. Census collectors would have happily turned the alsatians on me, but I stood firm because I believed that it was a question of great principle. That is but one example of many which exist.

I am very pleased- and my view is different from that of the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) who preceded me- that there is a reduction in the number of questions to be asked. Quite frankly some of the questions that were asked in the past have been simply to provide fairly useless information. I remember the audacity of one other questionnaire conducted by the Statistician- it was not a census, but a household survey- who even asked the public to name a relation who had lent them money in the last 12 months. To me, that is a gross invasion of privacy. I think the Parliament and the people of Australia are probably now grateful that for so long I have been a champion of the cause. But more importantly I am grateful for the recognition by the Law Reform Commission and by this Government that my barking a decade ago was not without reason.

page 3187

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS SCHEMES

Ministerial Statement

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

-by leave-In 1978 Mr R. N. Bonnett, the former honourable member for Herbert, reported to the Government on the terms and conditions under which the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act operates and the way its terms and conditions apply to the beneficiaries under the Act. The Act applied to ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen who left the Services prior to October 1972. October 1972 was quite a watershed in relation to superannuation pension benefits- call them what you may- for exservicemen and ex-servicewomen consequential upon the report of what is known as the Jess Committee. I think it deserves to be recalled that the Jess Committee was an all-party committee with representatives from all parties in the Parliament. My recollection is that Mr C. B. Byrne, then a distinguished senator from Queensland, represented the Democratic Labor Party. I briefly make the point that it was an all-parties committee report which was compiled following very extensive inquiries throughout Australia and throughout the whole of the Defence Force. A consequence of that report was that the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act came into being. There were two retirement benefits Acts in existence in relation to exservicemen and ex-servicewomen. Mr Bonnett ‘s report put together proposals seeking to find a comparable basis upon which beneficiaries under both Acts could be paid. The Government has considered that report very carefully. The Government has put it to study at the hands of actuaries and a number of people with very wide experience in this field.

Two fundamental points should be recalled when considering the benefits paid under the two schemes. The first is that benefits are determined by the relationship between contributions and the final salary. The levels of benefits paid under the DFRB Act and the DFRDB Act are different simply because the basis of contribution is different. Under the DFRDB Act benefits are paid following a flat rate contribution of 5.5 per cent of salary; that is, the salary paid throughout the term of service of the serviceman or servicewoman concerned. Under the DFRB Scheme benefits are paid on quite a different basis altogether. I hope the House will remember that that is the case. Pre- 1959 contributors paid on a basis which one could describe in shorthand as being a unitary purchase method. The cost of the units depended upon the age of the contributor when the units were first taken. For those contributing in the years post- 1959 there was a difference in the basis of contribution. Contributions were based on a fixed percentage of salary depending upon age of entry to the Scheme. Again, the benefits which are paid today vary, of course, according to salary. Salaries change and pension levels are determined by final salary. It is inevitable that differences occur and they have occurred. The DFRDB Scheme is a new scheme. As is the case with all new retirement benefit schemes comparisons are made between contemporary schemes and those which were launched and in operation years ago. The basic question which the Government has had to consider is whether it can pass on to former members of the Services the benefits which accrue from a scheme which is fundamentally different.

As I have said, the Government has considered Mr Bonnett ‘s report and it cannot accept the recommendations in the report. To do this would create a precedent which, understandably would be invoked by beneficiaries under all other retirement schemes. The Government has been conscious of the effects of inflation upon benefits paid to former members of the Services. That is why the Government has provided machinery to increase benefits to reflect the full movement of the consumer price index. The Government will continue to make such provision. To give some indication as to the sum of money involved, the Government’s responsibilities under the DFRB Act have more than doubled since 1972.

There remains the further question of the taxation of invalidity benefits. Unlike repatriation pensions which are exempt from taxation, invalidity pensions are not paid as compensation for disablement but to supplement income received from other sources. The Government has considered this issue carefully. Again, it does not consider that there are grounds for departing from the present practice. It remains for me to inform the House that copies of Mr Bonnett ‘s report are available in the Parliamentary Library and, of course, from the Table Office. I present the following paper:

Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Scheme-Ministerial Statement, 20 November 1979

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-Many retired ex-servicemen will be very disappointed with the statement by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen). I think it is fair to say that expectations were created that some action would be forthcoming as a result of the Bonnett inquiry. It is noted that there has been some publicity on this matter and I am sure that the Minister has received a number of inquiries in recent weeks, as have I. One of the problems with changes of schemes is that anomalies are created. In this case we have the situation in which former members of the Services- some of whom in fact paid a considerably higher percentage of their salaries than that which currently applies under the Defence Forces Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme- receive lower rates of pension because of the accident of date of retirement and not because of any differential in actual contribution.

A member of the Services who retired in late 1972 under the Defence Forces Retirements Benefits Scheme and who joined at approximately the same time and obtained approximately the same rank as a person who retired in early 1973, now could be in receipt of pension entitlements involving a difference of up to $2,000 a year. This is because of the six months- or much less than that; even two daysdifference, on the operative date principle, in the date on which he actually left the Services. Such persons were not covered by the provisions of the original legislation and I do not think that one can deny that. The Jess report was an all-party committee report. I think the initial legislation bringing in the current retirement scheme was generally accepted on all sides of this Parliament. The then Minister for Defence and the present Minister for Defence, at that time and in office, have both given undertakings that they would review the position of persons who were virtually left out because of the dates of their retirement. I do not think it is correct to say that the differences arise from different levels of contributions. If anything, the levels of contributions prior to the introduction of the scheme were higher relative to the current salaries of the day than are the present contributions in most cases.

The Bonnett report, which I have had the opportunity to read, was prepared after a considerable amount of pressure by back members of the present Government and, as I understand it, on an undertaking by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that the Government would examine the report sympathetically. A few weeks ago a statement was made relating to contributions paid by members of the DFRB prior to the introduction of the present scheme, and the actuary’s report was that no excess payments were made in respect of payments made prior to 1972 and no refunds existed. In this instance the situation is reversed. It is probable that those persons who retired have been disadvantaged by two aspects. The first aspect is the accident of date and the increased benefit under the existing scheme. I am not sure that one can validly argue that a new retirement scheme can be applied retrospectively. That accident of date is costing retired members a considerable amount of money and is disadvantaging a section of retired members of the Defence Force.

The other relevant factor is that prior to 1973 salary ranges within the Defence Force were at an artificially low level. They were not brought up to what should have been the reasonable expectations of members of the Defence Force, especially professional officers, until 1 973-74. In addition, the conditions of retirement of members of the Defence Force at that time were less than beneficial. They were changed in 1973-74 in a manner which enabled members to retire more easily. I know that it was the subject of criticism of the former Minister for Defence, Mr Barnard, that there was an excessive number of retirements from the Defence Force. One of the reasons was that members were able to retire more easily, and that had not been the case before. This proposal is a disappointment for those members who were given an expectation by the activities of the Government and the appointment of this Committee. In the circumstances, I think it would have been better if no inquiry at all had been conducted. At least there would not have been this expectation. The Government has failed to act. It probably could have accepted some of the recommendations of the Bonnett committee without taking on board the full retrospectivity aspect. It has not done so, and that is a decision the Government has to live with.

On the second point, I think the Opposition has to agree with the Government’s position. If invalidity retirements were tax free under the Defence Force retirement scheme- I do not think we should differentiate between that scheme and a superannuation scheme because it is in fact a superannuation scheme- they would of necessity have to be tax free under all superannuation schemes. It does not take much imagination to work out what would then occur, especially in some areas where ease of retirement on grounds of ill health would quickly grow. The person who served his full period and retired on what is a retirement pension would then be in the anomalous position of paying tax on his pension, but a person who was able to retire on grounds of invalidity shortly before he was due for retirement or at an earlier stage would have tax free income for life. The difference between superannuation-type invalidity and work-caused or war-caused invalidity has to be taken into account. If a policy decision were taken by a government that any person who retired on the grounds of sickness or ill health and was entitled to some form of superannuation payment was considered to be in a tax-free position, it would be an extraordinarily costly decision. Nevertheless it would be a decision which could be applied generally. I do not think one could reasonably expect to apply such a decision generally to one scheme without applying it generally throughout the community.

Members, and particularly older members, of the Defence Force, some in this House, will be extremely disappointed with the Government’s decision. I think that the Government did create expectations which it has shown now it is unable to meet. That in itself is reprehensible to a minor degree. It is better not to lead people up the garden path than to lead them up the garden path and then tell them that the flowers are not in bloom.

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

– I wish to deal with the political aspects of the comments made by my friend the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) in relation to this matter. It is utterly wrong for him to say that the Government was responsible for expectations being encouraged among Defence Forces Retirement Benefits pensioners, that is to say, those people who served in the professional forces of Australia during the period from 1948 to 1972. 1 have had a great deal to do with this, and I have said regularly to everybody that in the current economic circumstances I believe that there is no likelihood that the Commonwealth Government will make any move to salvage the position, having regard to inflation, other than what has already been done. It has been responsible for a substantial increase in government commitment between 1972 and 1977. As the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) said, it represents about 100 per cent in terms of cost.

The other reference made by the honourable member for Corio should be explained in this manner. Before 1948 there was no such thing as a Defence Forces Retirement Benefits scheme. The government of the late J. B. Chifley brought in a scheme at that time, but made no attempt to make it retrospective. It affected members of this Parliament such as the late honourable member for Indi, Air Marshal Bostock, for example, who retired from the Royal Australian Air Force in 1946. No attempt was made by the government of Mr Chifley to do anything about Mr Bostock ‘s situation, and one could multiply that example throughout the three Services by many times. It will be appreciated that it has been a longestablished matter of fact that the retrospectivity program was never adopted for the regular forces.

In 1948 those people who were in the interim forces before the regular forces were finally established were entitled, when they came into the regular forces, to become contributors to the scheme known as the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits scheme. It was the first time in Australian history that such a scheme had existed, and all sorts of complications and problems were associated with it. Members of the Labor Party, in particular my late friend the honourable member for Lang, Mr Stewart, and the former honourable member for Bass, Mr Barnard, who was the Minister for Defence in 1973, would have been familiar with these facts. During the period from 1950 to 1959 all sorts of problems were put up to Ministers for Defence, at that time largely Sir Philip McBride and later on Sir Allen Fairhall. The pressure grew and grew and, as the Minister said, it is true that in 1959 variations were made and the system of commitment in payment was altered. Between 1959 and 1972 the same problems again emerged, and they were well known to the then Minister for Defence, who retired in 1969, and to the Treasurer of the day.

It was only after some years- 1968, 1969, 1970, when the Gorton Government came into power- that an agreement was made to establish a committee. It is perfectly true that it had to be a joint committee and that the people to whom I have referred and many others were members of it. It was a joint committee. It sat and worked for several years and in 1972 concluded that what had existed between 1948 and 1972 ought to be substantially altered. In other words, the Committee was saying in 1972: ‘What we have had for the last 20 years has in our judgment, not been good enough’. The members of that Committee who were then in Opposition said- I was here and I heard them: ‘When we get into government, we will adopt the Jess Committee’s report’. By that time there had been a change in government and the McMahon Government was considering rejecting the Jess Committee’s report. I remind my honourable friend the Minister for Defence, who at that time had ceased to be the Minister for the Navy, that certain stresses were resultant of the circumstances at that time. The fact of the matter is that people were talking about crossing the floor. If I may say so with great respect, some distinguished members of the other place who were then members of this place will have no difficulty in recalling the circumstances to which I refer. There are sometimes advantages politically and sometimes disadvantages politically in having a long memory and a long experience.

When the Government changed in 1972 and Mr Barnard, the then honourable member for Bass, became Minister for Defence, consideration was given to this matter and the Labor Party changed its view. When Labor got into a position in which it had to face up to responsible decisions involving the recognition that something in the past had not been good enough and action should be taken to compensate those people who had suffered during that period, it come to the conclusion that it was more than apparent that the McMahon Government was about to reach just before that December election of 1972. In fact, I am firmly of the judgment that if that election had not been due until the end of the year 1973 the Jess Committee report would not have been accepted by the Government. There probably would never have been a DFRB at all if there had not been a change of government. That is what I believe to be the truth.

The fact remains that the people who retired before 1972 have suffered as a result of inflation. Consideration has been given by government to contributory schemes which have allowed these people- I do not want to go into great detail because it might be a little embarrassing- to be compensated for inflation and past suffering because of rising standards in the community. That decision was faced up to by the Honourable F. M. Daly and the Honourable E. G. Whitlam in 1973. Anyone with even minimal experience in this place will know exactly to what I refer.

The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has indicated that he is prepared to engage in discussions between the returned soldiers and the Regular Defence Forces Welfare Association on aspects of these matters as the Government’s decision is studied. I remind the Minister that there is very little in the way of detail available to honourable members. As he has announced the decision in this House today, I appeal to him to put before the Parliament detailed facts which established the reasons for the increase in the DFRB commitment between 1972 and 1979. Surely it is not too much to ask that these details be set forward. The information would be of interest to the honourable member for Corio and it might ease his conscience in some degree.

I make no criticism about the Bonnett report recommendation in relation to taxing invalid pensions. We have some son of an association with the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Canada. Many of our servicemen recognise the flags of those countries when they see them. We are told that in those countries the professional services are in a position different from that which has been accepted by the Government in Australia and which is applauded and accepted by the honourable member for Corio. I suggest that he should get in touch with some of the distinguished people who have recently gone out of government in the United Kingdom and see whether he can get the facts from them.

For my own part, I understand what the Government has said and what the Minister has said on behalf of the Government in this place this afternoon. I have never expected that the Minister or the Government would say anything else. I certainly have never given any of the exservicemen reasons for expectation other than to say that we will continue to press the Government. I have given my own advice to the Minister. I know he understands it perfectly because he has been a member of this place for a long, long time. On many occasions I have heard him say things similar to things said by others in the past. I am not upbraiding him but if I mention the mining of Haiphong harbour I am sure that the present Minister for Defence will rise to his feet and bow to the House. I simply say that we shall proceed to examine these matters further. We hope that consideration can be given next year to increases in addition to the consumer price increases which have been given. However, I acknowledge that these increases have provided quite substantial benefits for many classes of DFRB recipients who retired before 1972. I thank the House for giving me leave to speak to this statement. I hope it will be understood that the reality is that when the Jess Committee made its report to this House it very nearly resulted in a situation that would have been a great embarrassment to everybody.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3191

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Remuneration Tribunals Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979.

High Court of Australia Bill 1979.

Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979.

Evidence Amendment Bill 1979.

Remuneration and Allowances Bill 1979.

Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1979.

Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill 1979.

Defence Amendment Bill 1979.

Naval Defence Amendment Bill 1979.

Air Force Amendment Bill 1 979.

Defence Force (Retirement and Death Benefits Amendments) Bill (No. 2) 1979.

National Companies and Securities Commission Bill 1979.

page 3191

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Crimes (Aircraft) Amendment Bill 1979.

Homeless Persons Assistance Amendment Bill 1 979.

Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Amendment Bill 1979.

page 3191

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Mr SHIPTON:
Higgins

-by leave-I make this statement on behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, which, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, is composed of both Government and Opposition members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The statement concerns new references for the Committee. The Joint Committee has decided on two new references for its investigation. The first new reference is:

To monitor the political, economic and strategic situation in the Middle East and peripheral countries, and to report on any significant events and their possible effects on Australia.

This new reference is in effect a continuation of the Committee’s last report on the Middle East, tabled in 1976. The previous report looked at a number of matters, including the importance of Middle East oil for Australia; the likely effect on unemployment in Australia if supplies of Middle East crude oil were interrupted; minimising the likelihood of an interruption of oil supplies; the impact in Australia of sharp price rises in Arab oil; and Australian stocks of petroleum products. The previous report also referred to the serious outlook for Australia’s oil sufficiency and looked at reasons for concern with Australia’s oil situation. The new terms of reference will enable these matters to be updated. The new inquiry will be more wide-ranging. It will include an examination of the situation in Iran which was not examined in the last report.

The Middle East is a focal point of conflict of interests, with a potential for war and for upsetting the balance between the great powers. The region holds the major portion of the world’s oil reserves that fuel the industries of Western industrial countries and Japan- Australia’s major trading partner. The Arab oil states are also a major source of new investment in the Western world. This oil wealth is an additional means of diplomatic pressure and economic influence. The current situation in Iran is a particular source of tension. As I have said, the Committee’s reference will include an examination of the situation in that country and the possible effects on Australia.

The Middle East situation, which is always fragile, makes special demands on the United States’ diplomatic, military aid and financial resources, as the current situation in Iran shows. Therefore, Australia’s own strategic environment is influenced to Australia’s disadvantage by any deterioriation in the Middle East, with its uncertain effects on super-power relationships in many areas of the world. The consequences of further serious conflict in the Middle East are almost unthinkable in their potential magnitude. Sixty per cent of the world’s oil comes through the Straits of Hormuz. If they are shut, the free world ‘s economies will virtually close down. The Chairman of this sub-committee looking at the Middle East reference will be the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon).

The other new reference that the Committee is taking is one that looks at Australia and Asia and is entitled ‘The Changing Power Structure in Indo-China since 1975, and its Effects on Australia and the Region’. Events in the IndoChina region are of major concern at present. There is the potential that the situation there may lead to further conflict between China and Vietnam, which in turn could possibly involve the Soviet Union in the area. There is increasing evidence that the Soviet naval presence in the area is on the increase. The repercussions of further conflict could be immense for the region and for the world. The changing power structure in IndoChina, the wars there and, more recently, the serious conflict in Kampuchea have been accompanied by the generation of an appalling refugee situation- a human tragedy. I am pleased to say that Senator Martin, a member of the Committee, reported to the Committee this morning on her recent visit there. All of this has put special demands on neighbouring states in the region of Indo-China and has at last attracted world-wide attention to the plight of the refugees.

It is important that the Australian Parliament examine the serious issues of importance in Asia- the region of the world in which Australia is situated. This new reference will enable the Committee to do so. Australians need to be more aware of the geographical facts of life-that Australia is in the Asian region. The work and the report of the Committee will help a wider debate and an understanding of Australia’s relations with Asian nations. I am hopeful, after discussions that I, together with the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, have had with the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock), that the Government will make funds available for members of the Committee to visit this region of the world.

Both the Committee ‘s new references cover regions of the world which are delicately poised and have seen a rapid change in events in the past few years. With these references, the Joint Committee and, through it, the Parliament and the people will be kept abreast of changes in these volatile areas and how these changes may affect Australia. The Joint Committee is also continuing its work on two other major references, namely, Southern Africa and Defence. It will continue to monitor negotiations between the Australian and Papua New Guinean governments concerning implementation of the Torres Strait Treaty as well as to monitor negotiations between Australia and Indonesia on the seabed boundary between the two countries. The Defence sub-committee’s report entitled Australia’s Defence Procurement’ will be tabled in the Parliament this coming Thursday. I am greatful to the House for its indulgence in this matter.

page 3192

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO AFRICA

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-by leave-Mr Deputy Speaker, I present the official report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Kenya, Uganda, Zambia, Tanzania, Nigeria, Gabon and Sudan, June-July 1979, and I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

Mr CONNOLLY:

– It is some 1 1 years since this Parliament sent a delegation to the African continent, and the changes that have taken place during that period have been considerable. Not only has the political face of Africa changed but with it significant economic and social opportunities have opened up to the people of that continent since their independence. The significance of Africa to Australia should be seen not merely in terms of what we can give to, or gain from, Africa, but rather in terms of the role which Africa may well play in international politics over the next decade or so. Questions of human rights, especially in regard to southern Africa, will continue to seek the centre stage at the United Nations and elsewhere. There are a number of other situations on the continent, especially in the Horn of Africa, where the rights of minorities are not being protected adequately and where significant interest is not being shown either by the members of the Organisation of African Unity or of the United Nations in these matters because of their unwillingness to interfere in each other’s affairs. Until recently, this same principle applied to events in Uganda the absolute application of which led to Africa’s tolerance of Idi Amin and subsequent criticism of President Nyerere of Tanzania for assisting in his removal.

Members of this House are conscious of the constant threat of major power intervention in the affairs of Africa. With the end of the colonial era there have been innumerable conflicts, perhaps inevitable in the circumstances of the development of new power elites, often in a situation where democracy, as we understand it, does not exist but where pressures between traditional tribal groups formed by lines drawn on the map during the scramble for Africa conducted by European powers in the late 1 9th century are still only too real. The potential influence of the Soviet Union, using its surrogate, Cuba, for disruption in the internal affairs of Africa, has caused considerable concern both on the continent and elsewhere. The significance of Africa in terms of international politics lies not only in the fact that it contains 53 countries and represents over one-third of the members of the United Nations, but also that in a resource hungry world they control a significant share of the world’s resources of a whole range of strategic minerals. The control of these resources would undoubtedly influence the strategic balance, as the economic base of the most developed nations rests on their capacity to obtain readily, and with a minimum of political interference, access to sources of raw materials that exist in abundance in the geographical arc from southern Africa to the Middle East.

There is a tendency in Australia to believe that African countries are undemocratic and that governments are unable to represent the aspirations of their peoples. Whilst there are examples of where that is so, it would be grossly incorrect to assume that most African governments lack legitimacy in the eyes of their peoples. Since June this year, the continent’s three most notorious dictators have all lost power because of the grossness of their actions. They lost the support of their governments and their peoples as a result. The Westminster multi-party system which was developed to serve the needs of the AngloSaxon world some 200 years ago is not seen as a necessity for the government of Africa. Nevertheless, in all the countries visited, with the exception of Uganda, the delegation observed that a fairly sophisticated system of representative government, apparently satisfactory to the domestic conditions of the countries concerned, has been introduced.

The delegation ‘s visit to seven African countries just prior to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Lusaka not only gave us an opportunity to explore at the head of state level the attitudes of Commonwealth members to the Zimbabwe-Rhodesia problem but also enabled us to gauge accurately their expectations of Australia in this matter. The delegation was impressed with both the strength and unanimity of African opinion on the need for a just settlement which involved all the warring factions and which centred on a new constitutional agreement. We were convinced that front-line states, such as Tanzania and Zambia in particular, saw a role for Australia in the Rhodesian settlement based on our ability to act as an honest broker between them and the British Government.

The delegation was able to inform the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Leader 6f the Opposition (Mr Hayden) on a regular basis of our views as they developed, following our discussions with various Ministers and heads of state. We believe that, as a result, the Australian delegation was able to enter into the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting with a level of briefing probably ahead of that of any other state. The fact that the parliamentary delegation was able to play a useful functional role in support of Australian diplomacy in a period of great significance in the relationship between the white and black Commonwealth demonstrated that delegations of this Parliament can play an effective part in developing and expressing Australian policy, especially in parts of the world which we have tended to ignore.

There is little conception in Africa of Australia as a nation which, although still among the middle ranking powers, nevertheless is undoubtedly poised to assume a most significant role in a world which, during the 1 980s, will be looking to states which are rich in energy and virtually free from the neo-colonial shibboleths of the past. We are one of the few Western countries without a history of major colonial involvement in what are now independent but still sensitive new nations which do not take kindly to international manipulation, and they will look to us accordingly. For this reason, countries such as Tanzania hoped that Australia would play a positive role in helping to maintain the peace in ZimbabweRhodesia following a ceasefire and agreement on new elections. The delegation is pleased that Australia will be sending 1 10 observers at this most critical time for southern Africa.

With regard to Australia’s relations with Africa, the time has come for a greater commitment to the continent, notwithstanding the inevitable predominance of South East Asia and the Pacific in Australia’s concerns. Our trade with Africa is not substantial and prospects for dramatic change in this state of affairs are not good. Australia’s development assistance to Africa has to compete with other priorities closer to home and must be expected to remain relatively modest compared with other prospects. In spite of these limitations, the delegation feels that there is a need to encourage a change in this situation and to capitalise on the goodwill that the delegation’s visit generated. Australia and Africa share problems of climate, distance and sheer size. They also share problems of Federal-State relations and even the establishment of new capitals. Our development assistance, therefore, should concentrate on dry land farming techniques, water supply, communications and even advice on the creation of new capitals- all areas in which Australia has expertise. The delegation was most impressed by the project aid Australia is already involved in, for example, at Malindi in Kenya and Singida in Tanzania. It recommends the expansion of this effort to answer the demands of African countries for technology transfer rather than more dollars.

