House of Representatives
1 May 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1980

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2483

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Pensions

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

That there is an urgent need to ensure that the living standard of pensioners will not decline, as indeed the present level of cash benefits in real terms requires upward adjustment beyond indexation related to the movement of the Consumer Price Index. By this and other means your petitioners urge that action be taken to:

  1. Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the fixed 70 ‘s rate.
  2. Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Earnings.

  3. Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

    1. The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $ 100 per week.
    2. A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lionel Bowen, Mr Burns, Dr Edwards, Mr Gillard, Mr Charles Jones, Mr Lucock, Mr MacKenzie, Mr Leo McLeay, Mr Les McMahon, Mr Martin, Mr Sainsbury and Mr West.

Petitions received.

Taxation

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

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

That the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people over 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1970 to over 10 per cent by (990 and about 16 per cent by the year 2020.

That technological change is accelerating the trend towards earlier retirement from the workforce.

That the above factors make incentives for self-provision in retirement years a matter of great urgency if future generations of Australians are to be spared the crippling taxation which would be necessary to fund such provisions from social welfare.

That Australia is in urgent need of locally raised investment capital for national development and that life insurance and superannuation funds are important mobilisers of such capital.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Government will forthwith take the steps necessary to:

  1. Remove contributions paid by the taxpayer to superannuation funds from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income.
  2. Allow as such deduction amounts necessary to provide the individual with a reasonable retirement benefit as defined from time to time by the Commissioner of Taxation.
  3. Remove life insurance premiums paid from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income also.
  4. Allow such a deduction to take the form of a flat rebate of 20 per cent of Life Insurance premiums up to a limit of $2,500.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie, Dr Edwards and Mr Martyr.

Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

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

Petitions received.

Australian Rum: Excise Duty

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

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

That the retail price of Australian rum is too high and should be reduced to enable the average Australian to buy it.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that steps be taken to reduce the excise duty on Australian rum.

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

Petition received.

Human Rights Commission

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

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

An amendment to the Human Rights Commission’s Bill 1979 which secures the rights of human beings before as well as after birth be upheld by the Parliament.

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

Petition received.

Airline Services

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

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

  1. That Ansett Airlines of Australia has proposed to the Commonwealth Government that it be permitted to operate an airline service between Townsville and Singapore via Darwin.
  2. That the North Queensland Airports Development Council has brought down a report in favour of the designation of a North Queensland airport as an international airport.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

  1. . The Government approve of the Ansett proposal to operate a service between Townsville and Singapore via Darwin.
  2. The Government approve any other reasonable applications for the use of a North Queensland airport for charter and regional services to and from international destinations.
  3. The Government proceed with the designation of a North Queensland airport as an international airport without unreasonable delay.

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

Petition received.

Muscular Dystrophy

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

The petition of certain citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth:

We wish to express dismay at the current inadequacies of medical research funds, particularly into the condition of muscular dystrophy, and petition the Government to substantially increase medical research funds available for the study of this disease.

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

Petition received.

Olympic Games

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

This humble petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. That a boycott of the Moscow Olympics places the future of the Olympic movement in jeopardy.
  2. That Olympic athletes have taken years to achieve high standards of performance at great cost to themselves and have a right to compete in the Olympics.
  3. That an Olympic boycott singles out and disadvantages Australian athletes whilst other interests carry on a lucrative trade with the Soviet Union in wool, wheat and minerals.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will cease to call for an Olympic boycott and will assist the Australian Olympic team to compete in the 1980 Olympic Games.

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

Petition received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

Petition received.

Taxation

To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that many Australians are concerned with the inadequacy of Overseas Aid, both Government and Private, as well as with support for local chanties. Such Aid is saving precious lives, giving undernourished and homeless people encouragement and help, bringing malnourished children to health, education and a better life, giving people friendship and a new hope. A Crusade of Compassion highlights the hope of a brighter and kindlier world in the International Year of the Child- 1979.

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

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

Petition received.

Acquisition of Land in Balmain

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

We request that the land currently used by the Australian National Line at Morts Dock, Balmain, be immediately made available for combination development of open space for public use and low cost housing such as Housing Commission one level units, hostel and nursing home accommodationfor aged persons, pensioners, single parent groups and low income earners.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House consider this petition.

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

Petition received.

Olympic Games

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

We the undersigned sportsmen and women and citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this humble petition respectfully pray that the Australian Government ensure the participation of a full Australian contingent in the XXII Olympic Games to be held in Moscow. USSR, from 19 July to 3 August,1950.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bryant, Dr Everingham, Mr Innes and Mr Scholes.

Petitions received.

Olympic Games

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

This humble petition of the sportsmen and women and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that:

Valuing the Olympic movement as an historic expression of all that is worthwhile in human endeavour and conscious of the important role competitive sport plays in maintaining health and the spirit of achievement in everyday life.

Honouring the high principles consistently pursued by the International Games Administration of keeping the movement free from religious, racial and political considerations.

Realising that the Olympic movement owes its resilience and very existence to the citizens of the nations from whom spring the participants in the contests and that the survival of this movement is the cherished hope of all communities.

We the undersigned sportsmen and women and citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this humble petition respectfully pray that the Australian government do all in its power to ensure the participation of a full Australian contingent in the XXII Olympic Games to be held in Moscow, USSR, from 1 9 July to 3 August, 1980.

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

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 1 980 and in particular to Government Schools.

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

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

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

Petition received.

Export of Live Animals

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain residents of Victoria respectfully showeth:

That the Australian Government promotes carcass trade and that all future shipments of live animals overseas for slaughter be banned, and thereby stop a repetition of the shocking loss of life through burns or drowning as occurred with the incineration or drowning of 40,000 sheep on a ship to abattoirs in the Middle East, or the more recent cruelty to horses being exported for slaughter in Japan.

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

Petition received.

page 2485

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

Mr SPEAKER:

– I inform the House that the Honourable Querube Makalintal, Speaker of the Batasang Pambansa of the Republic of the Philippines, is within the precincts. With the concurrence of honourable members I propose to invite the Speaker of the Philippines Parliament to take a seat on the floor of the House.

Honourable members- Hear, hear!

The Honourable Querube Makalintal thereupon entered the chamber, and was seated accordingly.

page 2485

SMOLENSK: SLAUGHTER OF POLISH SOLDIERS

Notice of Motion

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

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

That this House notes with profound sadness and regret the fortieth anniversary of the brutal slaughter of 1 5,000 Polish officers, cadets and men at Katyn Wood and other places around Smolensk by units of the Soviet Secret Police and. notwithstanding the passage of time, calls upon the USSR to bring to justice those responsible for this callous international outrage and to pay compensation to the dependants of those who were brutally murdered in cold blood in April 1940.

page 2485

HOME OWNERSHIP

Notice of Motion

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

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

That this House-

) believes that, to be acceptable, any Australian family home ownership scheme must hefair and equitable:

declares that any proposal which would give a home ownership grant to a family in which each person has disposable income of $9,400 per year, but denies such a grant to another family where each person has