The delegation concluded that the single most important means of developing relations with Africa is by the establishment of a direct air link between Australia and the black Africa continent. Nairobi is the obvious stopover on a London bound flight, and it should be economical. This would open up East Africa to Australia’s tourists and also act as a stimulus to the still embryonic Australian-African trade. It would also help Australians to appreciate the peoples of Africa, their problems and their expectations. The delegation concluded that serious consideration should be given to increasing Australia’s diplomatic links with Africa and to examining the conditions in which our representatives live in existing posts, in none of which is life easy. To date we have no representation in nonCommonwealth Africa. After a brief visit to one French African state, the delegation was made aware of the strength of the French impact on Africa through the relations which France maintains with its former colonies.

Equally, the delegation was made aware of the impact of Islam on Africa, the product of a long history. The delegation concluded that the impact of Islam in Africa must be seen in the context of the apparent resurgence of Islam internationally from the Philippines through Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and the Middle East. Islam’s resurgence internationally is related to the oil crisis of 1973. The virtual monopoly of this vital commodity gave a small number of producer countries power that they had not formerly sought to exert. Acting in concert, these countries caused an international economic crisis. It is the prospect of their continuing to act together with other Islamic countries which raises serious questions about their future impact on international politics. Australia’s representation, therefore, should reflect the existence of French Africa and Islamic Africa. The delegation has made recommendations accordingly in its report. Our visit was fascinating, difficult, yet rewarding and, we believe, a productive experience. It is my hope and that of my colleagues that the Parliament will use its influence to ensure that the recommendations we have made will be implemented.

page 3194

COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION SEMINAR

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-by leave-I present the report of the Australian representatives to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development debate of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe held in Strasbourg on 9 October 1 979 and to the Inter-Parliamentary Union Seminar on Environment in Europe held in Geneva from 22 to 24 October 1979. I congratulate those people, including the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde) and myself, who arranged the presentation of this report in record time. I also congratulate the honourable member for Moore and myself for not speaking to this report but leaving it to members to read and to digest. The report sets out the findings of the Seminar on Environment in Geneva. It contains a lot of valuable information on air and water pollution which I intend to bring to the attention of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation.

page 3195

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

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

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

The intensification of stagflation in the Australian economy resulting from Government policies.

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

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

Motion (by Mr McLeay) put:

That the business of the day be called on.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr J. L. Armitage)

AYES: 73

NOES: 31

Majority……. 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 3195

COMPANY TAKE-OVERS BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the purpose of the Company Take-overs Bill is to set out the substantive law for the proposed new Australian takeover code which will regulate the acquisition of voting shares in companies incorporated in Australia. This Bill will apply that code in the Australian Capital Territory. The related Company Take-overs (Fees) Bill 1979, which I will be introducing after this speech will deal with the fees payable under the new takeovers code. The other jurisdictions that are covered by the formal agreement on companies and securities will then pass legislation applying this code in those other jurisdictions. Before I discuss the proposed new Australian takeover code, I would like to outline the administrative and legislative context in which the code will operate, and the present position in relation to the regulation of takeovers.

Formal Agreement on Companies and Securities

The new takeover code will be administered by the proposed National Companies and Securities Commission, the NCSC, a body which will be established by the National Companies and Securities Commission Bill which I introduced into this House on 28 August 1979. That Bill was the first of a series of Bills that will be introduced into this House to give effect to the legislative obligations of the Commonwealth under the formal agreement which was executed by the Commonwealth and all the States on 22 December 1978. I outlined to this House on 6

March 1979 the main features of the formal agreement. For present purposes I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to two of those features.

The first feature is that the NCSC will have responsibility for the companies and securities laws covered by the formal agreement subject to directions from the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities which is established by the agreement. One of these laws will be the proposed new takeover code. The NCSC will, so far as practicable, delegate its administrative responsibilities to the relevant authority in each jurisdiction. The second feature is that the content of these laws will be set out in legislation that will apply to the Australian Capital Territory. Each other jurisdiction that is covered by the formal agreement will then pass legislation which will apply the relevant Commonwealth law as the law of that jurisdiction to the exclusion of its present legislation as from the date of commencement of the Commonwealth law. Subsequently, any amendments to the Commonwealth law that are approved by the Ministerial Council will have automatic effect in those jurisdictions without the necessity of further and separate legislation in each other jurisdiction.

The aim is that as far as possible any person or company in a particular Australian jurisdiction should be able to deal on all general companies and securities matters, including company takeovers, as if that person or company were only subject to one system of law and administration throughout Australia. The co-operative scheme thus provides a framework under which we hope to be able to achieve uniform general laws on companies and securities that will apply throughout Australia. It was, however, never intended to fetter the sovereign right of any parliament to pass particular laws which are not inconsistent with the general legislation agreed to under the scheme. For example, the implementation of the takeover code under the scheme will not affect the right of the Commonwealth to legislate with respect to mergers as it has done in the Trade Practices Act.

Public Consultation

In embarking on this major exercise of legislative uniformity and law reform that was envisaged by the formal agreement, this Government and the other governments which are parties to the agreement have sought to ensure that there is at all times adequate opportunity for the proposed legislation to be considered by interested persons. For example, in February 1978 there was circulated to interested bodies a paper prepared by the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission on possible amendments to the existing takeover legislation. Ministers then met at Maroochydore to settle the framework for the proposed new takeover code. This framework was announced to the public on 14 May 1978. Finally, in December 1978 a draft Bill was released for public comment. The current Bill is a result of a careful assessment by the Ministerial Council of all the comments received on the exposure draft.

I would hope to be able to follow a similar procedure in relation to the remaining Bills that will contain the substantive law under the cooperative scheme. I would expect that the Securities Industry Bill will be exposed this month. The final Securities Industry Bill, embodying the Ministerial Council consideration of all public comments, could then be introduced into the House in the autumn session. I hope that the Companies Bill will be available for public comment in April 1980 and then introduced into the House in the Budget session of the same year. It is hoped that it will be possible to obtain the requisite approvals of the Ministerial Council to all necessary legislation in time for the cooperative scheme to be fully operational by no later than 1 January 1981. I would now like to turn to the proposed new takeover code and its relationship to the existing law and to the role of takeovers in the Australian economy.

Present Regulation of Takeovers

The proposed new takeover code will replace the current takeover provisions in the existing State and Territory companies legislation. The essential feature of the existing legislation in the mainland jurisdictions is that it prohibits the dispatch of certain takeover offers or invitations unless the conditions set out in the legislation are met. This legislation is based on the second interim report of the Company Law Advisory Committee chaired by Mr Justice Eggleston. In this report the Eggleston Committee set out some general principles in relation to the regulation of takeovers. These principles would still, I am sure, be acceptable to the community. They are as follows:

If a natural person or corporation wishes to acquire control of a company by making a general offer to acquire all the shares, or a proportion sufficient to enable him to exercise voting control, limitations should be placed on his freedom of action so far as is necessary to ensure:

that his identity is known to the shareholders and directors;

that the shareholders and directors have a reasonable time in which to consider the proposal;

that the offeror is required to give such information as is necessary to enable the shareholders to form a judgment on the merits of the proposal and, in particular, where the offeror offers shares or interests in a corporation, that the kind of information which would ordinarily be provided in a prospectus is furnished to the offeree shareholders;

that so far as is practicable, each shareholder should have an equal opportunity to participate in the benefits offered.

Role of Takeovers in the Australian Economy

The Eggleston Committee also pointed out that whilst some regulation of takeovers was agreed to be necessary to ensure fair treatment of shareholders, it could not be said that takeover bids always disadvantaged shareholders. Moreover, the possibility that a takeover bid will be made must operate as a spur to management to improve its performance and to disclose to shareholders the true worth of their holdings. I would also add that in a free enterprise economy such as ours takeovers can play a very important role in the efficient allocation of resources. In many instances takeovers allow for the introduction of new and better management and technology and for economies of scale. This means a greater return on investment, which is to the benefit of shareholders and provides greater security to creditors. Overall there is a net benefit to the nation through the better use of resources. The Government does not wish in any way to inhibit such takeovers. Indeed, the proposed new takeover code, which is directed at those aspects of takeovers which affect the efficient operation of the securities market, will ensure national treatment of this matter in the same way as the Industries Assistance Act and the Trade Practices Act ensure a national approach to matters with which those Acts are concerned.

When making recommendations on assistance for an industry the Industries Assistance Commission is required to include in its report whether the structure of the industry can be improved and, if so, the manner in which and the measures by which the improvement can be achieved. Sometimes this involves advocating mergers to achieve rationalisation, with a view to bringing about economies of scale, lower prices, improved competitiveness and enhanced employment opportunities. In recognition of this the mergers provision of the Trade Practices Act prohibits only mergers that lead to control or domination of markets and even those mergers may be allowed on public benefit grounds. Consistent with its industries assistance and trade practices policies the Government does not seek to hinder beneficial takeovers. However, in order for resources to be allocated in the most efficient way as a result of a takeover, there needs to be adequate information freely flowing between parties. This allows informed decisions to be made by investors as to the best allocation of their funds.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr FIFE:
LP

– In many instances, this has not been the case. Some parties have used information which is not available to all shareholders. Others have made public information which is not able to be readily verified. In addition, there have been instances where, because of selective offers or misuse of conditional offers, particular shareholders have been discriminated against. It is these types of practices that are not at all conducive to an efficient use of resources or to an equitable treatment of all parties. While they may benefit the short term interests of particular parties, they certainly are not to the long term benefit of the securities market or the total economy.

Proposed New Australian Takeover Code

It is these types of practices which have necessitated the proposed new Australian takeovers code. The new code is designed to meet the following two criticisms of the present legislation: Firstly, that the present legislation has been avoided by a combination of private acquisitions or by purchasing shares on the stock market; and, secondly, that control of a company has been obtained without shareholders being adequately informed or equitably treated. In some cases offers have not gone to them at all.

The general aims of the new code are to ensure that: Firstly, adequate information is available with sufficient time for shareholders to consider offers being made for their shares; secondly, there is equal opportunity for shareholders to participate in offers; and, thirdly, dishonesty and inequity are curbed without restricting or overburdening legitimate and indeed economically necessary business activity.

A detailed explanation of the provisions of the new takeover code is contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated with this Bill. An outline of the main features of the Code is in paragraph 13 of this memorandum.

Basically the new code will prohibit acquisitions above 20 per cent and below 90 per cent of a company’s voting shares unless one of the following methods is adopted: Firstly, a gradual acquisition of shares at the rate of 3 per cent every six months; secondly, a formal takeover bid, based on the procedure that exists in the current takeover code; or, thirdly, an unconditional bid for one month on the floor of a stock exchange.

Each of the two forms of takeover bid will be subject to particular conditions to promote fully informed decisions by all shareholders.

There are, of course, particular forms of acquisitions which should not come within the scope of this code. Accordingly, specific exemptions are written into the code for acquisitions such as those under a will, allotments in accordance with the terms of a prospectus, or acquisitions where the company involved may be regarded as not being owned by the public. In addition, the NCSC will be able to grant exemptions, with or without conditions, where this is warranted by the particular circumstances of the case. One area where this power may be useful will be in relation to the regulation of private placements.

The code recognises that the onus for proper disclosure and equitable treatment must be with not only the offeror but also the management of the target company. To this end, and in addition to controlling the way in which shares may be acquired by an offeror, controls are placed on target company management to restrict the use of unreasonable defence tactics such as unjustifiable profit forecasts, unjustifiable revaluations of assets, unconscionable service agreements or wilful non-disclosure of information needed by shareholders to assess a bid for their shares.

Although varying views have been expressed as to the extent to which the freedom of bidders should be controlled, the new code seeks to close loopholes in the present legislation and to improve the effectiveness of the existing controls. We do not wish to discourage the making of takeover bids in cases in which there are adequate safeguards for the protection of shareholders. The new code seeks to ensure that, as far as practicable, those safeguards will now be observed in all takeovers. I see this code not as an inhibitor of efficient and economically viable takeover activity but rather as an assistance to it. The code will promote investor confidence and encourage an informed and efficient market in securities.

Mr Deputy Speaker, earlier in this speech I mentioned the importance of ensuring that there is adequate consultation with the community on the content of the companies and securities laws covered by the formal agreement. The Company Take-overs Bill has been introduced at this time to allow further study of the provisions of the proposed new code by both honourable members and the public. Any submissions that are received will be carefully examined. It would assist this examination if submissions could reach me or my Department by 8 February 1 980.

I commend the Company Take-overs Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 3198

COMPANY TAKE-OVERS (FEES) BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

As I mentioned in my speech on the new takeover code this Bill is related to the Company Take-overs Bill which will regulate the acquisitions by a person of voting shares of a company incorporated in the Australian Capital Territory. The Company Take-overs (Fees) Bill will deal with fees payable under the Company Takeovers Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 3198

PARLIAMENT HOUSE ARCHITECTURAL COMPETITION

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the Parliament House architectural competition second stage document. Copies of the document are available for reference in the Parliamentary Library and in the Table Office. A copy of the document will be made available to honourable members on request.

page 3198

BANKRUPTCY AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the present Bankruptcy Act so as to create a common investment fund, to provide for a more equitable adjustment of the rights of both debtors and creditors, and to improve the administration and effectiveness of the Act. The Bill is the result of a comprehensive review of the Act in the light of judicial decisions on the existing legislation, submissions from, and discussions with, various outside bodies, changes in related fields of law and in social attitudes, and developments in bankruptcy administration overseas. I have had the benefit also of comments from State AttorneysGeneral on aspects of the Bill which touch upon the administration of State laws and the duties of State officers such as sheriffs.

The Review of the Bankruptcy Act

This present review of the Bankruptcy Act took as its starting point the comprehensive review of the Bankruptcy Law of the Commonwealth by the committee that was chaired by the late Sir Thomas Clyne, the then Federal Judge in Bankruptcy. The approach of the Clyne Committee, an approach which this Government endorses, was set out in paragraph 7 of its report as follows:

The need for a bankruptcy law, based upon firm and long established principles, is not, the Committee believes, in dispute. It is accepted by the community that when a debtor has reached such a position that he is no longer able to pay his debts in full and there is little prospect of his being able to do so, his property should be made available, through a trustee, for distribution amongst his creditors on an equitable basis; and that, after all his property has been so made available, he should, if his financial difficulties have been brought about by misfortune rather than dishonesty or extravagance, be released from his liabilities and be given an opportunity to re-establish himself with as little delay as possible. The Committee equally believes that there is need to provide for the punishment of bankrupts who are dishonest and to safeguard the community against the early release of such persons from their liabilities and from the close supervision provided by the bankruptcy law.

Following that review by the Clyne Committee, the Parliament passed the Bankruptcy Act 1 966 which came into operation on 4 March 1968. Since coming into operation, the Bankruptcy Act 1966 has proved to be generally satisfactory. However, as a result of our experience with its operation, the Government would now like to remedy a number of deficiencies that have been found to exist in it and to make a number of other changes that are considered necessary. A detailed explanatory memorandum on the changes that are contained in this Bill has been circulated to honourable members. I would, however, like to mention, for the benefit of honourable members, some of the more important of these changes.

Establishment of Common Investment Fund

Firstly, the Government proposes to establish a Common Investment Fund in order to recoup part of the cost to the taxpayer of the trustee services now rendered by official receivers. Some idea of the increase in these costs can be gained by comparing the shortfall of revenue over expenditure in the administration of the Bankruptcy Act. In 1969, the shortfall was $242,560. In 1979, the shortfall was $2,090,440. While the level of bankruptcy fees is being kept under review, it is considered that the shortfall in revenue could not easily be reduced by an increase in fees. Because of this the Government considers that the proposed Common Investment Fund is the best means of further reducing the cost to the Government of administering the Act. The Bill provides for the creation of a Common Investment Fund and all trust moneys held by the proposed official Trustee on account of bankrupt estates will be treated as a common investment fund for the purposes of investment. The interest from these investments will be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund in order to offset the cost to the Commonwealth of the trustee services it provides in relation to those estates. It is estimated that, in a normal year, this interest should increase the revenue from the bankruptcy administration by about 3316 per cent over current receipts. The Government believes that this proposal, which is in line with a long standing practice in the United Kingdom, will not significantly alter the return received by most creditors from what they would have otherwise, received. In addition, moneys in the fund will, in certain circumstances, be deemed to have earned interest for the benefit of the person or persons entitled to share in the distribution of those*, moneys. The proposed Fund will not, of course, . apply to trust moneys held by private registered trustees.

Facilitation of Administration

Secondly, there are a number of amendments’ to facilitate the administration of the Act. The - rapid increase in the number of bankruptcies has severely affected the efficiency of bankruptcy ‘ administration. While the increase does appear to relate, in part, to a decrease in the social stigma attaching to bankruptcy in contemporary society, the main reasons stated for bankruptcies are still, in the case of non-business bankruptcies, the over use of credit, unemployment, and adverse litigation and, in the case of business bankruptcies, lack of business and management skill, training or experience, lack of sufficient initial working capital and the economic conditions affecting industry throughout Australia. A review of staffing levels and the introduction of Automatic Data Processing systems should, to some extent, alleviate the administrative problems brought about by this increase in bankruptcy throughout Australia. In addition, we are now seeking to amend the Act in a number of ways so that it is more practical and economical to administer and more in keeping with modern business practices. In approximately 70 per cent of estates it is now taking at least two years to realise the assets and distribute proceeds to creditors and this period is growing longer. The proposed amendments, combined with adequate staffing support, should result in a substantial reduction in the time taken to finalise estates, a consequence which, I am certain, will commend itself to honourable members on both sides of this House.

One of the more significant of the amendments that will facilitate administration is an amendment which changes the name, and extends the present property holding functions, of ‘The Official Receiver in Bankruptcy’, a corporation constituted by all the official receivers. This corporation will now be known as the ‘Official Trustee in Bankruptcy’ and it will take over the trustee functions presently exercised by the official receivers themselves in respect of the estates of bankrupts and deceased estates. These amendments will remove the problems that can arise because of the present separation of the legal entity holding the trust property from the person performing the trustee functions. I would mention also that the Bill will enable unnecessary meetings of creditors and public examinations to be dispensed with. The experience of both official receivers and registrars in bankruptcy is that in many bankruptcies neither a public examination nor a meeting of creditors is necessary. These amendments, which will greatly simplify administration, give official receivers and registrars and amount of discretion to dispense with both the first meeting of creditors and the public examination of the bankrupt in appropriate cases. The conferring of these general discretions render unnecessary the existing statutory provisions which provide for such meetings and examinations to be dispensed with in the case of bankrupt estates deemed by the court to be small bankruptcies.

Legal and Social Changes

Thirdly, there are a series of amendments to take account of legal and social changes that have occurred since the present Bankruptcy Act came into operation in 1 968. One of the most significant social changes is the increasing attention that is being paid to the problem of rehabilitation of the honest but insolvent debtor who has been unable to cope with our modern consumer credit oriented society. The Government has carefully examined the various competing considerations including the need to protect the interests of creditors, the need to ensure an expeditious and comprehensive administration of the bankrupt estate and the need to ensure that dishonest bankrupts are punished. Following this examination, the Government has concluded that the qualifying period for an automatic discharge from bankruptcy should be reduced from five years to two years with an appropriate adjustment for persons who are already undischarged bankrupts immediately before this amendment comes into operation. However, I assure honourable members that the Bill does contain provisions to ensure that the public interest is adequately protected. To avoid abuse of these new provisions it will still be possible for objections to be lodged against the statutory discharge of any bankrupt.

The provisions according priority to particular classes of creditors have also been examined. On 13 September 1979 1 outlined the Government’s response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs concerning priority of Crown debts. I indicated then that the Government had decided to abolish all remaining Crown priorities in the Commonwealth sphere, except in relation to tax instalment deductions and withholding tax on dividends and interest remitted overseas, and to seek the abolition of all remaining Crown priorities in the State sphere. The amendments necessary to give full effect to this decision in respect of bankruptcy matters have been incorporated in this Bill.

The Government has also decided that the priority extended to a claim for wages will be increased from $600 to $1,500 and the present upper limit of $2,000 on the priority for a claim for workers’ compensation will be removed. In addition, a person advancing moneys for the payment of wages will be entitled to the same priority to which the employee who receives the benefit of the advance would have been entitled if his wages had remained unpaid. These amendments will bring bankruptcy law generally into line with the corresponding provisions relating to the treatment of wages in corporate insolvencies. The amendments also accord with the minimum action considered necessary by Commonwealth and State Ministers for labour in their 1972 resolution on the priority to be accorded to the payment of Commonwealth taxes and charges as opposed to employee entitlements in insolvency proceedings.

The protection that is currently given to the proceeds of certain assurance policies in the hands of a bankrupt has been extended. There will now be excluded from the property of the bankrupt that is divisible amongst his creditors, proceeds of certain assurance policies which are received by a person within 12 months before he becomes bankrupt. These changes are seen essentially as an interim measure pending the completion of a proposed review of the Life Insurance Act 1 945. In the course of that review the Government intends to examine the whole basis on which assurance policies and annuities are excluded from the property that is divisible amongst the creditors of a bankruptcy. Depending on the results of that review further amendments may be required.

Another matter of concern to the Government has been the fact that at present claims for arrears of maintenance are not generally provable in a bankruptcy. Because of the social significance of maintenance obligations the Government believes that all arrears of maintenance prior to the date of bankruptcy should be provable in the bankruptcy without thereby affecting the ability of a maintenance creditor to exercise all the enforcement remedies, other than imprisonment, that are provided by the general law.

Public Consideration of Bill

This Bill is a long and complex piece of legislation which has significant social and commercial implications and the Government wishes to ensure that account is taken of the views of those sections of the community that are affected by its provisions. The Government does not intend to rush into amending this technical legislation without adequate consultation with the community. Accordingly, the Government has decided that whilst this Bill should be introduced at this time, debate on the Bill should be held over until the House resumes for the autumn sittings in 1980. This will permit honourable members and the public to consider the Bill. I invite submissions on the Bill and any submissions that are received will be carefully examined. It would assist this examination if submissions could reach me or my Department by 15 February 1980. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 3201

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 5) 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill, the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1979, is to amend the Customs Act 1901, as amended by the Customs Amendment Act 1979, consequent upon certain provisions contained in the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill 1979. The Bankruptcy Amendment Bill 1979, when enacted, will transfer the trustee functions currently carried out by individual official receivers to a new corporate body designated ‘the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy’. In consequence of this change, certain consequential amendments are required to Division 3 of Part XIII of the Customs Act 1 90 1 to transfer to the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy’ the trustee functions currently imposed on individual official receivers by provisions contained in that Division.

As this Bill is consequential on the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill 1979 consideration of its provisions by this House will be deferred until after the House has considered the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill in the autumn session 1980. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 3201

COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill presented by Mr John McLeay, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr John McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973 to enable references of inquiries into matters relating to financing of works and services provided in respect of the Australian Capital Territory to be considered by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The Commonwealth Grants Commission presently performs three basic functions. Firstly, it inquires into and reports upon applications by States for special assistance, which is defined as financial assistance for the purpose of making it possible for the States concerned, by reasonable effort, to function at a standard not appreciably below the standards of other States. It also inquires into and reports upon applications by the Northern Territory for special assistance. Secondly, it reviews the per capita relativities on which tax sharing assistance to the States is based. Thirdly, from time to time it advises on the percentage distribution as between the States of the local government tax sharing assistance.

As a result of performing these functions the Commission has established a reputation as an independent expert body in relation to arrangements for financial assistance by the Commonwealth to the States and local government. Against this background, the Government considers it appropriate that the Commonwealth Grants Commission should also examine and advise government on matters referred to it from time to time in respect of the financing of works and services provided in the Australian Capital Territory. The Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly supports this approach. Residents of the Australian Capital Territory are required to pay municipal rates and State-like taxes in a manner similar to residents of the rest of the nation. The Commonwealth, in determining the recovery of costs incurred in the provision of services to the residents of Canberra, has regard to State practices in determining the level of local and State-like fees and charges.

Consideration of Grants Commission reports on matters referred to the Commission will provide a valuable source of advice to the Government and will promote equity in decisions on finances affecting residents of the Territory. The unique nature of government in the Australian Capital Territory, whereby the Commonwealth is also responsible for State and local government functions, means that the Commonwealth has a responsibility towards the residents of the Territory as well as to the nation as a whole. The Commonwealth has always sought to achieve an equitable balance between these reponsibilities. The proposed amendments would not have any effect on existing financial arrangements between the States and the Commonwealth. I commend this Bill to the House.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

I ask the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay) whether the Bill is going to be pushed through this week. It is a Bill of some significance. Could it be stood over until the next session?

Mr John McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– That is not within my responsibility. It will have to be left to the Leader of the House (Mr Viner). I think he would probably be well disposed towards the proposition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-There the matter must rest.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3202

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURE

Motion ( by Mr Viner) proposed:

That if the House is not sitting when the Standing Committee on Expenditure has completed its inquiry into the Australian Industry Development Corporation, the Committee may send its report to Mr Speaker or, in the absence of Mr Speaker, to the Chairman of Committees, who is authorised to give directions for its printing and circulation.

That the foregoing provision of this resolution, so far as it is inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-The Committee is at the draft report stage of its inquiry into the Australian Industry Development Corporation. The report is an important one and because of the length of the Christmas recess, I understand the Committee has decided to seek the approval contained in the motion before the House. The inquiry has been a wide-ranging one, and other inquiries are going on into the financial structure of the Australian commercial community. The Opposition is in accord with the thrust of the motion before the Chair.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3202

NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL STANDARDS LABORATORY AND AUSTRALIAN DENTAL STANDARDS LABORATORY, SYMONSTON, AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act

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

– I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of National Biological Standards Laboratory and Australian Dental Standards Laboratory, Symonston, Australian Capital Territory.

The proposed work is the construction of an integrated laboratory complex on a 20-hectare site at Symonston. This site already accommodates the brucella vaccine testing laboratory, which is part of the National Biological Standards Laboratory. The laboratory complex will enable the National Biological Standards Laboratory to carry out its function of ensuring that therapeutic products available in Australia for human and veterinary use are safe and effective. The facilities will comprise general laboratories, experimental animal houses, animal breeding areas, service areas, office accommodation, fencing, yards, and a feed shed for handling stock. The facilities will provide high levels of microbiological security for certain functional areas which must be kept free of contaminants and for areas from which contaminants must not escape. Provision will also be made for access roads, car parking, landscaping and storm water control. The estimated cost of the proposed work examined by the Committee was $26m at June 1979 prices.

In reporting favourably on the proposed work, the Committee requested that the construction of the dam and drainage plans be re-evaluated with a view to obtaining savings in construction costs and reductions in maintenance commitments. The Government has noted the request of the Committee and will ensure that appropriate control measures are provided at the least possible cost consistent with minimising erosion and the progressive accumulation of silt downstream of the site. The Government will ensure that the Committee is advised of the outcome of the reevaluation which takes place during the design development. If the House agrees to support this motion, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-The Opposition does not wish to delay the motion before the Chair. As the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) said, it is important, and we are happy to see it passed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3203

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to clarify the intention of some sections of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. The Bill also will give effect to the Government’s decision to grant financial assistance in certain cases, to people who wish to be represented at future hearings before the Aboriginal Land Commissioner. As the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) stated on 27 April this year, the amendments presented in this Bill are of an administrative nature and in no way affect the general principles embodied in the principal Act.

Honourable members will be aware that the Minister announced in the Senate on 20 March of this year that an agreement in principle had been reached between the Government of the Northern Territory, the Federal Government and the Aboriginal land councils which would facilitate the registration of Aboriginal land titles. The agreement involved the amendment of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act in order that roads over which the public had a right of way would not need to be specifically identified in a deed of grant prior to the registration of that deed. Identification of such roads could take place subsequent to registration. It was also made clear at that time that the proposed legislative solution was subject to the consent of the land councils concerned. Advice was received from the Northern Land Council that it had yet to complete consultations with the relevant communities and as a consequence was not in a position to consent to the proposed amendments to the legislation. Further consultations between land councils, governments and Aboriginals have taken place, and I understand the Minister hopes to be in a position to move further amendments to the Act in the autumn session.

As I indicated earlier, the passage of this Bill will give effect to the Government’s decision announced on 13 February 1979 to grant, in certain cases, financial assistance to individuals, groups, associations or corporate bodies wishing to be represented before the Aboriginal Land Commissioner at land claim hearings. The Government’s decision followed representations from some non-Aboriginal groups that through financial hardship, they were unable to obtain adequate legal counsel to present their case at land claim hearings. The criteria upon which financial assistance will be provided is that the AttorneyGeneral be satisfied that in all the circumstances, including the possibility of hardship to the applicant, it is reasonable that the application be approved. The principal Act requires the Minister to make a decision with respect to any recommendation by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner concerning a land claim. Mr Justice Toohey, the present Commissioner, has expressed the view that the Minister has the power to accept all or part of a Land Commissioner’s recommendation. However, a legal opinion obtained by the Commonwealth has cast some doubt on whether he does have this power under the Act as it now stands. This Bill will make it clear that the Minister does have the power to accept all or part of a recommendation.

Provisions are made in this Bill to allow the Minister to utilise the funds of the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account in order to meet additional administrative needs of the land councils. According to the provisions of the principal Act, administrative expenses of the land councils are to be met from 40 per cent of the royalty payments paid to the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account. The royalty payments currently flowing from mining on Aboriginal land have proven to be insufficient to meet the administrative expenses of the land councils. This amending legislation gives the Minister power to use other available funds in the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account to meet additional administrative expenses until such time as adequate royalty payments begin to flow from mining operations on Aboriginal land. By an interim arrangement pending the passage of this amendment, special payments were made from Commonwealth appropriations to land councils to enable them to meet their administrative expenses. This Bill will enable the Commonwealth to recoup these payments from the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account. However, a further amendment passed by the Senate ensures that two special payments made in 1978-79 to land councils under the Ranger Agreement to meet negotiation expenses and to fund responsibilities arising from the Agreement are not required to be repaid to Consolidated Revenue. The Bill also validates certain payments made to land councils, and as personal loans, which the Auditor-General mentioned in his report. It is also proposed that the provision whereby loans were made available from the Aborigines Benefits Trust Fund should continue to apply in respect of the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account. This amendment will ensure that loans can be made available to Aboriginals living in the Northern Territory from the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account.

The principal Act lays down the procedures under which the Governor-General may declare >that the national interest requires that mining should occur on Aboriginal land without the consent of the traditional Aboriginal owners. This amendment will ensure that a national interest proclamation shall be deemed to have been disapproved if it has not been debated within 15 sitting days of notice being given, which brings it into line with the provisions in similar legislation.

Finally, two other minor amendments are provided for in this Bill. The first corrects a simple error in the calculation of the size of the Ranger project area subsequent to the adjustment to the southern boundary in accordance with the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry recommendation. The area of the Ranger project area has, as a result of the Government’s acceptance of that recommendation, been reduced from 83 square kilometres to 79 square kilometres. The second deletes an incorrect reference to sub-section 5 (a) in section 63 (6) of the principal Act. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr Everingham) adjourned.

page 3204

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 established new machinery for review on the merits of administrative decisions. It was supported on both sides of the Parliament. The Act established two important new bodies, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Review Council. The purpose of the present Bill is to make some changes to the constitution of the Council and improvements to the functioning of the Tribunal. The Tribunal came into operation on 1 July 1976, with jurisdiction to review decisions made under a number of Acts of the Parliament and ordinances of the Australian Capital Territory. That jurisdiction is being progressively extended, in accordance with the Government ‘s policy in this area.

The Administrative Review Council, which is established under Part V of the Act, first met on 15 December 1976. The Council’s functions relate to the examination of decision-making processes and administrative review mechanisms, and the making of recommendations on the need for changes. The Council has already produced three very valuable annual reports which have been tabled in the Parliament and are available to honourable members. The third annual report summarises recommendations the Council has made to the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) for amendment of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

The amendments to be made by the Bill principally stem from recommendations made by the Council. They deal with the constitution of the Council itself, the powers of the Tribunal and the Federal Court of Australia in relation to stay orders, and machinery matters relating to time limits and staff of the Tribunal. I would add that the Government has not yet completed its consideration of all the recommendations of the Council. The Attorney-General indicated in another place that a number of the recommendations require careful study. The Council was originally conceived as an expert body of lawyers and administrators. Section 50 of the Act accordingly provides that the qualifications for Council membership are extensive experience in public administration or extensive knowledge of administrative law. It has become increasingly apparent, however, that the Council would be even better equipped to discharge its functions if it had access to expertise in areas outside the confines of law and public administration as such.

Clause 1 1 of the Bill therefore extends the qualifications for membership of the Council to include extensive experience at a high level in industry, commerce, industrial relations, the practice of a profession or the service of a government or an authority of a government, and extensive knowledge of public administration. As a result of this extension of the qualifications for appointment, the Council will be able to reflect the views and experience of a broader cross-section of the community.

The Act at present requires the President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, who is an ex officio member of the Administrative Review Council, to preside at meetings of the Council. The Council believes, and the Government agrees, that this situation can give rise to potential conflict of duty where the Council is considering and reporting on matters that might be the subject of proceedings in the Tribunal. Clauses 10 and 12 of the Bill have therefore been included to enable a member of the Council other than the President of the Tribunal to be appointed Council Chairman. The Tribunal President will remain a member of the Council, but it will be easier for him to withdraw from the Council ‘s deliberations in appropriate cases, and he will no longer need to be the channel of communication between the Council and the Government.

I turn now to a number of amendments relating to the making of stay orders. For review procedures to be effective, it is sometimes desirable that a decision the subject of a review application should be suspended or stayed pending the outcome of the application. Section 41 of the Act makes provision for this to be done. This provision enables, for example, a deportee to obtain a stay of deportation while he applies to the Tribunal for a review of the deportation order. However, experience has shown that the powers available to the Tribunal under section 41 are not sufficiently flexible. Thus, in the case of a deportation order, the Tribunal’s power is limited to ordering suspension or stay of the whole of that order. The result is that the order will cease to be ‘in force’. Once this is done there is no statutory basis, under the Migration Act 1 958, to detain the deportee. Clauses 6 and 14 of the Bill have therefore been included to help overcome problems of this kind. However, they will not enable the Tribunal to review or suspend the detention of the deportee pursuant to section 39 of the Migration Act. Clause 6 of the Bill will also give the Tribunal much greater flexibility in framing a suspension or stay order. The Tribunal will have power to suspend or stay part of a decision, not just the whole of the decision, to make an order subject to conditions, and to limit the duration of the order so that it does not have an unnecessarily long duration. The Tribunal will also have power to revoke or vary a suspension or stay order, so that changing circumstances can be met. These are all powers which the Tribunal does not at present have.

Section 41 at present prevents the making of a suspension or stay order unless the decisionmaker has been given a reasonable opportunity to make a submission to the Tribunal. This could undesirably delay the making of a stay order in some cases. Under the proposed amendments it will no longer be necessary to afford the decisionmaker the opportunity to make a submission where it is impracticable to do so. As a safeguard, however, an order made in those circumstances will not come into operation until a notice setting out its terms is served on the decision-maker. He will then be able quickly to seek revocation or variation of the order if he considers it necessary.

An appeal lies on questions of law to the Federal Court of Australia from a decision of the Tribunal. Under sub-section 44(6) of the existing legislation, the Court has powers similar to those of the Tribunal to make suspension or stay orders. Clauses 8 and 9 have been included in the Bill to ensure that the Court’s powers are parallel to the broader powers which are to be conferred on the Tribunal. The amendments will also ensure that the Court’s powers extend to both the Tribunal’s decision and the original decision which the Tribunal was reviewing.

The Bill also contains some matters of a machinery nature. These cover an amendment to sub-section 21 (1a) relating to the Tribunal’s constitution when hearing certain preliminary matters, an extension to a maximum 28 days of the times within which a decision-maker must provide findings of fact and reasons for decisions, and a provision to cover staffing arrangements following Northern Territory selfgovernment. The changes are set out in clauses 3, 4, 5 and 13 of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Everingham) adjourned.

page 3206

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The Australian National University Amendment Bill 1 979 brings together in one Bill a number of amendments that relate to the Australian National University Act, and replaces the Amendment Bill that was introduced by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in the Senate on 24 November last year. These amendments include the insertion into the Act of provisions to give effect to the Government’s policy on membership of student organisations; the changing of the structure of the academic boards of the School of General Studies and of the Institute of Advanced Studies; the changing of the name of the School of General Studies to The Faculties; and the amendment of the financial provisions in the Act to bring them into line with current Commonwealth provisions.

The sections of the Bill dealing with student organisations will provide that: Membership of a student organisation will be voluntary; fees payable in respect of membership of a student organisation will be voluntary; compulsory fees can only be used for the provision of amenities or services; where the Council of the University makes compulsory fees moneys available to a student organisation for the provision by that organisation of approved amenities or services, the Council must first be satisfied that the governing body of that organisation is representative of its members; in addition, where the Council of the University makes compulsory fees moneys available to a student organisation for the provision by that organisation of amenities or services, then it is the duty of the Council to ensure that the moneys are applied only in respect of the provision of amenities or services that are not of an academic nature, that are of direct benefit to the University, and that have been declared in university statutes to be amenities or services in respect of that organisation; compulsory fees moneys are not to be paid to a national organisation which represents students but they may be paid to national student organisations whose principal function has to do with sporting or recreational activities, or with a particular education, social or cultural field, or with the interests of post-graduate students; financial statements are to be prepared and audited each year showing details of the manner in which compulsory fees have been expended.

As I have indicated, the Bill also provides for a number of administrative changes within the University. The Council of the University believes that the name School of General Studies, which has the connotation of ‘general’ studies or adult education, is inappropriate as the name of the undergraduate arm of the University. The Council is of the view that the name ‘The Faculties’ is the most appropriate term to distinguish the undergraduate side of the University from the Institute of Advanced Studies and reflects more accurately the activities of this important side of the University. Accordingly, the Bill will change the name of the School of General Studies to The Faculties.

In addition, the boards of the School of General Studies and of the Institute of Advanced Studies will be restructured in accordance with decisions of the Council. The restructured Board of the Institute will take account of the changing structure of the research schools in the Institute and of the growth in the number of centres, units and groups within the Institute. The Board will now become a smaller representative body and will be more effective in its review and policymaking role. The Board of the School of General Studies, which will now be called the Board of Faculties, will become a larger body with increased representation of student members and of non-professional staff. With this increased representation, it is envisaged that the Board will be better placed to fulfil its function of having responsibility, under the Council, for all academic and related matters arising in the Faculties.

Finally, the opportunity is taken by the amendments to update the financial provisions of the Australian National University Act so that they are in line with current Commonwealth provisions. In preparing these provisions care has been taken to maintain the autonomy appropriate to universities in our society. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Everingham) adjourned.

page 3206

CANBERRA COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill 1979 also replaces the Bill which was introduced by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in the Senate in November last year. This Bill allows for the insertion into the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act of provisions similar to those in the Australian National University Amendment Bill which will give effect to the Government’s policy on membership of student organisations and, in addition, amends the financial provisions in the Act to bring them into line with current Commonwealth provisions.

The sections of the Bill dealing with student organisations will provide that: Membership of a student organisation will be voluntary; fees payable in respect of membership of a student organisation will be voluntary; compulsory fees can only be used for the provision of amenities or services; where the Council of the College makes compulsory fees moneys available to a student organisation for the provision by that organisation of approved amenities or services, the Council must first be satisfied that the governing body of that organisation is representative of its members; it is the duty of the Council to ensure that moneys provided to a student organisation for the provision by that organisation of amenities or services, are applied by the organisation only on those amenities or services which have been approved by the Council as being of direct benefit to the College; financial statements are to be prepared and audited each year showing details of the manner in which compulsory fees have been expended.

In addition to these provisions, the Bill maintains the relationship which exists in the Act between the Minister for Education and the College. This means that the Minister will continue to have the power of direction with regard to determination of which amenities or services are eligible to be supported from compulsory fees. Finally, as with the Australian National University Bill, the opportunity has been taken to amend the financial provisions of the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act so that they are in line with current Commonwealth provisions. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Everingham) adjourned.

page 3207

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 November, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time. ( Quorum formed).

Mr John McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1979 and the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Amendment Bill 1979, as they are related measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson) - Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the three measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– This cognate debate covers the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 4), the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill and the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Amendment Bill. The Organisation has a number of powers. The main thrust of the Bills is to amend legislation which was introduced as recently as October last. The legislation transfers the powers to intercept telephones or use listening devices from the Narcotics Bureau to the Australian Federal Police. That has been brought about by an interim report of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs. Very significantly, the report was made in September last. We did not have any knowledge of the report when we were dealing with the legislation in October. The Bills were introduced into the House by the Leader of the House (Mr Viner) who has no ministerial responsibility in the area. Apparently it was decided that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) should not introduce the legislation. The legislation was to be transferred to the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay) but he was not given the privilege of introducing it into the House.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– You will have to update your information because here I am.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I am talking about introducing the legislation into the House. I know that the Minister has a tendency to be late but he is some days late in arriving here.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am not as late as you were tonight.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I was at a Privileges Committee meeting. The worthy Minister in his answers to questions did not seem to know too much about what telephone taps or listening devices were. He made the overall sweeping statement that it was not his problem to be involved in questions of law. We make a criticism about why we are expected to pass legislation to regulate the proper use of listening devices and telephone taps when Ministers will not become involved in the administration and legal questions of the legislation. If they are not to be involved and if they do not want to understand the legality of the matter, it becomes an open go from the point of view of what everybody will do pursuant to the legislation. We cannot say that this is a grey area and that we had better trust the police. That is no way to carry out ministerial responsibility.

This year the Parliament has spent a lot of time debating the question of phone tapping and listening devices. The Opposition has taken a very keen and responsible attitude towards the necessary safeguards. It was our amendment that brought about the necessity for judicial warrants. However, in our view we should not have been debating the legislation at all. The Narcotics Bureau with its publicity-seeking endeavours was not an organisation capable of responsibly exercising powers to tap telephones and use listening devices. When the legislation giving it those powers was passed by the Parliament, the Government had already received the Royal Commissioner’s report which detailed what an incompetent and poorly trained organisation the Bureau was. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Commission strongly recommended that the Narcotics Bureau be disbanded. That recommendation was made in September. Yet we were obliged to debate legislation in October which transferred to the Bureau the power to use listening devices and telephone taps and to intercept mail. We find it incredible to think that the Bureau for years had been operating under a system in which it made dramatic disclosures in the Press designed to show how successful it was but when it was put into the position of having to substantiate that in the witness box it was not able to mislead the Royal Commission and the Commission found strongly against it.

The evidence given to the Royal Commission clearly indicated that the Opposition was justified in saying that the Government ought to become more open about the inefficiencies of its law enforcement agencies. We do not want to give these agencies greater powers. We propose to move at the Committee stage of the three Bills that what is popularly called a sunset clause be inserted. We are not satisfied that the Government can now transfer these powers from the Narcotics Bureau to the Australian Federal Police and say that everything will be all right. In our view, from recent events which we do not need to advert to in too much detail, the police do not appear to have any more competence or efficiency than the Narcotics Bureau which the Royal Commission has recommended be disbanded. The proof of the pudding will be in the events which follow. We recognise that something has to be done on an interim basis but we want to make that interim period short. We cannot have a situation where for example, officers do not know that it is illegal to tape a telephone conversation. Why would the police be any more effective from the point of view of law enforcement than the Narcotics Bureau? We make that abundantly clear.

The area of drug law enforcement is of unequalled importance. There is a great incentive for corruption. Nothing in the past record indicates that a highly competent alternative to the Narcotics Bureau has yet arisen. I think that we will have to talk about that in a later debate. The proposal to set up a drug unit within the Australian Federal Police was not decided by the Government. Perhaps that is a matter which we ought to debate at a later stage. I understand that Sir Colin Woods believed that this would be the most appropriate method. We are not here to condemn Sir Colin Woods. However, it is an area in which lives are being lost daily and in which heavy criminal involvement is obvious. In our view, it is the responsibility of government to determine the best possible system of narcotics law enforcement. We are very worried about the climate that has been created in Australia. We think there is a need for a new broom to be used to give fresh ideas of how we could set up perhaps an alternative method of narcotics surveillance and enforcement. Personally, I think the judiciary has a role to play in this area. I suggest that we could do something about it, but that is more to the point in a later debate.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to consult Sir Colin Woods, but once again it is a matter of ministerial responsibility. The Government should not be left in the position of saying: ‘We will leave it to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and he can do the best he can’. The evidence against doing that is so strong now that possibly, and probably, we need new personnel. In our view there has to be a body that can be above suspicion, possibly recruited from all States. Certainly in my view, the members could be employed on a contract basis. In other words, permanent positions need not be created. However, trained officers are needed. I believe that we need some judicial ability to direct into what area there should be narcotics intelligence. Narcotics intelligence cannot be left to the ordinary run-of-the-mill police situation. That is obvious to people who work in this field, particularly police officers, because of the evidence now available.

I suggest that Australia needs an Australian narcotics enforcement or police agency which could be drawn from State police and Federal police and from people in the narcotics area who have a particular competence. The Opposition would also like to see established a national drug enforcement and intelligence council which would monitor and ensure co-operation between the various drug enforcement agencies operating at both Federal and State levels.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– That was a Williams recommendation.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Yes. The Minister for Administrative Services makes the point that it was a Williams recommendation. The royal commissioner said that the more State and territorial police can be encouraged to work in conjunction with Federal enforcement agencies, the greater use Australia will be making of its existing resources. I think that is true. The question is this: How do we go about it? He then talked about a criminal drug intelligence cell being established nationally and in each State. He made the point that we ought to have as an objective that type of cell- to receive and collate all criminal information, to develop profiles, to suggest targets for Federal and State police and for Customs.

I believe that what I am saying is in line with what the royal commissioner was adverting to. It is not in this legislation. Therefore we will be moving the amendments that I have mentioned. We will be moving amendments to the principal Act to ensure that evidence can be given in court only relating to information gathered by the use of listening devices and telephone taps in narcotics offences and crimes carrying a penalty of more than three years. The decision in the Padman case in the Supreme Court of Tasmania was that the court has a residual discretion whether to receive evidence; in other words, the decision was that a court was not a person within the meaning of the Act. Parliament has to strengthen the Act by an amendment which states that where the word ‘person’ is included in the Act, it also means a court.

Another matter of concern to the Opposition is the fact that information provided to a court may have been illegally obtained. That point is pretty obvious without my going into too much detail. The courts do have a residual discretion to refuse to admit illegally obtained evidence. We do not think the Act goes far enough. We like to refer to the 1975 criminal investigation report where, prima facie, such evidence would be inadmissible. Accordingly, we will be moving amendments. It is a serious matter that Commonwealth Police officers obtain authorisation for the use of listening devices under State laws. Protection provided by State laws differs from State to State. If the Government believes that the Australian Federal Police should have the power to use listening devices, then it ought to legislate at a Federal level. The Opposition amendment will make it illegal for members of the Australian Federal Police to use listening devices unless they are authorised by Commonwealth law to do so.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Let me get this clear. Listening devices unless authorised by Commonwealth law?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Yes. At the moment they are authorised under State law.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– That is a bit of an exercise in semantics, is it not?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I do not think so. Let me make this high-powered point which will interest the Minister no end. One must ask why the Federal Police have not taken any action on the admission of Mr James Twaddell that he taped a telephone conversation with Dr Peter Solomon. I know the Minister is from South Australia, but he would know that there is some significance in what I am saying. This is a clear breach of the Act within the ruling in the Padman case. There appears to be an unwillingness by the Australian Federal Police to pursue the matter. I believe that it did not even interview Dr Solomon. Therefore, there is the extraordinary situation that, whilst the police can prosecute others for breaches of the Act, nothing is done about Mr Twaddell in that illegal position.

I do think it is important that when members of the Federal Police are involved they operate under Federal legislation. I think it would be difficult for them to use a listening device in the Australian Capital Territory unless there were some particular provision for such devices. So the Minister does see what I am about.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– A listening device is different from a telephone tap.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Yes, different from a telephone tap. We have to get that clear because there has been a bit of difficulty.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– You said that I did not understand it.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The Minister did not, at the time. I am not trying to be offensive to him but he does notice that there is a distinction. We do control telephones, but we do not control listening devices. Where there are telephone taps, as carried out by his officers, they acted illegally.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– That is not true.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It was proved in the Padman case. We do not have a lot of time. Perhaps the Minister and I could have a yarn at some other time. If he reads the Padman case he will see that it established that his officers acted illegally. I do not think the Minister wants to tread into an area which is only going to encourage me to be talking longer about matters relating to him. We have had enough of that today. The matter of concern now is this legislation. The Opposition proposes to move the amendments and at an appropriate stage, will seek leave to suggest that the matter go to a legislation committee. As the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) would appreciate, in committee we are able to discuss these matters in an area where we can move amendments. In fact we got them moved on the last occasion. These Bills were introduced only at a very late stage last week. There has been no chance for the Opposition to have a party meeting about them in the normal process. This matter is being accelerated by the fact that the Bills have been brought on today, the Government knowing full well that the Opposition party meeting would not normally be held until tomorrow. Therefore, that is all the more reason why we would be anxious to have a legislation committee examine the Bill. At an appropriate time, namely, at the conclusion of the second reading debate, I will be seeking leave to move such a motion.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-Let me reply firstly to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) and express three reservations particularly about a sunset clause. After long consideration and after discussion with a number of eminent legal authorities, I have decided that a sunset clause could cause only dissatisfaction because there is too much doubt and uncertainly about for how long the Act will last and for how long the existing procedures of the law can be observed. In my opinion it is totally wrong to suggest such a clause. It is wrong because, if a government has any definite and decided feelings on real, legal or philosophical grounds and wants to make an amendment, it has the capacity to do so.

My second objection relates to the amendments that are to be moved, particularly those amendments dealing with section 219F of the principal Act. It is suggested that the following sub-section be inserted after sub-section (3): (3a) Where, in proceeding in a court in respect of an offence, objection is taken to the admission of evidence on the ground that the evidence was obtained in contravention of, or in consequence of a contravention of, or in consequence of a failure to comply with, a provision of this Act, in relation to a person, the court shall not admit the evidence unless it is, on the balance of probabilities, satisfied that admission of the evidence would specifically and substantially benefit the public interest without unduly prejudicing the rights and freedoms of any person.

That proposed sub-section is altogether too precise and would take away the discretion of the judge or the justice who was hearing the case. I believe that if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) had given that matter greater consideration he would not have considered the insertion of that sub-section to be a reasonable way of changing the law.

The Opposition’s proposed new sub-section (3C) reads:

The burden of satisfying the court that evidence obtained in contravention of, in consequence of the contravention of, or in proceedings of failure to comply with, a provision of this Act should be admitted in proceedings lies on the party who seeks to have the evidence admitted.

This also tries to control the burden of proof and the ability of the judge to give the proper attention that he can give to the hearing of such cases. I cannot agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on all of the important matters about which he spoke. I say this with regret because I usually do agree with him, but on this occasion I do not think enough consideration has been given to the problem now before us.

I have been interested in this problem ever since we introduced the Customs Amendment Act in May of this year. At that time I had a particular interest in proposed section 219F in that Bill. It related to the ability to use evidence obtained by secret listening devices in narcotics inquiries. It provided for information obtained by Customs officers to be conveyed to police organisations as well as the security service. So far as I am concerned, it is right and proper that any such information should be conveyed to the security service, but I have very grave doubts whether it is proper in a society such as ours that there should be an ability to pass on this type of special information to the police that could be prejudicial to the rights of the individual. I believe that it has been shown by the actions of the Government that it, too, is worried about the problem, although not as worried as I am.

This problem arose as a result of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, headed by Mr Justice Williams. I have before me some of the views expressed in what I choose to call the edited version- not the final version- of Mr Justice Williams’s report. In paragraph 4 he expresses the view: . . that the 1968 initiative which established the Narcotics Bureau has failed. A completely different initiative is now necessary to improve the national effort against drug trafficking.

None of us can doubt that one of the greatest problems we face, apart from a threat to security, is the extent to which narcotics are used and the damage they do to people of all classes and sections of the community. He goes on in paragraph 6 to relate some of the evidence given by the department involved. The evidence stated in part:

There is little doubt that the Narcotics Bureau has developed into a highly efficient enforcement agency.

On the contrary, the first section of paragraph 7 of the interim report states:

The Narcotics Bureau is not a highly efficient enforcement agency.

Increases in arrests, prosecutions and seizures of drugs have often occurred with little or no Narcotics Bureau assistance.

In paragraph 8 Mr Justice Wiliams states- this is of vital importance to us all and is the reason why this Bill was brought into being:

This Commission strongly recommends that the Narcotics Bureau be disbanded. It will recommend to the same effect in its final report.

That is the basis on which we are considering the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1979 tonight. The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister (Mr Viner) stated in his second reading speech:

In the light of this interim report, the Government has concluded that the Australian Federal Police should be given all necessary powers for narcotics inquiries … the power of officers of Customs to use listening devices under warrant of a judge. This power now needs to be transferred to members of the Australian Federal Police subject to the same safeguards and limits as now apply in relation to officers of Customs. This Bill therefore provides for amendments to the Customs Act to empower members of the Australian Federal Police, instead of officers of Customs, to use, under the warrant of a judge, listening devices in respect of narcotics offences.

I am pleased to see that these provisions are taken from the principal act. I am pleased to say that because most honourable members will know of the efforts that we made in the legislation committee to have this amendment inserted in the Bill as it was originally produced, and that I was the one who initially recommended it to this House. I think, from conversations with many prominent members of the legal profession and certainly with some of the most talented, that that amendment was approved of by all. It took the matter out of the hands of the Comptroller-General of Customs and the Minister and put it in the hands of the judicial authorities, which is exactly where it should have been placed on the first occasion. But my actions are directed peculiarly and almost completely to what was clause 219F of what I could now regard as the principal Act. Sub-section ( 1 ) refers to a matter in which I very seriously believe and which I believe ought to stand on its own. It states:

A person shall not divulge or communicate to another person, or make use of or record, any information obtained by using a listening device for the purposes of narcotics inquiries that are being, or have been, made by officers of Customs,-

Now such inquiries will be made by the Federal Police- being information that has come to his knowledge or into his possession by reason of his being, or having been, an officer of Customs-

It will now be the Federal Police- or by reason of his having entered into an arrangement with an officer of Customs to use a listening device for the purpose of those inquiries, except for the purposes of those inquiries.

Those are important words. I repeat:

  1. . except for the purposes of those inquiries.

Regrettably, sub-section (2) provides:

Notwithstanding sub-section ( 1 ), the Comptroller may, in accordance with the following paragraph, by himself or by an officer of Customs authorized by him, communicate information obtained by using a listening device for the purpose of narcotics inquiries that are being, or have been, made by officers of Customs-

where the information relates, or appears to relate, to the commission or intended commission of an offence against the law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, being an offence punishable by imprisonment for life or for a period, or maximum period, of not less than 3 years- the information may be communicated to an officer of the Commonwealth Police Force or of the Police Force of a State or Territory;

Similarly, in sub-section (3) there is a somewhat similar provision. I do not believe that those provisions should stand. I believe that we have here what can be regarded as the chronic difficulty of distinguishing between the rights of the people to be protected against too effusive action on the part of the bureaucracy and the rights of the individual to be able to sustain his proper position in society.

In the second reading speech, the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs said:

The Government has given considerable thought to the safeguards and limitations to apply to the granting and exercise of the powers to be conferred by this amendment on members of the Australian Federal Police.

I emphasise these words of the Minister:

A judge of the Federal Court or a supreme court must be satisfied by information on oath as to the jurisdiction for issue of a warrant;

I commend the Government for introducing that amendment. The Minister went on to say: there is a prohibition on communication except in strictly limited circumstances;

It is those circumstances in which I am interested. In clause 6 of the Bill, section 21 9F of the principal Act is amended by giving exactly the same powers to which I have said in the earlier debates we ought to object. In this case the powers are given not to the Commonwealth Police but to the Australian Federal Police. The powers are to be within the jurisdiction of the Federal Police. For that reason I intend to move:

Clause 6, page 2, omit the clause, substitute the following clause:

Section 2 1 9F of the Principal Act is amended-

by omitting paragraph (a) of sub-section (2); and

b ) by omitting paragraph ( a) of sub-section ( 3 ). ‘.

Having foreshadowed that amendment, I believe that I have to show justification for persisting with it. I was a member of the legislation committee that dealt with this matter. I and other members argued very strongly, both in the committee and in the House, that these provisions should be dropped. The reason we did so is that we were never able to find out why that special power should be given; there was no proof that it was needed. If there was no proof that it was needed and if there was no test on which we could judge it, why should we, as representatives of the people against the strength of the state and the bureaucracy, agree to it without contesting the reasons for it?

I now come to the really critical issue that we are facing here. We know of the growing strength of the Government compared with that of the Parliament. We know of the growing power of the bureaucracy and its attempt to subordinate the interests of some people to that power. We all know of the various reports that have been brought forward. I refer to the Hope Committee report on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and other reports. Therefore, we want to avoid this centralisation of power in a particular area. We want to make certain that the guiding principle in the life of a liberal groups in parliament- those who say that they believe in democracy- is to protect the individual against arbitrary abuse of power.

I give to the House some other reasons for the amendments. In the last day or two we have had another statement which indicated that the Government is expected to order an urgent shake-up of counter-terrorist operations. In the report of Mr Justice Hope which has been tabled in the Parliament, he outlined a list of their weaknesses, ranging from scandalously bad cooperation between police forces to fragmented intelligence collection. Here we have another indication of the fact that it is for the Parliament to exercise caution and to protect the rights of the individual, unless its actions are manifestly shown to be in the security interests of the Commonwealth and of the people of the Commonwealth and that they are necessary in the case of narcotics abuse or narcotics use, unless such use has been authorised by an authorised medical officer.

When this matter first came before the Parliament I remember that I, and one of the South Australian members, drew the attention of the House to the fact that under the Bill and therefore under the law, certain privileges were being withdrawn. I believe this to be critically important. What were those privileges? They were, firstly, the privilege of secrecy between husband and wife; secondly, the privilege between solicitor and client; and, thirdly, the privilege between a priest and members of his congregation. I want to emphasise what is now called ‘computer crime’ and the way in which at a price information that is fed into a computer can be taken out and fed to those people who are engaged in narcotics peddling- the leaders of narcotics syndicates and those people who are doing tremendous damage to the people of this country.

These basic rules will be withdrawn. For that reason I believe that this clause should not remain in the Bill because the risk is too great. After all, once something has been put into a Bill- it then goes into the Act- it is difficult to remove it. We have witnessed this in the preparation of these Bills. There is no doubt that other people besides me have been worried about such matters and have been prepared to propose amendments to which I will refer later. Equally, if we find that there is a real need for change, we should know that if it can be proved to be needed beyond a reasonable doubt, we can always come back to the Parliament. The Parliament ought to be the judge and the arbiter as to whether increased powers should be given.

I now deal with two other matters. The Government has attempted to come to grips with the problems that I have mentioned. The Minister, in his second reading speech, said:

The Commissioner will be required to report to the Minister not only on the use made of the information but also whether, and if so to whom, the information is communicated;

The Minister may also call for a report if he wants to do so. What are my objections to that course being followed? The Minister can call for a report. What is the good of calling for a report after the damage has been done? What is the use of calling for a report if the Minister has no capacity under the law to take corrective action and to protect the individual? For those reasons I most certainly believe that it is proper for me to move the amendment and for the Committee of the Whole to pass it into law.

I have one other matter with which I should deal. Under the Act the Minister may call for a report in writing of the extent to which action taken under the warrant has assisted officers of Customs in narcotics inquiries that have been made by them. The Bill substitutes a provision that the Minister may call for a report in writing with respect to the use made by members of the Australian Federal Police of information obtained by using a listening device in pursuance of the warrant and the communication of any information so obtained to persons other than members of the Australian Police Force. From this it is obvious that the Government has recognised the difficulties that I and others have mentioned. But instead of dropping the clause it introduces significant changes. Again I emphasise that the public concern about the increased powers of the Australian Federal Policeformerly the Commonwealth Police- and of the Narcotics Bureau demands that the Government give more attention to whether the amendments that I have just mentioned should be observed.

In the few minutes available to me I will mention how these problems can be raised in the House and a partial solution found. I am very interested in Division III of the Act, which deals with the recovery of pecuniary penalties for dealings in narcotic goods. This is a quasi criminal offence. Therefore, the standard of proof should be beyond a reasonable doubt. This matter is dealt with in sections 243E and 243d. In one case, in order to comply with the wishes of this House and the legislation committee, it was agreed that such a matter would go to a court, and in the other case it was agreed that it would not do so. Strange, but there it is, and it is an anomaly.

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

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

-The Opposition shares the disquiet about these Bills- the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Amendment Bill, the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill and the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 4)- that the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) has so eloquently expressed. He displayed that disquiet when similar measures were introduced in May. It seems to me that what has happened in the five months since May suggests that there should be much more reason for disquiet about these particular powers in this Parliament. We would certainly support the amendment that he has foreshadowed. We would certainly support the basic principle that he has enunciated in these very difficult regions, that is, that the authority of the Parliament, in relation to the exercise of these powers over individual Australians, must be asserted.

This is a series of Bills to transfer the powers, originally given to the Federal Narcotics Bureau officers, to the officers of the Australian Federal Police. The Bills transfer the powers, which we discussed in this Parliament in long debates in May, that were given to the Narcotics Bureau officers to empower them to place listening devices and to authorise telephone tapping by those officers. It is now proposed, in the very last sitting week of this Parliament this year, to transfer these very important powers in a somewhat panicky series of measures across to the Australian Federal Police. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) has clearly stated that it is inappropriate to deal with measures of this importance in the dying days of the parliamentary session under the kinds of conditions which the Government has imposed. I will say a little more about that later.

There should be no need to suggest in this House that the power to place listening devices in the homes of Australian citizens, the power to wire-tap, to telephone tap the conversations of Australian citizens, are very great powers indeed. They should be powers that all members of this Parliament should be concerned with. They involve a major intrusion into the privacy of the lives of Australian citizens. In May we accepted that there would be certain conditions under which this power would be justified. But we did stress very strongly- indeed some of our amendments were accepted- that we clearly need to protect the rights of citizens if this power should ever need to be used. But let us be under no illusion that the kinds of powers are a threat to the whole democratic way of life which we encourage in this society. The very use of these powers opens up to unnamed bureaucrats, not just information relating to drugs which is the Government’s particular purport. This Bill opens up the ability to listen to privileged conversation which has nothing to do with drugs and a whole series of often trivial and sometimes silly remarks. An enormous amount of information is opened up to intrusion by bugging devices and by wire tapping devices. It would be irresponsible of this Parliament not to take this issue very seriously. It is my view that the Government, by introducing these measures in the last week of the Parliament and in the dying days of the Parliament, is treating a very serious issue with a degree of lightness and almost with contempt.

It seems to me that, even though the Parliament agreed to some of these provisions in May, there is a whole series of new implications raised by transferring these powers to the Australian Federal Police.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Can you tell us what they are?

Dr BLEWETT:

-One of the implications is that, as the Minister suggested the other day, there are considerable doubts already about the kinds of powers that the Australian Federal Police possess in this field. The second implication is that, unlike the Narcotics Bureau, the Australian Federal Police is engaged in a series of other activities. The issue which I think the right honourable member for Lowe brought up is that the use of these powers carries over for the officers of the Australian Federal Police into their other activities or the other activities of the organisation in a way that they did not carry over for the Narcotics Bureau. I believe- and I think the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay) would agree, even though he admitted the other day that in the field of law he is a much a dilettante as perhaps I am- that in the field of law the situation for the Australian Federal Police is somewhat different from the Narcotics Bureau. I will have a little more to say about that later.

I am trying to suggest to the Minister that these are very great and serious powers. It seems to me that it is inappropriate that these Bills regarding transference should be rushed through in the last week of the Parliament. We have suggested a sunset clause so that the Government may have the resources to deal with problems in relation to narcotics in the next three or four months. We can accept that. A sunset clause would ensure that as soon as the Parliament resumes we could be given the opportunity seriously to consider these implications. We might all then have the advice of lawyers about some of the problems that derive from these changes that are now being made. This is one of the reasons why we have suggested a sunset clause in relation to this legislation.

One of the matters that worries me is that we had very long debates in May and June about these powers in relation to the now defunct Narcotics Bureau. A series of events have taken place since then which have caused great disquiet on the Opposition side of the House. I would hope that some of those events since May and June have caused disquiet on the Government side. I shall mention some of the events that have taken place in the light of which we must consider this legislation.

In June we gave great powers to the Narcotics Bureau in relation to bugging devices and wire tapping. Since then we have had a report on the Bureau to which we gave these powers which I summarise in these words: The Bureau is inefficient- or rather the Bureau was inefficient because it is now defunct- the Bureau was overcentralised and poorly led; it was obsessed with its image, it was distrusted by other lawenforcement agencies; the Bureau was characterised by poor morale; and the Bureau contained agents who were inadequately trained. Since we gave the powers to the Narcotics Bureau, we have had this formidable indictment of the very organisation to which this Parliament was asked to give these very great wire tapping and bugging powers.

During those debates this Opposition engaged in a policy of bipartisanship with the Government. Nobody can deny that. Yet when we begin now to criticise the Government for its secrecy about the defects of the Narcotics Bureau, we are attacked by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) who says that we have abused the bipartisan approach. A fortnight ago, the Minister referred to: an abuse by the Leader of the Opposition and the members of his party of this bipartisan approach.

The Minister used those words because we attacked the fact that we had not been told earlier of the weaknesses that existed in the Narcotics Bureau. Clearly bipartisanship, if it is to mean anything, is a two-way affair. It is not just the Opposition recognising the seriousness of the drug problem and agreeing with the Government that certain rather severe measures have to be taken. Bipartisanship involves the Government being honest with the Opposition about the problems on its side. It is a two-way approach. Nobody now denies that we were bipartisan in relation to these powers in the debates on the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill in May and June. I may claim that, but honourable members may claim that I am a biased witness. But Government members admitted our bipartisanship. In describing Opposition members on 5 June, the honourable member for MacKellar (Mr Carlton) said:

In recent weeks in this Parliament they have been engaged in a genuinely bipartisan attempt to assist the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs . . . in drawing up new legislation . . .

A member of the Government said clearly that the Opposition had been engaged in a genuinely bipartisan attempt to assist the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs in drawing up new legislation. It is my view that the Opposition, despite all its reluctance about giving the Narcotics Bureau these powers, acted in a bipartisan way. I am afraid that it was bipartisanship in a one-way form. We were not told, even though the Minister had the information, of the very serious doubts that existed in the Government about the very organisation to which we were giving these extensive wire tapping and bugging powers.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– How can you say the Minister had that information? There is nothing to prove it. I cannot believe it.

Dr BLEWETT:

– I want to take up the evidence for that. There was an extremely long debate in this House in which there were innumerable opportunities for the Minister to suggest any of the disquiet that he had about the operation of the Bureau, any disquiet about the organisation to which he was giving these powers. In addition, there was a very effective legislation committee inquiry. I think it is a credit to members on both sides of the House that this legislation committee worked very well with the Minister and the officers present. Again, not a single hint was given of the sorts of problems that lay behind the Narcotics Bureau. Yet we know that there were letters from the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs to the Minister casting severe doubts upon the efficiency, the morale, the training and the adequacy of the Narcotics Bureau. Those letters were in existence nine months before the debate took place.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– How do you know?

Dr BLEWETT:

– If the honourable member read the debate on the Commission report he would see that in late 1978 there were letters from the solicitors to the Royal Commission to the Minister and to the heads of his Department detailing many of the worries that the Royal Commission already had. Also, at the very end of the consideration of the legislation there was the problem of the Wilsons. I do not need to go over that whole sorry and sordid affair about the Wilsons. Opposition members in this House said: We have supported this Bill right through its course but we ask the Government, because of these new doubts cast by the Wilson affair over the whole Narcotics Bureau, not to implement these powers at this time’. I do not know whether the Minister then had the full Royal Commission report. I cannot prove that; I cannot establish that. But I believe that when that debate took place in this House- it was a very long debate with a very detailed committee procedure- the Minister, if he was an effective Minister who was aware of what was going on in one of the major agencies under his charge, must have known of some of those doubts. If he wanted a bipartisan approach, which we gave him, it was up to him to give us something in return; that is, to be much more honest and frank about the now defunct organisation to which we were giving these powers. We were reluctant in May to support these powers. But we went along with their provision and we went along with the argument. We are now deeply concerned about having gone along with their provision given the revelations of recent weeks.

These powers are now to be taken from the Narcotics Bureau; They are to be given to the Australian Federal Police and the Minister responsible. There are now worries about some of the activities of the Commonwealth Police. Certainly in the Greek conspiracy case there is avowed evidence in the courts of telephone tapping which was carried out without the authority of the responsible Minister. The Minister has quite clearly said that this was without her or his authority. There is some debate over who is responsible. Of course, that raises a real doubt about how these powers will be used. I also know that, as the Minister has said- I will come to this point in a moment- there is a grey area in relation to what is a telephone tap and what is a listening device applied to a telephone. Moreover, it is fairly clear from some of the legal reports that we have had that this activity of the Commonwealth Police was almost certainly done without the authority of the law, unless one accepts a very sophistical argument that applying a listening device in relation to a telephone is not somehow a wire tap. I am prepared to agree that there is an argument about that matter.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The court will decide that issue.

Dr BLEWETT:

-Right, and the State authorities may have certain powers in this field. Nevertheless, I think that even the Minister for Administrative Services who is sitting at the table will agree that the events in relation to what has been called, perhaps wrongly, the Greek conspiracy case give us cause for doubt about the very organisation to which we are now giving these very great powers. In addition, the Minister for Administrative Services encourages these doubts. I quote his answer to a question which I find to be an extraordinary answer for a Minister to give. Last Thursday he said:

Although I claim some things, I do not claim to be an authority on the law. Certainly, I agree that a grey area is developing about what is a telephone tap, what is a listening device and so on.

I have nothing to add, except to say that I will not be involved in any questions of law.

I repeat that he said that he would not be involved in any questions of law. I say quite frankly to the Minister that if these powers are to be given to the Australian Federal Police, inevitably the Minister responsible will have to be involved in questions of law. That is, he will not be able to go on telling the Parliament that he ‘will not be involved in any questions of law’ because in essence very difficult decisions of law will have to be made. Indeed, one of the things we try to do through these Bills is to give effective authority to the political executive in relation to the use of these devices. In a sense of course that involves the Minister responsible to this House for the Austraiian Federal Police. Since the debate on these matters last took place we have had very disquieting evidence about the organisation to which we gave the powers- the Narcotics Bureau. Now we have considerable and disquieting evidence about the organisation to which the powers are to be given and about the Minister responsible for the overseeing of that organisation.

In these circumstances it seems to me to be totally inappropriate that these Bills should be brought in in the dying days of the Parliament and rushed through without much deeper and longer consideration of the implications involved. For those reasons we will move for the inclusion of the sunset provision. Being in some ways much more honestly bipartisan than the Government, we recognise that in the next three or four months there may need to be authority in relation to these types of devices. But we want to see this issue and the problems involved, as well as the problems raised by the right honourable member for Lowe, brought back to this House to be debated and discussed. That is the chief reason for the sunset clause provision.

Our other proposed amendments were criticised by the right honourable member for Lowe. In many ways I have sympathy with his criticisms. But I say to him that we have been forced to bring in these amendments in extremely hurried conditions. They were all designed at very short notice again to try to ensure the most effective defence that we can provide, for private citizens in relation to the misuse of the information secured by bugging and tapping. The amendments may not be perfect. We have not had the time to make them perfect. All we are saying is that for the moment, in response to this hurried legislation, let us have a sunset clause and let us put in, albeit inadequately, the best protection we can give Australian citizens until this matter is more fully debated by this Parliament. I hope that all honourable members on both sides of the House who are concerned about the very great issues involved in these measures will support at least the sunset provision which will give this Parliament a real chance to reconsider this legislation.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– One of the tragedies of parliamentary life is that so few people are interested in the intrusion into the rights of the individual. Whilst I am not for a moment inviting the calling of a quorum, there is not a great interest even in this Parliament in some of these matters. I am one of the members of this House who had a very early interest in the question of privacy and liberty of the individual. Indeed, Hansard records going back into the late 1 960s, shortly after my election to Parliament, contain questions that I directed at the time to Ministers relating to subjects such as telephone tapping, tape recording of conversations and other matters. It is a sad fact of life that not many are interested. I cannot accept or believe the constant claims of members of the Opposition that the Government would have known earlier this year of the ills that were later found to be affecting the Narcotics Bureau. I cannot believe that we on this side of the House, as well as members on the other side, would have been asked to spend many long hours in the legislation committee stage and in this House and prior to that in meetings of the Government members committee, where we were successful in bringing about changes, if all the time the Government was aware that the case of apples was ready to be thrown out, and that it was no longer a matter of one bad apple. I cannot be- Ilieve that I would have been asked to abandon some of my strong views in the name of the apprehension of the dreaded drug pedlar if the Government knew. I cannot believe that that would have happened, therefore I must reject some of the suggestions made by the previous speaker. I would be most distressed if I ever learned that his claims had any truth.

At the time changes were made to the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill, which did not go through a legislation committee, and the Customs Bill, which did, the House agreed to the changes for two very emotive reasons; firstly, the question of national security, and secondly, the question of narcotics. To be in favour of a narcotics dealer is like being not only against motherhood but also being seen to be tramping motherhood into the ground. I said at that time that nobody in this House, either Labor, Liberal or National Country Party, could stand a bar of a narcotics dealer. But that was not really the question at the time. The question was this: How much are we giving away in the pursuit of the dealer? There was some apprehension about the wisdom of what we were doing but, because of the nature of the exercise, members on both sides of the House agreed to many changes being made.

We placed extraordinary powers in the hands of our narcotics agents. I believe that at that time some members of this chamber would have held the view that that group of men working within the Customs organisation would have from time to time contact with police but overall that contact would be minimal. Indeed, one of the criticisms of the narcotics squad was that it was seen as being a separate identity, and perhaps in some ways that could be construed as being in its favour. Now we are being asked to agree to the transfer of those powers to the Australian Federal Police. Let me state at the outset that a policeman’s life is a most difficult one. A policeman is frequently unloved and unwanted. He can be hissed at and spat upon by an unruly crowd, yet the moment each individual in that crowd needs assistance he or she rings for a policeman. Those are the facts of life, the weaknesses of human nature. People we call upon to protect us at one moment the next moment we look upon contemptuously, and when I use the word ‘we’, I am speaking about the population in general.

Another fact of life is that there are thousands and thousands of policemen throughout Australia, and if only ten per cent of the case is rotten it means that a lot of policemen in Australia can hardly be trusted with excessive powers. What I have just said means tha’t 90 per cent of members of the police force can be trusted to exercise their powers properly. But when we hand over so much power to 100 per cent of the police force, we have to bear in mind at all times that a percentage of that group cannot be trusted with that power. I have frequently heard the question: How do we police the police? I do not believe that anyone has yet come up with a proper answer. However, when we as legislators enact legislation we must ensure the greatest possible protection for the population from the bad apples in the case. A lot of people ask: ‘So what if they use a tape recording?’ Such people are dismissing out of hand the argument about whether the Telecommunications (Interception) Act refers specifically to bugging a line or to recording away from the line. The fact that seems to be lost in terms of the liberty of the individual is that a tape can be altered. The meaning of a conversation can be changed easily, with modern electronic equipment, by simply deleting a word here and there and re-recording. Unfortunately, many people today have lost sight of the dangers that exist. There are those within our law enforcement agencies, and indeed the publicity on this of late should give us concern, who I do not believe would stop at retaping something if it meant that they could get their man. I think the word they use is ‘brick’. They brick him. They fabricate evidence to ensure a conviction. This is usually motivated by the belief that a person, through the use of clever lawyers or because he himself is clever, has previously avoided conviction. The fact of life is that manipulation does go on.

I believe that it behoves each and every one of use, before we agree to anything of this nature, to be sure that we understand exactly what we are doing. If there is justification for what we are doing, and there certainly is in terms of the apprehension of narcotics dealers, we should take every possible measure to ensure that we minimise the opportunity for unscrupulous law enforcement officers to abuse their privileges. The right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) is concerned about the police force being able to use information it has collected, by virtue of the special warrants given to it, for the purpose of obtaining information in relation to narcotics. I present the scenario of a Customs organisation with a narcotics squad which is purely a specialist group. We transfer the narcotics squad to the Australian Federal Police, and we are told that corruption will be less in the future because there will be a continuing transfer system within the police force. Constable So-and-so cannot look forward to spending the next 15 years in the narcotics squad, nor can Sergeant

So-and-so, because they will be transferred. If Commissioner Woods is listening tonight, I hope he will take this into account.

Mr Hurford:

– He will have turned off by now, Don.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The No. 1 dealer has just spoken. I hope the Commissioner will remember that the real danger is that when a narcotics squad officer who has acquired certain information unrelated to narcotics is transferred to another branch of the Australian Federal Police he will have to be some type of Houdini to resist the temptation to utilise the information that he acquired in his previous posting. That is just one point.

I go back to the beginning of my speech, when I referred to the problem of policing the police. I hope that my comments are not misconstrued. Of course I did not mean what I said in my retort to the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) in the way some may have thought. The honourable member obviously is too poor to hold the position which I suggested he could hold. I hope that at all times it will be recognised that the police are now being given powers which they have never previously possessed. Indeed, the Australian Federal Police is being given powers in the narcotics arena which are way above the powers of its State counterparts. A few minutes ago I was talking about the officer who, having been transferred within the Australian Federal Police, might have to be some sort of Houdini. The Comrade syndrome is also understandable. Police work with other police forces, whether they be Federal or State. I wonder whether, despite the provisions of the legislation, members of the Australian Federal Police will be able to resist the temptation to pass on to their State counterparts information which they have accidentally gathered as a result of the special rights now being given to them to assist them in their pursuit of narcotics dealers. Even though such action will be in contravention of the legislation, I wonder whether there will be instances of officers saying: ‘I will give you some information in return for what you give me’.

I am pleased to say that the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay) in the pre-House discussions on the legislation was responsive to some suggested changes. He recognised- and this is to his credit- some of the difficulties we were bringing upon ourselves. A clause in the legislation now requires the Commissioner to report to the Minister the outcome of each and every telephone tap. I hope that the Minister for Administrative Services or the

Attorney-General will utilise that provision to the maximum. If the Minister is slack, the little enough protection that people have now will certainly be lost. The approach of the Minister will certainly determine the approach of the Commissioner. Although the present Commissioner may be an outstanding man, he will not hold that position forever. We are handing over to a police force, powers which have never before been handed over, except in the name of national security.

Mr Bourchier:

– What about drugs?

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The honourable member for Bendigo asks about drugs. He misses the point. This power was extended in May this year to the Narcotics Bureau to assist it in dealing with drug offenders. We are now transferring that special power to the Australian Federal Police. I recognise that there are people in our community who say: ‘I do not care if my telephone is tapped every night; they will never hear anything of interest from me’. Some people will give away everything to ensure the apprehension of the drug dealer. I am equally concerned that the dealer is apprehended, but I add as a proviso that these powers should be closely examined before they are handed over, to ensure that we are not eroding one area in an attempt to bring about arrests in another area.

I hope that the Australian Federal Police is a thousand times more successful than the narcotics squad was in pursuit of the dealers. The powers which we are giving the police officers will assist them in that work. But for a specific reason I plead with the Australian Federal Police to resist the temptation to abuse the privileges and powers which are being extended to it. If the powers are abused the reaction in the future may well be to curtail them. This would lead to greater freedoms for the dealers we all, with one accord, want apprehended.

Mr John McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– First of all, I thank all honourable members who have taken part in the debate. I thank those on both sides of the House, even those who have attempted to bruise us somewhat. It has been an interesting debate and I trust that the Opposition will cooperate in facilitating the passage of the legislation in the Committee stage.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– What is this- Christmas good will or something?

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

-Yes, it is goodwill week. I would like to comment on the somewhat similar statements made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett). The Deputy Leader of the Opposition complains that the Bills have just been introduced and that there has been no time to consider them in Caucus. The honourable member for Bonython says that the Bills have been introduced in the dying days of this sitting. That is true, but I think in fairness to the Government- and the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron) has made this point- I should say that the Bills simply transfer from the disbanded Narcotics Bureau to the Australian Federal Police the powers that were debated at considerable length earlier this year. I think honourable members opposite who are nodding would agree with that. I do not think it is a fair criticism to say that there has been no opportunity to debate these provisions. At the same time, I would stress that I do not think any speaker has acknowledged the fact that under these Bills there is to be much more accountability by the Australian Federal Police than there was provided for in the original legislation concerning the Narcotics Bureau. I acknowledge the remarks of the honourable member for Fadden. This matter was discussed at great length at meetings of the Government parties committees last week. Under this legislation the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police is required to report in writing to the Minister, that is, the Minister for Administrative Services, with respect to the use made by the Federal Police of information obtained by using a listening device or a telephone interception in pursuance only of a warrant issued by a judge and with respect to whom the information was communicated. That provision was not present in the earlier legislation, and I want to emphasise that point. All honourable members acknowledge that there is much greater accountability by the police now than ever was expected of the Narcotics Bureau. All honourable members have expressed concern in this area.

I think it would be useful- this is why I was anxious to take part in the debate at this stage- to place on record the safeguards which will apply to the police in respect of telephone intercept powers. In the first place, they can only be obtained on warrants for the purpose of narcotics inquiries. I think that is acknowledged by honourable members on both sides of the House. There can only be telephone intercepts if a judge issues a warrant after being satisfied on information on oath. That provision is no different now to what it was in the earlier legislation.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I think you would admit that that came from the back bench and not from the Government.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

-I cannot actually acknowledge the truth or otherwise of that interjection because that earlier legislation was not my responsibility. But my understanding is that a great deal of the fine tuning mentioned by honourable members opposite came as a result of consultations by the previous Minister with private members.

The third point that I think is worthwhile putting on the record is that the police can only communicate any information about nonnarcotics activities- this point was raised by the honourable member for Bonython in particularobtained from any intercepts to other members of the police force or State and Northern Territory police forces if those activities relate to serious crimes with penalties of not less than three years’ imprisonment and of course relate to Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and security matters. This legislation we are debating tonight makes it a criminal offence for a member of the Australian Federal Police to communicate intercept information in any other circumstance. One would have to admit that that is an increased safeguard.

Under the regulations, it is also a disciplinary offence- and might I say that the police have a disciplinary code which the Narcotics Bureau did not have- for a member or special member of the Federal Police to make any unauthorised communication. The Commissioner of the Federal Police is accountable to report to the Minister on warrants applied for- this matter was raised by the honourable member for Faddenwarrants obtained and action taken on any information so obtained, whether used for narcotics inquiries or non-narcotics crime, and complaints by any person against the Federal Police. Action of this kind can be taken up with the Ombudsman who is empowered to investigate administrative action of the Federal Police on the matter. Might I say that in all the matters raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and other Opposition members in this place and in the Senate in connection with the so-called social security frauds, no one has mentioned that only one complaint has been lodged with the Ombudsman. Any person aggrieved may lodge a complaint with the Ombudsman. But only one complaint that I know of has been lodged with the Ombudsman.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– You have not heard the end of it yet.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

-The Deputy Leader of the Opposition can encourage other people to complain if he likes. I think it is a good idea. But I am making the point that of all those who are supposed to be aggrieved, only one has so complained. The Minister can, under section 13 (6) of the Police Act, require a report of the performance of the Federal Police of its functions in using these new means of telecommunications interception for its functions. Without giving the detail, I mention that I gave formal written direction-I tabled it in the Parliament about a fortnight ago pursuant to this Australian Federal Police Act 1979- that in the collection of all communication of information, the Federal Police and its members are to protect the privacy of individuals. That direction was as a result of a great deal of discussion on this side of the House.

Honourable members opposite have made some attempt, not too successfully I hope, to make some capital out of the expression I used about the question of what constitutes ‘tapping’ being a grey area. I make the point that consistent advice to Ministers over the years from the Commonwealth Police has been that the Commonwealth Police does not telephone tap. That is also the advice given by my colleague in the Senate and I confirm it here and now. The Commonwealth Police acknowledges that the Minister for Administrative Services has no authority to authorise a telephone tap; he has authority only to authorise the placing of a listening device. Picking up the point made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I now carefully choose my words and say that following the speculation and doubts expressed as to the legality of certain practices in general use relating to the tape recording of telephone conversations- and by general use’ I do not mean use by police or the Narcotics Bureau or anybody else but general use in the community- there are thousands of these machines in the community. I suspect that people in the Press Gallery have used them on all of us. Following that, the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) and I -

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– But the person knows that he is being taped.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

-I wish the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would allow me to put this on the record. The Attorney-General and I agreed that the Solicitor-General should be asked to express an opinion as to the legality of certain practices reported to be widely used for the recording of telephone conversations by one of the parties to the conversations. I would think that that would deal with whatever criticism the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is able to muster.

I also make the point that it is not only Ministers of this Government who have had a responsibility for police. In 1972, there were three Ministers in the then Labor Government to whom the Commonwealth Police was responsible. In December 1972, the then AttorneyGeneral was the Honourable E. G. Whitlam. From 1972 to 1975, Senator Murphy was the Minister responsible; that is, Senator Murphy of raiding fame. From February 1975 to November 1975, Mr Enderby was the Attorney-General and the Commonwealth Police came within the ambit of the responsibility of that portfolio. One wonders whether any of those Ministers ever received advice that an application to place a listening device was sought.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– What are you trying to prove?

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

-What I am trying to prove is, as I said in the House the other day, that any Minister acting on the advice that my predecessor received would have done the same thing. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition shakes his head. If he shakes it any harder, it will fall off.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– At least there is something in it.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– It will rattle if there is something in it. I am making the very simple point that convention prevents us from asking whether such a situation ever happened when those Ministers were in government. I think it is reasonable to expect that it did. In 1972, Mr Barnard was the Minister responsible for the Australian Capital Territory police for a short period. He had ministerial control of the Australian Capital Territory police. Senator Murphy had ministerial control of the Australian Capital Territory police as did Mr Enderby and Senator Cavanagh.

Let us consider this matter even further and look at the telecommunications legislation. When Labor came to office in 1972, Mr Barnard was the responsible Minister then too. But interestingly, the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition was the responsible Minister from 1 9 December 1972 to 12 June 1974. He was the Minister for whatever the portfolio was called in those days.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

-I can tell you that nothing came past me.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

-Of course nothing got past the Deputy Leader of the Opposition because he did not have to make any decision. But if he were concerned about the interpretation of the Act and the law, which is what he and the honourable member for Bonython keep talking about, maybe he would have resolved it in those days.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Come on!

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

-The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says: ‘Come on!’ But nothing is different. That legislation was put through this Parliament in 1964.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– That is nonsense!

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

-It is not nonsense. I find that my dear friend and colleague from South Australia, Senator Bishop, is asking questions on this matter. If he had any of those views he could have discussed them and had the matter examined in those days. I also place on the record the fact that -

Debate interrupted.

page 3221

ADJOURNMENT

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

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The question is:

That the House do now adjourn.

All those in favour say ‘aye’, to the contrary ‘no’. I will repeat the question, because on the voices it sounded as though the ‘ayes’ had it. The question is:

That the House do now adjourn.

All those of that opinion say ‘aye’; to the contrary ‘no’.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I have said that I require that the question be put forthwith without debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I think it is important that we have a vote. Again I put the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

All those in favour say ‘aye’, to the contrary ‘no’. I think the ‘ noes ‘ have it.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 3221

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I would like to hurry this matter. We have been sitting in this chamber for days waiting for the Opposition to ask a question.

Mr Neil:

– I take a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought you said ‘ the “ayes ‘ ‘ have it ‘.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– No, he did not. He said the “noes” have it’.

Mr Neil:

– He said ‘ the “ ayes ‘ ‘ have it ‘.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I meant to say: ‘ The ‘ ‘noes “have it ‘.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I take a point of order. May we wait until we hear the tape tomorrow morning so that we can decide whether you said ‘the “ayes” have it’ or ‘the “noes” have it’? If you said ‘the “ayes” have it’ we could rise immediately and go home. If you said ‘the “noes” have it’, which I am sure you did not, the situation would be totally different.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I am used to saying no’. I am pretty certain that I said ‘the “noes” have it’.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

-Mr Deputy Speaker, we know that you did not say ‘maybe’. We are anxious to get the legislation through. Twice in the debate on 6 November the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) acknowledged that the Opposition supports this measure. I trust that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) holds the same view.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– We don’t, because of the circumstances.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

-The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is now demonstrating a disagreement between himself and the Leader of the Opposition. He is saying that the circumstances have changed. The circumstances have not changed. On 6 November, amongst other things, the Leader of the Opposition said:

In the course of the debate in this House recently on the appropriate legislation it was indicated that we are not opposed to that sort of authority . . .

It is unfortunate when the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition disagree, especially in this chamber. In the same debate, the Leader of the Opposition continued:

If the Bureau requires authority to tap phones- and I do not quibble about that at all- then legislative authority should have been provided . . .

The Leader of the Opposition, as recently as 6 November, supported the proposal that the police should have this authority. In an effort to facilitate the passage of the legislation, I will deal with only one more matter, that is, the matter raised by the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) who has made a very considerable contribution to this debate and to the earlier debate. I think that has been acknowledged by both sides of the House. It was certainly acknowledged by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife). I regret to say to the right honourable gentleman that the Government will not be able to accept his foreshadowed amendment. Perhaps he will not be surprised. On 29 May, in the debate on the amendment then put forward by the right honourable gentleman, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs said:

  1. if in the course of the use of a listening device a fact relevant to the commission of a serious offence- say a murder as suggested by the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) -

He must have taken part in that debate: or an act of terrorism- is overheard it would be ludicrous and clearly untenable for the Government not to act upon that information and if relevant use it in a prosecution.

Having regard to the extra accountability of the police vis a vis the Narcotics Bureau, we would have to give an even more powerful response to him. I will give an example to the right honourable gentleman and anybody else who holds this view. Let us say that a member of the family of the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett), who has taken part in the debate, was kidnapped and held somewhere by a terrorist, not necessarily anybody on drugs. If there were a possibility that the location of the person who was holding that member of his family hostage could be ascertained because a telephone call was expected to the home of the honourable member, as a subscriber, does he mean to tell me that he would not invite the police to listen to that phone call? That is a question that every member of this House has to answer.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– We are not talking about the phone; we are talking about special listening devices.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– We are talking about any form of device, but basically the Opposition is talking about what it calls telephone tapping. These Bills are all about the interception of messages over the telephone system which is telephone tapping. Once again, I thank all honourable members who have taken part in the debate and I look forward to the Committee stage.

Question put-

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 74

NOES: 30

Majority……. 44

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Proposed Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I ask for leave of the House to move forthwith a motion referring this Bill and the accompanying legislation to a legislation committee, notice of which I gave earlier this day.

Leave not granted.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I move:

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith a motion to refer this Bill to a legislation committee.

I will be very brief. The Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay) indicated that the Government parties had had a chance to discuss this legislation in their party room.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I didn ‘t.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Yes, you did. The Opposition has had no chance to discuss this legislation because it was introduced very late last week. Because of the amendments and the nature of other evidence that has become available, I think it is important that we have some further discussion before a legislation committee. I do not want to delay the House, but it is well known that when on previous occasions legislation such as the Customs Amendment Bill was before a legislation committee, the Government accepted amendments moved by members of that committee- as the Right honourable member for Lowe said, back bench members of the committee. The Bill was substantially improved. The Opposition has ideas about this Bill on the basis of the best way to deal with narcotics and the problems with drugs. I think it is only fair and reasonable that if the Government has had a choice chance to discuss the legislation the Opposition should have a similar opportunity. It is on that basis that I move that the Standing Orders be suspended.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I second the motion. I will detain the House for two or three minutes on this matter. I know that some Government members have enjoyed the evening and want to go back to wherever they were enjoying the evening.

Mr Haslem:

– Why don’t you name us?

Dr KLUGMAN:

– I am prepared to do it if the honourable member for Canberra wants to be named. It is not my job to name him. Let me make one or two reasonable points about this matter. Since this legislation was last before a legislation committee and then in this House, there have been two reports from royal commissions. One was a small report from the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs. The other report was a lengthy one from the New South Wales royal commission into drugs. Surely, if there is any point in having royal commissions investigate how to deal with the problem of drugs in society and law enforcement, then it seems terribly reasonable to me to take this legislation before a committee. The Government has a two to one majority on that type of committee. Surely it is not scared that Opposition arguments will convince it on these points. Last time we did. The honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron), whom I cannot see in the House but who is probably here somewhere, the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon), and I think the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde), who is sitting next to him, were people on that committee who behaved quite rationally and reasonably. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife), who was in charge of that committee at that time, also behaved in the same manner.

It is all very well to laugh about the legislation which the House is passing tonight and which is binding on this country and on a number of bodies under the control of this Government. Government members are laughing about the proposition that under the legislation the Federal Police can place a listening device in any solicitor’s office and use any facts that it obtains, not only so far as the drug criminal is concerned, but also on any other client of the solicitor. Surely Government members consider that to be an important issue. If they do not consider that to be an important issue then all I can say is that they do not deserve to be members of the House.

Mr John McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Government is opposed to the motion.

Question put-

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

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

AYES: 30

NOES: 73

Majority……. 43

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

In Committee

Clause 1 (Short title, etc.)

Motion (by Mr John McLeay) put:

That progress be reported.

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

AYES: 72

NOES: 30

Majority……. 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Progress reported.

page 3224

QUESTION

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr VINER:
Leader of the House · Stirling · LP

-I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable Orders of the Day Nos. 2, 3, 15, and resumption of the debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill to be called on forthwith.

Leave not granted.

Motion ( by Mr Viner) proposed:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Orders of the Day Nos. 1, 2, 3,15, and resumption of the debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill, Government Business, being called on.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-The Government has decided to truncate the sittings of this House by a week. It has decided that the House need not sit next week. It has no business program set out for Thursday of this week, yet it is now proposing a procedure which, if the House considers its business in a proper manner and in a manner in which important legislation can be considered, will require this House to sit until 1 o ‘clock or 2 o ‘clock in the morning.

Government members- Hear, hear!

Mr SCHOLES:

– I am glad to hear honourable members opposite cheering. Quite obviously they have no idea of what is going on in their own Party, and they have no idea of what the Government is proposing. For instance, it is obvious that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) would prefer not to come back to the Parliament this year. It is obvious that the Parliament is going into recess because the Government is seriously embarrassed by matters which are before the Parliament, which have been discussed in this Parliament, from which it would prefer to hide. The proposal to have the House sit early into the morning is one which should be rejected by the House. Once upon a time, after many years of struggling, the House adopted civilised sitting hours which enabled the consideration of the business of the House under conditions which were reasonable for rational decision-making and debate. This motion is designed solely to shorten the sitting period of the Parliament. In fact this is a motion of fear by the Government because it is frightened of Parliament -

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr Scholes:

– I take a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, you did not read the motion from the chair, therefore the motion is out of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-I uphold the point of order.

Mr SCHOLES:

-It is important for this House to understand the reason that this motion is being put. It is because the Government is in such a mess that it is trying to wrap up the Parliament- the only place where it is under scrutiny- so that it can hide behind the anonymity -

Motion ( by Mr Viner) put:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

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

AYES: 73

NOES: 30

Majority……. 43

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Mr Viner) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 73

NOES: 30

Majority……. 43

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put-

That the morion (Mr Viner’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 73

NOES: 31

Majority……. 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative, by an absolute majority.

page 3226

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1979

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 2a.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I move:

  1. 1 ) Page 2, after clause 2, insert the following new clause: “2a. This Act, and any regulations made under this Act, shall cease to have effect and shall be deemed to have been repealed on 28 February 1980.”

We are dealing with the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 4) to which the Opposition has moved amendment No. 1 which has been circulated. The reason for this amendment is to guarantee that this legislation comes back for further consideration by the House of Representatives. We have been unable to get the Government to agree to any consideration in a committee. The report of His Honour Mr Justice Williams in respect of drug trafficking- and that is what this legislation is all about- states:

The Commission will later make detailed recommendations upon how Australian efforts against drug trafficking and drug abuse can be co-ordinated and improved. It will deal with how the role which the Narcotics Bureau presently endeavours to play can be better played by others.

It is on that basis that members of the Opposition have been saying tonight that a new body needs to be created. That body is not the Australian Federal Police. In our view it has to be a special type of police force. We would establish the Australian Narcotics Police. I would like to see such a body headed by a judge who would know how to handle these very sensitive matters, particularly where privacy is obviously infringed. We would need also to back up that body with a national drug enforcement and intelligence council which would have the responsibility of ensuring co-operation between all agencies operating on Federal and State levels. A new force could be recruited from both Federal and State police forces and have experienced personnel who are interested and have been involved in the past in drug surveillance. It is not just a matter of saying: ‘The police are good enough to handle this matter’. I think that the evidence of recent days clearly shows that the Australian Federal Police is not the body to grapple with the situation. The Williams Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs also makes the point that there is ‘ an insufficient legislative base ‘ for the Narcotics Bureau under the Customs Act. It also states:

Illegal drugs are prohibited imports. It is unrealistic to restrict an enforcement body to action against imported drugs.

That is basically where the previous thrust had been. The report continues:

Traffickers in Australia do not usually observe any specialisation; they deal in locally-produced drugs as readily as they deal in imported drugs. Most traffickers engage in other unlawful activities even unconnected with drugs.

The report goes on to make the point of how ill-equipped the Narcotics Bureau had been in the past. It never had the right sort of personnel. The self-adulation of the Narcotics Bureau had no base at all and the Bureau had to be disbanded altogether. A number of people have a lot of intelligence and experience in the Federal, State and Territory police forces. I think that is the sort of intelligence we want to tap. I think it would add a lot of prestige to and enhance the present damaged reputations of a number of our enforcement agencies to have a judge responsible. He would not be required to give warrants, for they would be given in the normal judicial way. He would control and select a force that would be very effective indeed. It is important these days to notice how important the judicial office is when considering law enforcement or surveillance of whether the law has been broken. When a royal commission under a judge takes evidence and ascertains information, a first class result is achieved. Referring to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, if we had not appointed His Honour Mr Justice Williams I wonder whether we would have found out how ineffective and incompetent the Narcotics Bureau has been. A number of murders that have been committed in this country can be related to drug trafficking, and they could have been prevented.

We have to get to the real issue. We have to create the right sort offeree in this country, with the adequate co-operation of State police forces. I would like to see them involved, even on a contractual basis. We could hire people for a twoyear or three-year term and they could then go back to their jobs. Even the judicial officer we have suggested could be appointed on a periodic basis. We would then have an independent view of the situation and not be bound up with the sort of dreadful nonsense that has occurred here because of Public Service structures. The Bureau is too inbred, too isolated from the mainstream. When it comes to giving evidence, it does not know the law. It is for that reason that we ask the Government to have a quick look at this situation and to include a sunset clause to bring the matter back on the parliamentary legislative program in the February sittings. It is not possible for us to convince this Government of anything at any time, but to think that we can do it in the last 48 hours of the session is beyond the bounds of credibility. We are seeking the insertion of this clause because recent events have indicated clearly that what we ourselves might have thought was sufficient a fortnight ago is far from the reality, and I will deal with that in another context at a later stage.

This amendment is similar to an amendment we propose to move to the Telecommunications (Interception) Bill. We ask that both these Bills be brought back to the Parliament to be considered again. The Opposition quite legitimately and sincerely puts to the Government that a body other than the Australian Federal Police should be dealing with the question of narcotics. The Australian Federal Police is far too involved. There has been far too much graft and corruption, far too much death and desolation caused by the manipulation of the law enforcement agencies by criminal elements. Such a situation cannot be tolerated, and the Government knows that when it considers both the State police forces and the Australian Federal Police. We are not succeeding, and something has to be done. It is costing millions of dollars to treat poor unfortunate addicts, and there is no doubt that the top line criminals are operating in this field. I have just come back from Bangkok, where I was told that Australians are very prone to commit drug offences. Some 19 Australians are in gaol in Bangkok and some of our best known Australian criminals are operating discotheques and so on there. They are getting plenty of access back to Australia, with a lot of protection at a very high level.

We have to attack this problem with a top line operator in Australia, and I think we want a judicial person. His Honour Mr Justice Woodward, of the New South Wales Royal Commission, is going overseas, to investigate drug problems, and we welcome his endeavours. If we had a permanent appraisal of the situation we would go very close to giving these criminals the justice they deserve. From the point of view of the taxpayer, we are spending millions and millions of dollars trying to treat the poor unfortunate drug offenders. With that background, the weight of evidence justifies our saying that we must get a new deal on this matter. We want to look at this legislation as quickly as we can, and next February would be the earliest opportunity. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Question put-

That the clause proposed to be inserted (Mr Lionel Bowen’s amendment) be inserted.

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

AYES: 31

NOES: 68

Majority……. 37

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 ( Use of listening devices).

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Opposition proposes to move an amendment to clause 4. Clause 4 proposes to amend section 219B of the principal Act by inserting in sub-section (2) the word ‘narcotics’ before the word ‘inquiries’. The Opposition’s amendment seeks to omit all words after the word ‘amended’ and to substitute the following paragraphs:

  1. by omitting from sub-section (1) ‘for the purpose of narcotic enquiries that are being made by officers of Customs’; and
  2. by inserting in sub-section (2) ‘narcotics’ before inquiries’.

Under the legislation at present it is unlawful for officers of Customs to use, for the purposes of narcotics inquiries, a listening device. We are saying that it is unlawful for officers of Customs to use a listening device. We are shortening that to make that point. Proposed paragraph (b) is an ancillary amendment. We are saying that it is unlawful for members of the Australian Federal Police to use listening devices unless they are authorised under Commonwealth law. Whilst the legislation makes it unlawful for members of the Federal Police to use listening devices in accordance with State Acts in relation to narcotics offences they remain free to use listening devices in other areas. It is highly unsatisfactory that the Australian Federal Police should be using listening devices under State Acts of Parliament. If the Government really believes that the Federal Police should be able to use listening devices, then it should legislate that way. It should not leave a vacant area of law. In our view there is no justification for the use of listening devices by ordinary members of the Australian Federal Police. However, at the very least the Government should put an end to the use of listening devices by members of the Australian Police under State listening devices Acts, many of which are highly unsatisfactory.

Tonight the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay) started to read a litany of those Ministers who had held the office of administering the police. Nobody worries about who has held the office of administering the police. But we are worried about police being able to convince a Minister that they ought to be able to use a listening device. We have asked this Minister why he granted approval on one occasion and he said: ‘I don’t query the evidence put before me’.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I did not say that.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Well, said: ‘I would do the same as my predecessor’. His predecessor did not challenge the evidence. I am not permitted to refer to the detail of the case, but imagine the hypothetical case of a person who wants to be an informer saying: ‘I will give information’ and that information becoming the basis of a request to the Minister for permission to use a listening device. Any Minister worth his salt would say: ‘Where is the evidence? Let me have a look at it’. If you were the Minister, Mr Deputy Chairman, and the police said ‘The only evidence we have is from this fellow to whom we are going to give a pardon and a couple of hundred thousand dollars’ you would say: ‘My God, haven’t you got anything stronger than that?’ A listening device should not be placed in a doctor’s surgery, in legal offices or in homes when all a Minister has is information from some alleged informant. That is the criticism that we make. The Minister will not face up to the realities. There will be all sorts of problems. If people’s homes are invaded and people are dragged before the courts there will be actions for damages for malicious prosecution. That is why there has to be ministerial responsibility. That is why there has to be some prima facie evidence that the Minister has tested the need for a listening device. There should not be a rubber stamp or dummy Minister who signs everything that is put in front of him. That is the real reason we have legislation. If there are dummies or incompetents in the Government they should be removed. That is the whole purpose and thrust of our approach. It is nonsense to give a litany of everyone who has held the position of administering the police. That means nothing. If any of them had broken the rules they would not have been allowed to remain in their job; as you know, Mr Deputy Chairman, the Opposition of the day would have demanded their dismissal.

Let me put our position clearly. We are saying that it is unreal to have to rely on State laws to use listening devices. It is important and imperative that if they are used they be used properly and in accordance with the law. The State Acts vary. I do not know whether there is any law at all in the Territories, particularly the Australian Capital Territory. It is for that reason that we propose to move this amendment to clause 4. We say that it should be made clear that the use of listening devices should be laid down under Commonwealth law. Normally we would not be able to debate this matter in this way, but recent events always teach the lesson. The lesson is one of a severe invasion. I do not think any competent Federal Minister would have approved the use of a listening device in the case to which I refer. That is why I make the point so strongly. I need not delay the Committee any longer, except to say that the Opposition will press the amendment because it is a matter of some significance and we want the Government to consider it.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! I am not aware that the honourable member has formally moved the amendment.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It has been circulated. I did read it. I move:

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Deputy Chairman, I draw your attention to the state of the Committee.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I call the Minister.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

-The Government does not accept this amendment.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Deputy Chairman -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Does the honourable member wish to raise a point of order?

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes. I draw your attention to the state of the Committee.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Before the honourable member proceeds along that line, I remind him- obviously he is unaware- that when the Minister speaks in the Committee stage he does not close the debate. Therefore, the honourable member will get the call if he rises next. Does the honourable member still wish to proceed with his request?

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, I do, because as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, this is an important matter.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN -Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. ( Quorum formed).

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

-As briefly as possible, having regard to what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) has said, I must remind the Committee that a day or so ago he produced a document which must have been -

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– I gave it to you.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

-He gave me a copy of it- I acknowledge that- before Question Time. It must have been leaked to him by defence counsel or somebody, and that seems to me to be quite outrageous.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– No, it is a document that was signed.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Well, it is a document which is now in free circulation. I think that, having regard to what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said about my predecessor and whether he was entitled to authorise a telephone tap, perhaps it would not hurt to quote some other part of that document.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Well, you have to think of the sub judice rule; that is your problem.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have thought of the sub judice rule. I do not want to embarrass the Deputy Chairman. But has the Deputy Leader of the Opposition thought of the sub judice rule?

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– By all means. In fact, have a look at Senator Guilfoyle quoting anything in the Senate. What about the Lanigan statement in the Senate?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! I think the Minister should address his remarks through the Chair. That might discourage the honourable member’s interjections.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

-Mr Deputy Chairman, the other day the Deputy Leader of the Opposition used this document and mentioned the name Nakis as being in the document when in fact it was not.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– It was.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– It was not.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– The document mentioned an informer. What other person was it?

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I will quote very briefly from part of the document:

The conspiracy has now been penetrated in part by an undercover police agent . . .

No name is mentioned there.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– No, but you know who it was.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

-But you said that a name had been mentioned. The document goes on to say that very incriminating admissible evidence, et cetera, has been obtained. This advice to my predecessor went on in those terms. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition can tell me that any reasonable Minister would not be guided by that in regard to the seeking of approval for the planting of a listening device, it would surprise me. We are trying to get this legislation through this place; so I will just quote briefly what the magistrate had to say about the matter only yesterday. I will quote only very briefly from advice I have received. The magistrate said:

In my view that appearance is subject to clouding whilst these out of Court comments are made in relation to the evidence as it is given and indeed to some of the comments which do not relate to the evidence . . .

The magistrate refers to a distortion of the evidence and he is critical of people in this place for raising the matter. I say that only the public can judge who is guilty for doing that, and it is not the Government.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! I was going to suggest that the Minister should not continue any further along those lines.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have finished, Mr Deputy Chairman.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– It is outrageous to hear the remarks of the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay). I sent a document, by letter, to the Minister. I said: ‘I am going to ask you a question about it’. I stood up in this chamber and asked him a question about it. He could have said ‘Oh, well, my predecessor had this or that information’, but he went off and said: ‘I know nothing about it. I would have done the same thing because I believe in the Minister and I would do the same thing myself. We have now been told that the magistrate is critical of what happened. The Minister is leading it in again and expecting us to accept it. We know that one of the things in the document relates to a person who has received a pardon and a lot of money. That is the only evidence.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– How do you know that?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I can tell the Minister that.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Only the court can decide that, not you.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Rubbish! There is only one informer. There has been a series of cross-examinations already and your own Minister tabled in the Senate a statement of her own and a statement by her departmental head.

Mr Bourchier:

– What has this got to do with it?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It has everything to do with what we are about.

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 69

NOES: 30

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Wednesday 21 November 1979

Question put-

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Lionel

Bowen’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

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

AYES: 69

NOES: 31

Majority……. 38

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put-

That the clause be agreed to.

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

AYES: 69

NOES: 31

Majority……. 38

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 5A.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I move:

  1. 3 ) Page 2, after clause5, insert the following new clause: 5 a. Section 2 1 9f of the Principal Act is amended-

    1. by inserting after sub-section (1) the following sub-section: “(1a) In sub-section (1), ‘person’ includes a court”; and
    2. by inserting after sub-section (3) the following sub-sections: “(3a) Where, in proceedings in a court in respect of an offence, objection is taken to the admission of evidence on the ground that the evidence was obtained in contravention of, or in consequence of a contravention of, or in consequence of a failure to comply with, a provision of this Act, in relation to a person, the court shall not admit the evidence unless it is, on the balance of probabilities, satisfied that admission of the evidence would specifically and substantially benefit the public interest without unduly prejudicing the rights and freedoms of any person. “(3b) The matters that a court may have regard to in deciding whether, in proceedings in respect of an offence, it is satisfied as required by sub-section (3a), include-
    3. the seriousness of the offence in the course of the investigation of which the provision was contravened, or was not complied with, the urgency and difficulty of detecting the offender and the urgency of the need to preserve evidence of the fact;
    4. the nature and seriousness of the contravention or failure; and
    5. the extent to which the evidence that was obtained in contravention of, in consequence of the contravention of, or in consequence of the failure to comply with, the provision might have been lawfully obtained. “(3c) The burden of satisfying the court that evidence obtained in contravention of, in consequence of the contravention of, or in proceedings of failure to comply with, a provision of this Act should be admitted in proceedings lies on the party who seeks to have the evidence admitted. “(3d) This section is in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law, or rule under which a court may refuse to admit evidence in proceedings.”.’

Paraphrasing the amendment, it means that we define ‘person’ as also including a court. Section 219f states that certain information is not to be disclosed and that a person shall not divulge that information. The amendment states:

  1. . person ‘includes a ‘court’.

The reason for that amendment is that in the Padman case- a case which seems to have escaped the notice of the Government and the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay)- the court decided that ‘person’ did not include a court. That decision means there is no bar whatsoever to the giving of information to a court, even though the Act pretends to protect the information by saying that persons shall not divulge it. One can get into legal proceedings and the whole matter is divulged in the court. In the Padman case the information was obtained by way of a telephone tap. I say that for the benefit of the Minister. In that case the court decided that that action was illegal and that if one were to tape or tap a telephone- in this case it was by way of a tape- that was illegal under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. The Minister never seems to understand that position and perhaps we can deal with it in that Act.

Mr Baillieu:

– Everybody is listening to you, Lionel!

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I do not think anybody is listening. That is typical of the Government. We are talking about the law. I do not suppose we can expect to get much recognition from the Government. The Bill says that a person shall not divulge any information. We are moving an amendment to say that that information is to be excluded from the legal proceedings. If one looks at the Padman case, one sees where the court admitted that evidence. The evidence was illegally obtained.

Another matter which is part and parcel of section 5a relates to giving some protection to a person where evidence has been illegally obtained. Prima facie, if one has illegal evidence in the sense that it has been obtained illegally, why should it be admitted? There can be certain circumstances- in what is called the balance of probabilities- in which the court may decide to admit the evidence because of the gravity of the situation. It follows from the Criminal Investigation Bill. So we have set out the circumstances where a court may decide, even though the evidence has been illegally obtained, that the onus will switch to the prosecution to prove that the matter is so serious and it is essential that this evidence be obtained, because there is no other way to do it, so that the court can use its discretion. We are making that inadmissable, prima facie. There is a guarantee of a double onus in this new section, that where there is a suggestion that one had evidence which is illegal and cannot be used, there is still a chance for the prosecution to say that the gravity of the situation is such that it is in the public interest to use it and that it would not unduly prejudice the rights and freedoms of any person. In those circumstances the evidence can be admitted. Honourable members will find that very similar to the provisions contained in the Criminal Investigation Bill relating to law reform.

I will not read out the whole amendment; I will paraphrase it. It is in two parts. In a nutshell, it states that if evidence is obtained illegally it cannot be disclosed in a court; but, in certain circumstances, due to the seriousness of an offence, the onus of proof may shift and the court may exercise a discretion. When we consider the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill, we will be able to talk again about the illegality of the findings of the court in the Padman case, pursuant to the provisions of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act, with which the Minister for Administrative Services has failed to grapple.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen)-

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 64

NOES: 29

Majority……. 35

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put-

That the clause proposed to be inserted (Mr Lionel Bowen’s amendment) be inserted.

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

AYES: 28

NOES: 69

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

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

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

-I make the point that we are sympathetic to the proposed amendment of the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon). I understand that he does not wish to proceed with it. We cannot see how we can agree with it because of the serious nature of some offences which would be disclosed and which would involve people’s life and safety. We think that his amendment might weaken the situation. I make that point by way of explanation. We understand what the right honourable member for Lowe is about. We think that the matter relates to people’s safety. On balance, we think it is better not to adopt the amendment.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Leave not granted.

Motion (by Mr John McLeay) put:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the remaining stages being passed without delay.

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

AYES: 69

NOES: 28

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Mr John McLeay) put-

That the Bill be now read a third rime.

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

AYES: 68

NOES: 28

Majority……. 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3236

TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 November, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 68

NOES: 28

Majority……. 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 2A.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I move:

Page 1 , after clause 2, insert the following new clause: 2a. This Act, and any regulations made under this Act, shall cease to have effect and shall be deemed to have been repealed on 2 8 February 1980.’.

The purpose of the amendment is to guarantee that this legislation comes back before the Parliament and is reviewed on the very basis of what members of the Opposition have been saying, which is that we do not think that the Australian Federal Police is the right authority to have the ability to intercept telephone conversations. I advert to some of the matters that have been raised in the course of debate as to what we mean by interception. Section 6 ( 1 ) of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act states:

For the purposes of this Act, but subject to sub-section (2), interception of a communication passing over a telecommunications system consists of listening to or recording, by any means, such a communication in its passage over that telecommunications system without the knowledge of the person making the communication.

Honourable members can see the distinction. If a person agrees to have the recording made, of course there is no infringement. But in the cases we have been talking and complaining about, a recording has been made without the person’s consent and, therefore, is contrary to the Act. That interpretation is supported now by Padman’s case. It is for that reason that we would have thought that the police would have known the law. They do not. We would have thought that the Ministers would have been able to administer the law. They have failed again. I make the point that it is important when we are dealing with legislation of this type that evidence is not obtained illegally and is not used against people contrary to the law.

Mr Haslem:

– Bowen hates the Federal Police.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I do not understand the interjection. I make the point that it is very clear what the Act states; that a conversation is not to be intercepted or recorded because that is a breach of the Act. In that context we again emphasise that we need a new type of authority to deal with narcotics. In our view the Australian Federal Police is not able to do so. Its recent efforts clearly show that it does not even understand the types of procedures that ought to be adopted when dealing with simple matters such as intercepting telephone communications. The people in this nation have rights. They have rights to privacy and they have rights to have their practices deemed to be private. No legal practitioner would want to have his conversations recorded illegally. No medical practitioner should have had his conversations recorded illegally. This also applies to conversations in people’s homes. This, of course, is not the present standard of the Government. It is to be castigated for that. The purposes of this amendment-

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– That is how you provoked us last time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I did not provoke you. If you do not understand the law-

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– That is childish, what you are saying now; pulling this ‘you don’t understand the law’ thing. I understand perfectly what -

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-You don’t understand it. Is the Minister for Administrative Services still saying that no law has been broken? How many more times -

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– It is for that court to decide.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It is not. The court has decided the matter.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Jarman)-I suggest that honourable members on both sides of the chamber address their remarks to the Chair.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-If we could only get through this Minister’s thick head that in the case of Padman, let us make it very clear -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! I do not think the honourable member should use that sort of term.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-All right. I am trying to get it through the Minister’s head that the matter was decided in Tasmania in Padman’s case. It was decided in the Supreme Court. That court interpreted the Minister’s law and he still does not know it. His officers do not know it. The Government has intercepted other people’s conversations illegally and it is trying to get away with it. I do not know what the Minister’s officers advise him. Surely they have told him about the case. Surely they know the interpretation of section 6 of the Act. Does it not follow that if a person ‘s conversation had been recorded when the person did not know about it that he would be entitled to think that an illegal act had taken place? Members of the Government stand up here tonight and say: ‘Of course, everybody has a recording. You buy them at the shop’. We are not talking about that sort of recording. We are talking about the one used by the police which is a interception contrary to the Act. That is the point that the Opposition wants to make. In this case there is every good reason why we should be reviewing the whole of this legislation. That is why I moved the amendment.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Chairman-

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr A. W. Jarman)

AYES: 66

NOES: 28

Majority……. 38

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put-

That the clause proposed to be inserted (Mr Lionel Bowen’s amendment) be inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr A. W. Jarman)

AYES: 28

NOES: 67

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The question now is that clause 3 be agreed to.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I ask members to return quickly to their own side of the chamber.

Clause 3 (Interpretation).

Motion (by Dr Klugman) put:

That progress be reported.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr A. W. Jarman)

AYES: 28

NOES: 67

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion (by Mr Scholes) put:

That the clause be postponed.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr A. W. Jarman)

AYES: 28

NOES: 67

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

Clause 3 of the Bill now before the chamber reads:

Section S of the Principal Act is amended-

by inserting after the definition of” commission “ in sub-section ( 1 ) the following definition: “ ‘ Commissioner of Police ‘ means the Commissioner of Police referred to in section 6 of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, and includes an acting Commissioner of Police; ‘ ‘;

by omitting from sub-section ( 1 ) the definitions of “ Comptroller-General of Customs “ and “ officer of Customs “;

by inserting after the definition of” Managing Director of the Commission “in sub-section ( I ) the following definition: “ ‘ member of the Australian Federal Police ‘ includes a special member of the Australian Federal Police;”; and

by omitting from sub-section (4) “ or the Comptroller-General of Customs “.

The discussion around this clause is making a farce of the Parliament at this late hour. It is very clear that that corrupt Government that sits opposite, that is asleep over there, is trying to ram this legislation through the chamber in the middle of the night, like the thieves in the night that Government members are, so that the

Parliament and the media will not know what this discussion is about.

Government members interjecting-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Jarman)Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I will not allow the honourable member to continue until there is order in the chamber.

Mr MORRIS:

– What I was saying is that at this late hour in the morning, those who sit opposite, led by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), are deliberately creating a row in the Parliament in an attempt to do anything but discuss this legislation. The interesting thing is that no one from the Government side of the chamber is rising to speak on any matter pertaining to this legislation. They sit there like dodos. The Government gags its own members; it even prevents its own members from debating the issues at hand. Here we have what in effect is the beginning of 1984 in this country- legislation that pries into people’s lives. It has led this Government into corruption; it has led this Government into admissions before a court, before hearings, that it has acted improperly and, worst of all, the Minister sitting here -

Motion ( by Mr Bourchier) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr Morris:

– Oh, sit down, you oaf.

Mr Bourchier:

– I beg your pardon. Mr Deputy Chairman, would you ask that donkey walloper to withdraw?

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

Mr Morris:

– The Minister sitting here does not know what the legislation is about. He has no idea what this Bill is about. He may as well be asleep.

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

That the question be now put.

Question put. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr A. W. Jarman)

AYES: 67

NOES: 28

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put-

That the clause be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr A. W. Jarman)

AYES: 67

NOES: 28

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Telecommunications not to be intercepted).

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The proposed amendment to clause 4 has been circulated. It proposes to insert a new sub-section to define ‘person’ to include ‘a court’. That again is consistent with what we said earlier. If there is to be any illegal interception we want it dealt with on the basis that ‘a person’ includes ‘a court’. The Padman case made the point that if there were illegal interception, the court could still admit the evidence. We do not think that is fair.

The second part of the amendment proposes that where objection is taken to the admission of evidence on the ground that it was obtained in contravention of a provision of this legislation, that evidence shall not be admitted unless, on the balance of probabilities, the public interest would be prejudiced. This as a matter that we mentioned when considering the Customs legislation. In other words, a court in certain special circumstances can admit evidence that normally would not be admitted. In the Padman case the court did admit evidence, but it was admitted on the court’s determination that it was a court and not a person. The proposed new sub-section would guarantee that a court could not admit that evidence but that in certain circumstances related to the seriousness of the offence the onus would be on the prosecution to prove that its admission was in the public interest. We canvassed these matters during consideration of the Customs legislation. The same arguments apply to this Bill. They are relevant to what has been decided in the court this year. Accordingly, I move:

Clause 4, page 2, line 40, after paragraph (b) add the following paragraphs:

by inserting after sub-section (4) the following sub-section: “(4a) In sub-section (4) ‘person’ includes a court.”.

by inserting after sub-section (6) the following sub-sections: “(6a) Where, in proceedings in a court in respect of an offence, objection is taken to the admission of evidence on the ground that the evidence was obtained in contravention of, or in consequence of a contravention of, or in consequence of a failure to comply with a provision of this Act, in relation to a person, the court shall not admit the evidence unless it is, on the balance of probabilities, satisfied that admission of the evidence would specifically and substantially benefit the public interest without unduly prejudicing the rights and freedoms of any person. (6b) The matters that a court may have regard to in deciding whether, in proceedings in respect of an offence, it is satisfied as required by sub-section (6a), include-

the seriousness of the offence in the course of the investigation of which the provision was contravened, or was not complied with, the urgency and difficulty of detecting the offender and the urgency of the need to preserve evidence of the fact;

the nature and seriousness of the contravention or failure; and

the extent to which the evidence that was obtained in contravention of, in consequence of the contravention of, or in consequence of the failure to comply with, the provision might have been lawfully obtained. (6C) The burden of satisfying the court that evidence obtained in contravention of, in consequence of the contravention of, or in proceedings of failure to comply with, a provision of this Act should be admitted in proceedings lies on the party who seeks to have the evidence admitted. (6d) This section is in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law or rule under which a court may refuse to admit evidence in proceedings. “. ‘.

Question put-

That the words proposed to be inserted (Mr Lionel Bowen’s) be inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr A. W. Jarman)

AYES: 28

NOES: 69

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question put:

That the clause be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr A. W. Jarman)

AYES: 65

NOES: 27

Majority…… 38

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN-Is it the wish of the Committee that we take the remainder of the Bill as a whole?

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-I move:

That clause 1 be recommitted.

It is obvious that the Government members have not had a chance to debate this issue; they have not been here.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member is out of order. He can move that motion only at the report stage.

Clause 5 (Inspection of telegrams).

Motion (by Mr Morris) put:

That the clause be postponed.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr A. W. Jarman)

AYES: 28

NOES: 68

Majority…….. 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion (by Mr Viner) put:

That progress be reported.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr A. W. Jarman)

AYES: 67

NOES: 28

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Progress reported.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-The question is: That at a later hour this day the House will again resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole.

Question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 67

NOES: 28

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 3244

NARCOTICS, PIPELINE AND LAND RIGHTS LEGISLATION

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr VINER:
Leader of the House · Stirling · LP

– I move:

That, in relation to the proceedings on the following Bills, so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of all the Bills:

Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1979

Australian Security Intelligence Organization Amendment Bill 1979

Pipeline Construction (Young to Wagga Wagga) Bill 1979

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1979

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

- Mr Deputy Speaker-

Motion ( by Mr Viner) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 67

NOES: 28

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-There is no substance to the point of order. The Bill originated in the Senate and the time has passed for that action.

page 3245

OBJECTION TO RULING

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-I move:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair has ruled on the point of order after consultation with the Clerk. The honourable member for Corio is entitled to move a motion of dissent if he has a mind to do so.

Mr SCHOLES:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, the motion I move is one which I do not move lightly. There are procedures -

Honourable members:

Honourable members interjecting

Mr SCHOLES:

-It will not alter the Government’s gag. The motion before the House is one which deals with the basic rights of the Parliament and the basic rights of an Opposition to deal with legislation. The motion currently before the Chair includes, as an urgent measure, a piece of legislation, namely, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill, which was introduced into the House this day and for which no special provision has been made by way of a suspension of Standing Orders or leave granted for a motion to be carried outside the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders clearly provide that legislation, after the Minister’s second reading speech, must be deferred to the next day of sitting. It is open, by agreement, for that legislation to be debated forthwith. No leave was granted -

Motion ( by Mr Bourchier) proposed:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Before putting the question I just pass on to the honourable member for Corio that my advice is that the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders which was carried by this House deals with the problem he raised.

Question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 67

NOES: 28

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-I second the motion. Mr Deputy Speaker, you have been placed in an intolerable position as a result of this Government’s reluctance and determination-

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) proposed:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

Mr Morris:

– Sit down, you oaf.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The Chair is not inclined to question the honourable member for Shortland ‘s knowledge of zoology but I am required to get him to withdraw that remark. The honourable member will withdraw.

Mr Morris:

– It was intended as flattery to the honourable member, but I withdraw.

Question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 67

NOES: 27

Majority……. 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put-

That the ruling be dissented from.

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

AYES: 28

NOES: 67

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 3247

QUESTION

NARCOTICS, PIPELINE AND LAND RIGHTS LEGISLATION

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-The question is:

That, in relation to the proceedings on the following Bills, so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of all the Bills:

Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1979

Australian Security Intelligence Organization Amendment Bill 1979

Pipeline Construction (Young to Wagga Wagga) Bill 1979

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1979

Question put. The House divided. ( Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 66

NOES: 27

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 3247

TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Clause 5 agreed to.

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

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 3248

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 13 November, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

House adjourned at 2.52 a.m. (Wednesday)

page 3249

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

National Superannuation Scheme (Question No. 3495)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 March 1979:

Has his attention been drawn to the result of a study conducted by Mr Nick Renton, Executive Director, Life Offices’ Association, stating the average cost of Public Service retirement benefits to each taxpayer is now$16 per week; if not, will he have the report put to study and publish the result in order to encourage public debate on the subject of a National Superannuation Scheme.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

I am aware that certain estimates of the purported cost of public sector superannuation schemes have been made, including the estimate quoted by the honourable member. It is not clear how the figure of $16 per week has been derived. While information on the cost of State Government schemes is not readily available, the current cost of all public sector schemes would be expected to be significantly less than the amount which, when related to the number of individual taxpayers, gave rise to the estimate referred to. In this connection I invite the honourable member’s attention to the answer provided to part ( 1) (a) of his Question No. 3496 in relation to expenditure in 1 978-79 under the Superannuation Act 1922 and the Superannuation Act 1976.I also draw the honourable member’s attention to an answer provided by my colleague the Treasurer in reply to Question No. 2552 (Hansard, House of Representatives, 24 November 1978, page 3499).

In relation to the second pan of the honourable gentleman’s question, I refer him to the statement made by my colleague the Treasurer on 12 July 1979 concerning the Government’s decisions in relation to the final report of the National Superannuation Committee of Inquiry.

Retirement Benefits (Question No. 3496)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the annual cost to taxpayers for meeting the cost of retirement benefits to (a) Commonwealth public servants, (b) State public servants and (c) local government officers.
  2. What is the anticipated cost of meeting retirement benefits for each of these groups in 1 988.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The Department of Finance has provided the following information in answer to the honourable member’s question: (l)(a) In 1978-79 retirement benefits paid from Consolidated Revenue under the Superannuation Act 1922 and the Superannuation Act 1976 totalled $337.8m. Of this amount, approximately $72.0m was in respect of benefits financed by the contributions of employees who had retired or died. During the year, the following amounts were paid to Consolidated Revenue in relation to the Superannuation Act 1922 and the Superannuation Act 1976:

  1. and (c). This information relates to matters which are the responsibility of the relevant State and local government bodies, and is not readily available.

    1. The last projection of future annual costs in respect of the Commonwealth Superannuation scheme was made in 1976. The results were advised by the Treasurer in response to Question No. 1 85 (House of Representatives Hansard, 28 May 1976, pages 2685-6). The Australian Government Actuary has been asked to provide estimates of future costs based on the actual experience of the scheme for the three years ended 30 June 1979.

Steam Locomotives (Question No. 3904)

Mr O’Keefe:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 9 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) With the shortage of liquid fuels and the plentiful and economic supply of coal in Australia, will the Government investigate the feasibility of bringing steam locomotives back to haul our heavy goods traffic; if so, would this result in huge savings of distillate fuel.
  2. How practical would this action be and what would be the cost.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The extension of electric rail networks is considered to be a more practical way of using coal to power trains than the introduction of steam locomotives. Electrification, however, is prohibitively expensive unless very heavy traffic can be guaranteed. Routes with the potential to meet this criterion are limited but nevertheless these opportunities do exist and their feasibility for electrification is regularly examined. Although few in number, such routes represent a sizeable proportion of tonne-kilometres worked on diesel oil. Rail transport presently uses about 4 million barrels of diesel oil annually.

In the Prime Minister’s statement of 27 June 1979 it was noted that the Australian Transport Advisory Council was investigating the feasibility of additional rail electrification.

Commonwealth Post-graduate Awards (Question No. 4056)

Mr Kerin:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. 1 ) What has been the value of the basic living allowance of Commonwealth Post-graduate Awards in each year since 1970.
  2. What arrangements have been made regarding the taxing of this award since 1 970.
  3. What has been the value of the average male earnings in each year since 1970.
  4. What has been the value of the minimum wage in each year since 1970.
  5. Using Professor R. F. Henderson’s criteria, where has the poverty line been set in each year since 1 970 .
  6. What has been the increase in the rate of the CPI in each year since 1970.
  7. Is the Commonwealth Post-graduate Award to be regarded as an income; if so, why are Award holders not receiving the benefits of income earners.
Mr Staley:
LP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The value of the basic living allowance payable under Commonwealth Post-graduate Awards (until15 October 1974) and Post-graduate Awards under the Student Assistance Act 1973 (since 15 October 1974) has been as follows: 1970, $2,350; 1971, $2,600; 1972, $2,600; 1973, $2,900; 1974, $3,050; 1975, $3,250; 1976, $3,250; 1977, $4,000; 1978, $4,200; 1979, $4,200.
  2. Up to 31 October 1978, Commonwealth Postgraduate Awards granted under the Student Assistance Act 1973 were exempt from income tax under section 23 (z) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. The Government announced in the 1978-79 Budget that with effect from 1 November 1978, the Awards were to be removed from that exemption. This means that Award living allowances, incidental allowances and thesis allowances paid after 31 October 1978 have been assessable in the hands of recipients. Travelling allowances and establishment allowances paid under the Scheme are not subject to tax.

(4)-

  1. The Henderson poverty line varies with, among other things, family size and composition and whether or not the head of the family is working. The poverty line also varies with quarterly movements in seasonally adjusted average weekly earnings per employed male unit.

The following table shows ‘head working’ and ‘head not working’ poverty lines for single persons and married couples without dependants for the June quarter in each of the years 1970 to 1979 inclusive.

(6)-

  1. Post-graduate Awards are scholarships to assist postgraduate students to gain a Master’s or Ph.D degree in a field of study of their choice. Award holders are not in receipt of a wage or salary and cannot be compared with people employed to perform specific work tasks.

Prime Minister and Cabinet: Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Question No. 4310)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. What is the total volume of fuel consumed per annum by motor vehicles operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control.
  2. What is the annual cost of fuel consumed by motor vehicles referred to in part ( 1 ).
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Minister for National Development to his Question No. 4328 (Hansard, 6 November 1979, pages 2657-8).

Defence: Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Question No. 4319)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice on 7 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the total volume of fuel consumed per annum by motor vehicles operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under this control.
  2. What is the annual cost of fuel consumed by motor vehicles referred to in part ( 1 ).
Mr Killen:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the Minister for National Development’s reply to Question No. 4328 (Hansard, 6 November 1979, pages 2657-8).

Social Security: Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Question No. 4320)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the total volume of fuel consumed per annum by motor vehicles operated by the Department of Social Security and statutory authorities and business undertakings under the Minister’s control.
  2. What is the annual cost of fuel consumed by motor vehicles referred to in part ( 1 ).
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable member to the Minister for National Development’s answer to Question No. 4328 which appeared in Hansard on 6 November 1979.

Attorney-General: Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Question No. 4323)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. 1) What is the total volume of fuel consumed per annum by motor vehicles operated by the Attorney-General’s Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under the Attorney-General’s control.
  2. What is the annual cost of fuel consumed by motor vehicles referred to in part 1 .
Mr Viner:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Minister for National Development to Question No. 4328 (House of Representatives Hansard, 6 November 1979, page 2657).

Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Question No. 4325)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. What is the total volume of fuel consumed per annum by motor vehicles operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control.
  2. What is the annual cost of fuel consumed by motor vehicles referred to in pan ( 1 ).
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 ) and (2)I refer the honourable member to the Minister for National Development ‘s answer to House of Representatives Question No. 4328 (Hansard, 6 November 1 979, pages 2657-8).

Administrative Services: Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Question No. 4327)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Admin istrative Services, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the total volume of fuel consumed per annum by motor vehicles operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control.
  2. ) What is the annual cost of fuel consumed by motor vehicles referred to in pan ( 1 ).
Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the Minister for National Development’s answer to House of Representatives Question No. 4328 (Hansard, 6 November 1 979).

Home Affairs: Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Question No. 4334)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the total volume of fuel consumed per annum by motor vehicles operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control.
  2. What is the annual cost of fuel consumed by motor vehicles referred to in pan ( 1 ).
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer to Question No. 4328 provided by the Minister for National Development (Hansard, 6 November 1979, pages 2657-8).

Housing and Construction: Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Question No. 4336)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the total volume of fuel consumed per annum by motor vehicles operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control.
  2. ) What is the annual cost of fuel consumed by motor vehicles referred to in part ( 1 ).
Mr Groom:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided by the Minister for National Development in answer to Question No. 4328, (House of Representatives Hansard, 6 November 1979, pages 2657-8).

Australian Capital Territory: Non-residential Leases (Question No. 4367)

Mr McVeigh:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 21 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) With reference to his answer to part ( 1 ) of Question No. 2610 (Hansard, 24 November 1978, page 3474), what are the names and addresses of those 40 individuals or organisations who responded.
  2. With reference to his answer to pan (3) of Question No. 2610, what are the names and addresses of those 86 individuals or organisations who responded.
  3. 3 ) Further to his answer to Question No. 26 1 0, will he indicate the results of those surveys such as the number who favoured change and the number who opposed change.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I am informed by the National Capital Development Commission as follows:

and (2) The individuals and organisations who responded to the discussion papers on urban change might well have assumed that their correspondence would be confidential and their anonymity protected. In these circumstances the view is taken that the details should not be provided.

The surveys sought comments rather than answers to specific questions, and the responses received were quite diverse. It has not been possible to quantify the results, but the public reaction can be summarised as follows: 1975 public consultation- Public response was very small, and the general reaction was in favour of maintaining the status quo. A commonly expressed concern related to the impact on local amenity of increasing the density of residential development and argued strongly against the use of residential blocks for commercial purposes. 1976-77 public consultation- The response was diverse, indicating that the concept of urban change was not well understood, but people were concerned with any changes in their own immediate area. There was qualified support for increasing residential densities, providing it was controlled and the residents were consulted. Of the responses which particularly mention the use of residential leases for medical practitioners etc, most were in favour of such uses. Other forms of commercial use in residential areas were generally not supported.

Education: Migrant Programs and Policies (Question No. 4439)

Dr Cass:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:

  1. For what programs and policies concerning immigrants has the Department of Education been responsible in each year from 1 970 to date.
  2. What was the expenditure on each program and policy.
  3. What proportion of the Department’s administrative expenses are estimated to cover the programs and policies.
  4. On what dates did the transfer of responsibility for programs and policies referred to in pan ( 1 ) to or from the Department of Education take effect.
  5. To which or from which Departments were these transfers of responsibilities made.
  6. Why were these transfers made.
  7. With what other Federal or State Government Departments or authorities does the Department of Education share responsibility for the programs and policies referred to in part ( 1 ).
Mr Staley:
LP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: ( 1 ), (4) and (5) The programs and policies concerning immigrants for which the Department of Education has had responsibilities in each financial year from 1970 to date are set out below. Details of transfers of responsibilities between Departments are shown:

Child and Adult Migrant Education Programs- From 1970-71 until 1973-74 both the Child and Adult Migrant Education Programs were administered by the former Department of Immigration with the Department of Education (Education and Science until the end of 1972) providing consultative advisory and servicing functions. Education was directly responsible for the development and production of English language teaching and learning materials. All funds were appropriated by the Department of Immigration.

Full responsibility both for the Child and Adult Migrant Education Programs was transferred to the Department of Education from the Department of Immigration on 12 June 1974.

On 1 January 1976 the responsibility under the Child Migrant Education Program for the provision of funds for specialist teachers and in-service training was passed to the Schools Commission. The Department of Education continued to exercise responsibility for overall policy, the demountable classroom program, the contingency program for refugee children, emergency classroom accommodation for refugee children, teaching and learning materials and assistance in teacher education

As from 20 December 1977 the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs assumed responsibility for the Adult Migrant Education Program.

Galbally Report-In 1978 the Depanment assumed responsibility for the implementation of Recommendations 3, 4, 14, 45, 46, 47 and 48 of the Galbally Report (Report of the Review of Post Arrival Programs and Services for Migrants) (see also 7 below).

  1. Expenditure on each Program and Policy

Depanment of Immigration-

  1. Information regarding the proportion of the Department’s administrative expenses which are estimated to cover these programs and policies is not readily available and would be very difficult to determine.
  2. The changes of responsibility referred to in the previous section were the result of Government decisions about allocation of functions.
  3. The Depanment of Education provides advice and services to the Depanment of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for the adult migrant education program. In the case of the child migrant education program and the special assistance for refugee children, responsibility is shared with the Schools Commission, State, Territory, and non-government education authorities.

Responsibility for the implementation of Recommendations 3, 4, 45, 46 and 47 of the Galbally Report is shared with the Schools Commission and responsibility for Recommendation 48 is shared with the Tertiary Education Commission. Responsibility for the implementation of Recommendation 14 rests with the Depanment of Education in co-operation with tertiary institutions, professional groups and ethnic representatives.

Postgraduate Research (Question No. 4467)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 23 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister establish an independent inquiry into postgraduate research in Australian universities as requested by the Council of Australian Post-Graduate Associations; if so, what will be the terms of reference for the inquiry and who will be appointed to conduct it.
  2. Will the Minister consider the appointment of a person nominated by the Council of Australian Post-Graduate Associations to the inquiry.
Mr Staley:
LP

-The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Williams Report on Education, Training and Employment examined the question of research in Australian universities, at length. The Report concluded that research and training in research were very distinctive features of universities. The Report supported the building up of postgraduate research centres at universities and proposed a review of the number and distribution of Commonwealth Postgraduate Research Awards.

These recommendations, together with the other recommendations of the Williams Report, are being examined by the Government.

I see no reason at the present time to establish an inquiry into postgraduate research in Australian universities.

Aborigines: Treaty of Peace and Friendship (Question No. 4481)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 August 1979:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a circular to all Members and Senators requesting a resolution of the Parliament to facilitate a Treaty of Peace and Friendship with the Aboriginal people of Australia.
  2. If so, is the proposal consistent with stated Government policy.
  3. Will a committee of the Parliament concerned with Aboriginal Affairs be asked to investigate the proposal and report to Parliament their recommendations.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. The concept of a Treaty of Peace and Friendship has been advanced by a group of non- Aboriginals called the Aboriginal Treaty Committee. A proposal for a treaty of commitment had been advanced earlier by the National Aboriginal Conference. However, that proposal is still very much in its embryonic stages. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will be meeting the National Executive of the National Aboriginal Conference for a preliminary discussion in November. I have indicated my willingness to meet with the National Aboriginal Conference at an appropriate time to discuss the proposal should it wish to do so. I understand that the National Aboriginal Conference desires further time to develop the concept in consultation with Aboriginal people.
  3. There are no plans at present to refer the matter to a committee of the Parliament.

Aborigines: Payment of Award Wages (Question No. 4493)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Does the Government subscribe unreservedly to the Lusaka Declaration of the Commonwealth on racism and racial prejudice ( 7 August 1 979 ).
  2. Has his attention been drawn to remarks of the Premier of Queensland that Aboriginal workers on reserves in that state should not be paid award wages; if so, does he support the Premier’s position.
  3. If he does not support that position, what action does the Government propose to expedite payment of award wages to Aboriginal workers on Yarrabah Reserve in Queensland.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. I am not aware of any statement by the Queensland Premier in the terms indicated. The Commonwealth position on the payment of award wages has been made clear many times previously and is that Aboriginals are entitled to, and should receive the same rates of pay as other Australians. The Queensland Industrial Court, on 29 May 1979, directed the Queensland Government to pay award wages to Aboriginals employed on reserves.
  3. On 6 August 1979 the Queensland Industrial Commission directed the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement to conduct a survey of Aboriginals employed on all Queensland reserves. Thus survey is to include the work covered by awards and the estimated additional cost of paying award wages. Further consideration will be given to this question when the results of the survey are available.

Defence: Research and Development (Question No. 4515)

Mr Willis:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 August 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What was the total expenditure on research and development of military technology in Australia during 1977-78.
  2. 2 ) What were the main components of this expenditure.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Expenditure through the Department of Defence (including expenditure by Department of Housing and Construction) on research and development of military technology is estimated to be $1 17.9m in 1977-78 and $1 14.1m in 1978-79. These amounts include actual expenditure by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation and estimated expenditure by the Services on research and development activities conducted within their normal operations.

Revenue of $8.1m and $4.8m respectively was received, resulting in a net outlay of $ 109.8m in 1977-78 and $109.3m in 1978-79.

  1. About 600 separate tasks are covered by the Defence research and development programs for the years 1977-78 and 1978-79 of which the main components and the approximate extent of resources used as a percentage of outlay are as follows:

    1. Maintenance and improvement of the Defence Force e.g. weapon systems development, underwater warfare, aircraft fatigue studies- 35 per cent.
    2. Development and acquisition of new equipment for the Services- 32 per cent.
    3. Maintenance and development of science and technology capabilities- 25 per cent.
    4. d ) Analytical studies- 3 per cent.
    5. Australian component of co-operative international agreements- 3 per cent.
    6. Support to civilian industry and science activities- 2 percent.

Family Allowances (Question No. 4516)

Mr Willis:

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

  1. 1 ) What has been the reduction in the real value of family allowances since they were introduced.
  2. By what percentage has this deterioration reduced the real income of a household head with a spouse and 3 children, receiving the minimum wage, since the allowances were introduced.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) The value of child endowment and tax rebates for children to a person with a dependent spouse and 3 children and receiving the minimum wage at June 1976 was effectively about $37.50 a month- about 60 per cent of their maximum value. The new family allowances, however, are worth $62.90 a month to every such family- an increase of $25.40 or 68 per cent in money terms. In real terms, this is equivalent to an increase of 26 per cent.

Defence Equipment Expenditure: Implicit Price Deflator (Question No. 4627)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. What was the value of the implicit price deflator for Defence equipment expenditure (ships, aircraft, armour and other equipment and plant) each year from 1973;74 to 1 978- 79 using the last year as the base year.
  2. What is the expected increase in this deflator for 1979- 80.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

No implicit price deflator is maintained for Defence equipment expenditure; rather, assessments of real growth in Defence function capital equipment expenditure are made each year relative to the achievement in the previous year. Using the data maintained for these purposes an index for Defence function capital equipment expenditure has been constructed which enables the assessment of expenditure in previous years in real terms relative to the expenditure in 1978- 79. The assessment excludes from Defence function capital equipment expenditure the acquisition costs of the Boeing 707 aircraft.

The index, using 1978-79 as the base, is:

1973-74-183.3; 1974-75-169.6; 1975-76-140.1; 1976-77-114.9; 1977-78-109.2; 1978-79-100.0.

There are no forecasts made of future prices and exchange movements which would allow the derivation of an index for expenditure on capital equipment for 1 979-80.

Defence Expenditure: Implicit Price Deflator (Question No. 4628)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. 1 ) What was the value of the implicit price deflator for all Defence expenditure each year from 1973-74 to 1978-79 using the last year as the base year.
  2. What is the expected increase in this deflator for 1979- 80.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

No implicit price deflator is maintained for Defence expenditure; rather, assessments of real growth in Defence outlays are made each year relative to the achievement in the previous year. Using the data maintained for these purposes, an index for Defence function outlay has been constructed which enables the assessment of outlay in previous years in real terms relative to the outlay in 1978-79. The assessment excludes from Defence function outlay the acquisition costs of the Boeing 707 aircraft.

The index using 1978-79 as the base, is:

1973-74-189.9; 1974-75-150.2; 1975-76-131.8; 1976-77-117.8; 1977-78-108.1; 1978-79-100.0.

There are no forecasts made of future prices and exchange movements which would allow the derivation of an index for 1979-80.

Trade Practices Act (Question No. 4670)

Mr Chapman:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 1 8 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Further to his answer to question No. 3259 (Hansard, 29 August 1979, page 766) why does Part V of the Trade Practices Act provide that the Commonwealth cannot be prosecuted for breaching the Act.
  2. Is it the Government’s intention to amend the Act so that the Commonwealth is subject to the same penalties as private enterprise; if not, why not.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. Criminal remedies are never provided against the Crown. The inappropriateness of doing so was referred to by the High Court in Cain v. Doyle ( 1946) 72 CLR 409, particularly by Latham C. J., who said ‘ … the fundamental idea of the criminal law is that breaches of the law are offences against the King’s peace, and it is inconsistent with this principle to hold that the Crown can itself be guilty of a criminal offence. ‘ In August 1 976 the report of the Trade Practices Review Committee (the Swanson Committee) noted that it would not be appropriate to attract the application of the criminal provisions of the Trade Practices Act to governments, and added that ‘the civil remedies such as declaration, injunction and damages are the appropriate remedies’.
  2. No.See(l)above.

Search for Oil and Gas (Question No. 4700)

Mr Jacobi:

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

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to research being undertaken in the United Kingdom into patterns of cementation in sandstone (as reported in Geographical Magazine, May 1979) which may improve the accuracy of searches foroil and gas.
  2. Is any similar research being conducted in Australia, or is anyone in his Department keeping a watching brief on this overseas research.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. 2 ) Yes- Similar research is carried out in most Australian tertiary institutions conducting geoscience courses. It is also a normal part of the sedimentology studies carried out by the Bureau of Mineral Resources.

Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training Scheme (Question No. 4730)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 25 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many apprentices are being trained in Commonwealth Departments or instrumentalities under the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training (CRAFT) Scheme.
  2. Which Departments and instrumentalities carryout the training.
  3. Are there any restrictions, financial or otherwise, placed on the employment of CRAFT scheme apprentices in Commonwealth Departments and instrumentalities compared with apprentices in private employment.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The CRAFT sheme is not a scheme under which training takes place. Apprentices are taken on in the normal way in the public and private sectors and employers- where eligible- are paid a rebate for the release of their apprentices to undertake the technical education component of their basic trade course (normally 3 years) or to undertake an offthejob training programme.

In the 1978-79 financial year there were 1706 apprentices employed in Commonwealth establishments who generated CRAFT rebates.

  1. The Departments and instrumentalities which received CRAFT rebates in 1978-79 were

Australian Telecommunications Commission

Trans Australia Airlines

Qantas

Commonwealth Government Publishing Service

Commonwealth Government Motor Garage

Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia)

Australian National Railways Commission

This does not represent the total number of apprentices employed by the Commonwealth because of eligibility criteria which must be met by claimants.

  1. Criteria which must be met before Commonwealth Departments or instrumentalities are paid CRAFT rebates are: the Department or instrumentality must operate on a commercial basis; rebates will not be paid into consolidated revenue- ie they will remain a financial asset to the training establishment concerned; rebates must be directed towards increasing the number of apprentices employed and to improve training provided; apprentices must be registered with either the State Apprenticeship Authority or the Industrial Registrar of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; apprentices for whom claims are made must be undertaking a basic trade course of technical education or approved course of off-the-job training as appropriate.

Biomass Research (Question No. 4772)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 27 September 1979:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to an article in The Economist of 18 August 1979, entitled ‘Energy adventurers look for a green El Dorado’ describing techniques known as Biomass for the conversion of living matter into fuels.
  2. If so, what work is being carried out in Australia to analyse the economic potential of Biomass.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am aware of the article to which you refer.
  2. Research on the potential of biomass as an energy source, particularly for liquid fuels, is given a high priority under the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration (NERD&D) Program. A total of $1.8m was allocated to biomass research under the Program in 1 978-79. Additional funds will be made available during this financial year. In addition, CSIRO is currently completing a wide ranging study on the potential for production of alcohol fuels from agricultural and forest crops in Australia. It includes estimates of land available for energy crops, and of costs of production of alcohol fuels.

Under the NERD&D Program biomass research is concentrated in the following areas: agronomic and economic studies on crops suitable for ethanol production, including studies on cassava agronomy, economics of ethanol production from sugar cane, and a feasibility study on the production of ethanol from sugar beet in Tasmania; development of continuous fermentation technology for the conversion of starch and sugar crops to ethanol; disposal of waste from ethanol production; utilisation of cellulose material as an energy resource, including research on reducing the costs of its hydrolysis to sugars for ethanol production, and on its conversion to other liquid fuels; production of methane from waste materials.

Pine Gap: Bird Smuggling (Question No. 4801)

Mr Kerin:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the allegation in the Daily Telegraph of 13 September 1979 that native birds have been smuggled out of Australia from the top-secret US base at Pine Gap.
  2. If so, what action does he propose to take with regard to the matter.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. My Department has received advice from the Australian Federal Police that investigation of the allegations by the South Australian Police Task Force, on which the Commonwealth Police were represented, adduced no evidence to support the allegations. The honourable member will already have noted from the reply given by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs on 1 1 October 1 979 to a similar question (Hansard, page 2001) that inquiries by officers of his Department also produced no evidence to support the allegations.

Army Supply Warehousing: Technological Change (Question No. 4810)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

  1. Does the Industrial Instruction (Department of Defence), issued on 14 September 1979, set guidelines issued by the Public Service Board for consultation with respect to the introduction of technological change.
  2. Is the instruction still operative; if so, why has his Department refused to comply with the instruction with respect to changes outlined in his statement concerning Army supply warehousing.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The instruction is still operative. As to the changes outlined in my statement concerning Army supply warehousing these fall into two broad categories; a concentration of storeholding facilities in fewer locations and a modernisation of the remaining facilities.

In regard to the former preliminary advice was given to the Peak Councils as early as 1 March 1979. On 1 June 1979 the Peak Councils were supplied with lists of classifications of employees involved and on 7 August were supplied with a copy of my Press statement plus a document assessing the impact on civilian employment of the Army Supply Study.

Discussions have also been held with an individual union and these will continue.

In regard to the modernisation of facilities, as these proposals are developed consultation with the unions will take place in accordance with the guidelines on technological change.

Defence: Technological Change (Question No. 4811)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

What avenues exist for employees or their representatives to have his Department comply with the directive that discussion take place before programs of technological change are embarked upon.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

The Public Service Board guidelines for consultation on Technological Change have been issued as a Departmental Instruction dated 14 September 1979. The guidelines contain machinery for consultation and these have been supplemented by administrative arrangements to ensure that effective consultation takes place.

Defence Personnel: Official Accommodation (Question No. 4812)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

  1. Are any Defence personnel housed in official accomodation which does not have such basic facilities as (a) toilets and (b) showers under the same roof as sleeping areas.
  2. If so, what are the locations and the rninimum temperatures expected at each location.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, at certain barracks for Service personnel at the locations listed below.
  2. Temperatures shown are the monthly mean minimum temperatures for the coolest month as advised by the Bureau of Meteorology and are as recorded at the Meteorology Station closest to the Defence base concerned.

Aboriginal Housing Organisations (Question No. 4819)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

  1. How much rent from how many houses (a) was collected and (b) should have been collected at Toomelah, NSW, Mogo, NSW, Purfleet, NSW, Cowra, NSW and Roseby Park via Nowra, NSW in 1 978-79.
  2. What sum has the Department of Aboriginal Affairs provided to each organisation to meet local government and public utility charges as a result of non-collection of rent.
  3. Do these funds come from the provision for expenditure under Grants-in-Aid- Housing; if not, under what budget item is it paid.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

(D-_

  1. The following grants were provided by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs during 1978-79 to help meet local government and public utility charges:

Toomelah-$5,224 for electricity Mogo- $4,968 for council rates

Cowra-$ 15,920 for council rates

Purfleet- $5,494 for council rates

Roseby Park-Nil.

  1. ) No. These grants were provided under the Town Management and Public Utilities item.

Colleges of Advanced Education (Question No. 4857)

Mr McVeigh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Was expenditure on the lease or rental of office accommodation, storage areas, teaching space and portable buildings, accepted as a proper expenditure for college purposes by colleges and co-ordinating authorities under the provision of the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1976, 1977, 1978 by the Auditor-General and the Tertiary Education Commission.
  2. Were any specific approvals required from the Tertiary Education Commission or the Advanced Education Council for the expenditures listed in part (1) and/or were any conditions attached to this expenditure by the Tertiary Education Commission or the Advanced Education Council.
  3. If approvals were necessary and/or conditions were attached to the expenditure, what were these approvals and/or conditions and in what form and at which date were the approvals and /or conditions transmitted to the States.
  4. Which colleges and State co-ordinating authorities, expended more than 5 per cent of their grants for college purposes on rental or lease of accommodation in (a) 1977 and(b) 1978.
  5. Have the Auditor-General and the Tertiary Education Commission accepted expenditure on the lease or rental of equipment including vehicle hire, telephones, telex and other communication equipment, computing and peripheral equipment, printing and other reproductive equipment, scientific and general teaching equipment, as a proper expenditure for college purposes under the appropriate provisions of the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Acts 1976, 1977, 1978.
  6. Were any specific approvals required from the Tertiary Education Commission or the Advanced Education Council for the expenditure listed in part (5) and /or were any conditions attached to this expenditure by the Tertiary Education Commission or the Advanced Education Council.
  7. If approvals were required by the Commonwealth Authorities and /or conditions were attached with respect to the expenditures what were these approvals and/or conditions and in what form and at which date were the approvals transmitted to the States.
  8. Have any colleges and universities failed to achieve their 1979 target levels for commencing students; if so, which institutions had student intakes which failed to achieve the target level by 2 per cent or more and what was the percentage deficiency in each case.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A condition of the grants for college purposes under the States Grants Acts for tertiary education assistance in 1976, 1977 and 1978 is that the State will cause to be provided to the Commission an audited statement of expenditure on college purposes by each college during the relevant year. Accordingly it is for a State Auditor-General to decide whether any particular expenditure on the rental or lease of buildings was for college purposes.
  2. No.
  3. See answer to question 2.
  4. The Tertiary Education Commission does not collect data showing amounts expended by institutions on the rental or lease of accommodation.
  5. See answer to question 1; the State Auditor-General would decide whether expenditure on the items referred to could be accepted as expenditure for college purposes within the terms of the relevant States Grants legislation.
  6. No.
  7. See answer to question 6.
  8. Target levels for colleges of advanced education and universities are not set in terms of commencing students.

Australian Opera (Question No. 4862)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1979:

  1. What was the Commonwealth subsidy to the Australian Opera for (a) 1976-77, (b) 1977-78, (c) 1978-79 and what is the proposed subsidy for (d) 1 979-80.
  2. What is the total anticipated wages bill for (a) the orchestra, (b) the administration, (c) the chorus, (d) featured singers, (e) conductors and (f) other employees (designers, stage hands, set builders, etc.) for 1 979-80.
  3. What is the total sum anticipated to be paid to (a) Dame Joan Sutherland and (b) Mr Richard Bonynge for 1979-80.
  4. How many performances will be given by the Australian Opera in 1979-80.
  5. In how many of these performances will (a) Dame Joan Sutherland sing and (b) Mr Richard Bonynge conduct.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) $2.15m; (b) $2.4m; (c) $2.52m; (d) $2.8m.

I am advised by the Australia Council that, as the Australian Opera works on a calendar year basis, the Australia Council, in making financial year grants to the Opera, earmarks each grant for the following calendar year.

  1. (a) to (f) I am informed that the Australian Opera does not have available the detailed breakdown of its salary bill sought by the honourable member. It has, however, provided the Australia Council with the following breakdown of its proposed expenditure on salaries and related costs for the 1980 calendar year:

The above figures do not include casual ‘front of the house’ staff and some back-stage staff, whose salaries are reflected in Opera venue rentals. I am also informed that about half of the $2.75 lm which the Australia Council will provide to the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust orchestras in 1980 will be for the Australian Opera.

  1. I am informed that the Australian Opera, in conformity with the practice followed by most entrepreneurs (including the ABC), does not disclose fees paid to individual artists.
  2. I am advised that 219 performances are planned for 1980.
  3. I am informed (a) 33; (b) 59.

Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Lucas Heights (Question No. 4873)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 11 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) What equipment and materials disappeared allegedly between 8 and 10 December 1978 from the isotope workshop or other areas within the jurisdiction of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission at Lucas Heights, NSW.
  2. Has the Commission recovered any of the equipment or materials.
  3. What was the value and weight of the equipment and materials which disappeared.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1) A lathe and a grinder disappeared from Building 23, which is not located in the reactor area, in which they were stored in a non-radioactive area pending removal from a building undergoing alteration.
  2. No.
  3. The lathe was valued at $1,288 and weighed 350 kg. The grinder was valued at $90 and weighed 50 kg.

Aboriginal Housing Grants (Question No. 4890)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 1 6 October 1 979:

  1. What sum was granted to the (a) Jerringah Tribal Council Housing Company Ltd, (b) Bakandji Limited, (c) Aboriginal Housing Company of the South Coast Ltd and (d) Aboriginal Housing Company of Redfern in 1978-79 and how many houses were built with that money.
  2. Did these organisations also receive funds from other Departments; if so, what sums from which Departments and for what reason.
  3. If additional grants were provided, were they used in the construction of housing by those organisations.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. (a) Jerringah Tribal Council Housing Company Ltd was granted $85,000 in 1978-79 for housing and $48,422 for Town Management and Public Utilities. One house was completed and one commenced.

    1. Bakandji Ltd was granted $220,000 in 1978-79 for housing, $2,640 for training and $2,573 for Town Management and Public Utilities. Four houses were completed.
    2. The Aboriginal Housing Company of the South Coast Ltd was granted $71,968 in 1978-79 for housing and $13,301 for culture, recreation and sporting activities. Three houses commenced in 1977-78 were completed.
    3. The Aboriginal Housing Company Ltd was granted $453,039 in 1978-79 for housing. Seven houses were purchased and legal fees paid for the purchase of an eighth house. Renovations to five houses were completed.
  2. and (3) No.

Racial Discrimination (Question No. 4914)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 16 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister had any discussions with his counterpart in Queensland regarding the Queensland Government’s defiance of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, as reported in the 4th Annual Report of the Commissioner for Community Relations; if so, when and where did those discussions take place.
  2. ) What was the outcome of the discussions.
  3. Was any consideration given to the role played by Mr P. J. Killoran in the matter which was the subject of a direction to Mr Killoran under the Racial Discrimination Act.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. and (3) See (1) above

Transport and Removalist Companies (Question No. 4919)

Mr Armitage:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 16 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Which transport or removalist companies are engaged by his Department for transport and storage work.
  2. Which of these companies are engaged on this work as a result of the calling of tenders.
  3. 3 ) Have any of these companies been engaged other than by the submission of tenders; if so, which companies.
  4. Who gave approval or direction for these companies to be engaged without the submission of tenders.
Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

The information necessary to answer the honourable member’s question is not readily available. To obtain the information, it would be necessary to carry out an extensive search of records throughout my Department in Canberra and the States.

In view of the resources that would be needed to gather together the information sought, I am not prepared to ask my Depanment to carry out this work. If, however, the honourable member is prepared to indicate more precisely the information he seeks, I will see whether it can be provided.

Aboriginal Housing Organisations (Question No. 4920)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:

  1. What charges are owed to local councils and public utilities by the Aboriginal housing organisations, situated at Toomelah, Mogo, Purfleet, Cowra and Roseby Park, New South Wales.
  2. Is the Government still funding these organisations regardless of rent collected.
  3. Does the Government provide money to other Aboriginal, organisations, such as the New South Wales Aboriginal Lands Trust, to pay overdue council rates and public utility charges in the same circumstances; if not why not.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

(D-

  1. Grants are being made to these organisations this financial year, in the expectation that the rate of rental recovery will improve, and their performance is being monitored.
  2. Depending on circumstances, my Depanment provides funds to other Aboriginal organisations to pay overdue council rates and public utility charges. Each application for such assistance is considered on its merits.

Aged Persons Homes (Question No. 4955)

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) What capital grants were made by the Depanment of Social Security for (a) the construction of and (b) improvements made to aged persons’ homes in (i) New South Wales and (ii) Australia in each year since 1972-73.
  2. What capital grants were made by the Depanment of Social Security to (a) Woodbury Village, Lanhams Road, Winston Hills, and (b) Parklands Cottage Trust, Bells Line Road, Kurrajong, NSW in each year since 1972-73.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. I ) (a) The Department of Social Security made capital grants for the construction of aged or disabled persons homes in New South Wales and Australia in each year since 1972-73 as follows:
  1. Grants under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act and the Aged Persons Hostels Act are made available to eligible organisations to assist with the capital cost of constructing suitable homes. In addition, a furnishings grant is provided under the Aged Persons Hostels Act. No provision is made under these Acts for grants towards the cost of improvements to aged or disabled persons homes. This is the responsibility of organisations, which charge maintenance and residence fees to cover the cost of maintaining and improving the home together with the services and facilities it provides to residents.

    1. (a) The following capital grants were made under the Aged Persons Hostels Act to Woodbury Village, Lanhams Road, Winston Hills, NSW.
  1. The following capital grants were made under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act to Parklands Cottage Trust, Bells Line Road, Kurrajong, NSW:

Canberra Hospital Private Practice Trust Fund (Question No. 4957)

Mr Fry:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is the Canberra Hospital Private Practice Trust Fund a legally valid trust.
  2. Is the income from the Fund exempt from tax so long as it remains in the Fund.
  3. Have the trustees of the Fund frozen its assets.
  4. What are the assets of the Fund.
  5. Have any contributors to the Fund withdrawn from the Fund sums in excess of their net earnings.
  6. Has the Fund been regularly audited as set out in the terms of the trust deed.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. There are differing legal opinions but advice to the Capital Territory Health Commission is that the Trust is valid.
  2. This matter is under current discussion with the Taxation Office.
  3. No.
  4. Balance of funds at 30 June 1979- $273,638.55.
  5. No, however it should be noted that contributors do not withdraw money from the Fund but propose expenditure from the Fund which is administered by a committee.
  6. For years up to 30 June 1978-Yes. 1978-79 statements to be submitted for audit shortly.

Tasmanian College of Advanced Education (Question No. 4978)

Mr Hodgman:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 23 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that the Tasmanian Minister for Education (Mr Holgate) plans to reduce or even close down the Mount Nelson campus of the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education.
  2. If so, is the future of the Mount Nelson College purely a State matter and is the responsibility purely Mr Holgate ‘s.
  3. Does the Federal Government advocate or encourage moves to reduce or close down the Mount Nelson campus.
Mr Staley:
LP

-The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1 to 3) Since 1 976 various changes have taken place in the structure of tertiary education in Tasmania. I understand that the State considers that these changes require an examination of the use being made of the Mount Nelson campus of the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education.

The Tasmanian Minister for Education has announced his intention of establishing a committee to study the accommodation requirements for tertiary education in southern Tasmania. The possibility of relocating some elements of the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education in buildings in Hobart, other than the Mount Nelson campus, is apparently one of the matters under consideration.

The constitutional power over education lies with the State. However, the Commonwealth provides the funds for the university and the college of advanced education. If the Tasmanian Government were to develop proposals which could alter the level or nature of such funding, it would be necessary for the proposals to be considered by the Commonwealth Government in the light of advice provided by the Tertiary Education Commission.

The Commonwealth Government will develop an attitude on this matter when it has a firm proposal from the State.

Kakadu National Park (Question No. 5011)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 25 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Further to the Minister ‘s answer to part ( 3 ) of question No. 4719 (Hansard, 24 October 1979, page 2468) by whom was the undertaking referred to, given, and to which Aboriginal group, representative, or individual was it given.
  2. What were the terms of the undertaking, and had they been recorded in any document or memorandum; if so, can the member identify the memorandum or document and set out fully the terms of the undertaking contained therein.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. The undertaking was contained in documents provided on 3 November 1978 to representatives of the Northern Land Council (representing the traditional Aboriginal owners). These documents were appended to the leases which were signed by a representative of the Kakadu Land Trust and the Director, National Parks and Wildlife. The leases provided that the Aboriginal land was incorporated into Kakadu National Park.
  2. Section 26 of the Prescriptive Section of the draft Plan of Management for Kakadu National Park contains this undertaking. The relevant paragraphs of Section 26 are as follows:

    1. Sites of Special Aboriginal Significance. 26.1 Background.

The escarpment and its outliers have many sites of Aboriginal significance. A feature is the thousands of Aboriginal paintings. These are vulnerable to many destructive forces. While Aboriginal society in the area was intact many of the art sites were repainted. The paintings, especially the complex polychrome ‘X-ray’ designs, are now ageing and in danger of deterioration.

While some repainting may still occur, it appears that the major problem will be maintenance and preservation of the sites. This asset of the Park is vulnerable to destruction and decay, and unlike living resources, it is unlikely that it can be replaced. 26.2 Preservation. 26.2. 1 Staff: The Director will permit and require persons from time to dme chosen by him after consultation with a representative of the Northern Land Council, being persons employed or engaged in park management, to assist the Northern Land Council in the identification and recording of Aboriginal sacred sites in the Park. Reasonable equipment and facilities to enable such persons to so assist the Northern Land Council will be made available.

Park staff will be appointed to monitor known sites, recommend protective measures that are necessary, collect and record information, and maintain liaison with the Aboriginal people and the Northern Land Council. Where the traditional Aboriginal owners wish details of sites not to be disclosed, proper security precautions will be taken in recording and storing information. 26.2.2 Traditional Aboriginal owners: All traditional Aboriginal owners will be encouraged to accept responsibility for care and maintenance of their own sites. Access to sites of special Aboriginal significance will be restricted to persons approved by the traditional Aboriginal owners. 26.2.3 Research into Destructive Agencies: In conjunction with the traditional Aboriginal owners the Service will carry out research to protect art sites. The advice of expert authorities from Australia and overseas will be obtained as necessary.’

The Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service has commenced work in relation to the protection of art sites in Kakadu National Park.

An officer of the Service is working full-time in Kakadu National Park documenting and recording art sites for protection and carrying out protection measures.

A study of rock an sites in Kakadu and an investigation of the use of photogrammetic techniques to study rock an and archeological sites have been completed by consultants for the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. The report of both studies are available.

In addition in the 1979-80 period the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service plans further research into the protection of an sites. Consultants will be employed to study the archeology of Kakadu National Park, the location and distribution of Aboriginal musuems and an sites, and the effects and control of nest-building wasps and termites on Aboriginal rock an sites.

Grants to Voluntary Conservation Bodies (Question No. 5020)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 6 November 1979:

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the statement on page 18 of the 1978-79 Annual Report of the Australian Heritage Commission concerning grants to voluntary conservation bodies; if so, what has been the level of funding for this program in each year since its inception.
  2. Which organisations have received funds and what sum has each received in each year.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. The level of funding for the program of grants to voluntary conservation bodies has been as follows:

1 973-74-S32 3,000; 1 974-7 5 -$3 5 3,000 1975-76-$390,000; 1976-77-$ 40 0,000 1977-78-$400,000; 1978-79-$350,000 1979-80-$350,000.

  1. Organisations and sums allocated are as follows (see attached table).

Grants to Voluntary Conservation Bodies (Question No. 5021)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 6 November 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that the grants to voluntary conservation organisations which are now administered by the Department of Science and the Environment were recently reviewed by the Australian Heritage Commission.
  2. Did these organisations in response to a Government request supply a considerable body of significant information for this review.
  3. Were these organisations notified of the findings and recommendations of the review; if not, will the Government consider making these findings and recommendations public.
  4. If the Government will not make them public, why not.
  5. Is it a fact that the Department intends to hold another review of these grants; if so, what are the reasons for holding a second review within 18 months of the review by the Australian Heritage Commission.
  6. Have voluntary conservation organisations been requested to provide information again to the Government.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. The grants to voluntary conservation bodies program was reviewed by the Australian Heritage Commission in 1978.
  2. The voluntary conservation bodies assisted significantly in the review.
  3. Some of the key points to emerge from the review were published in the 1977-78 Annual Report of the Australian Heritage Commission and are thus available to the voluntary conservation organisations and the public.
  4. Not applicable.
  5. I have decided to examine the program in the light of the changes to administrative responsibilities for the program with the creation of the Department of Science and the Environment last December.

The review by the Australian Heritage Commission will be considered in the examination. In addition, on this occasion, I will be receiving the views of State Governments, appropriate parliamentary committees and many other groups and individuals that have shown an interest in the program.

My examination will be directed towards the development of the basic criteria for making grants, the scope of the program; and the administrative arrangements associated with the making of grants.

  1. Voluntary conservation bodies have been invitied to participate in the current examination.

Tactical Fighter Force (Question No. 5072)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 13 November 1979:

What is the Government’s estimated price for the:

  1. F18;
  2. F16;and
  3. Mirage 2000 aircraft.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

The price of each of these aircraft was provided on a commercial-in-confidence basis and therefore the Government is not in a position to divulge this information.

High Court Building: Commemorative Medallions (Question No. 5075)

Mr Hodges:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 13 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a report of the Brisbane Sunday Sun of 28 October 1979 claiming that about 500 of the dignitaries to be invited to the opening of the new High Court building in Canberra will be given commemorative medallions worth $2,000 each.
  2. Is it proposed to commemorate the occasion with a medallion; if so, (a) what is the estimated cost of the proposal and (b) who initiated the idea and was the matter considered by the Historic Memorials Committee.
  3. Who are the members of the Historic Memorials Committee.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. (a) It is proposed to commemorate the occasion with 500 bronze medallions which will cost no more than $12,000. (b) The Government approved a recommendation of the Chief Justice of Australia. This matter was not considered by the Historic Memorials Committee.
  3. The Historic Memorials Committee comprises the Prime Minister (Chairman), the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Vice President of the Executive Council, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. The Committee was established for the purpose of securing portraits of distinguished Australians and paintings recording special events connected with the Commonwealth Parliament.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 20 November 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1979/19791120_reps_31_hor116/>.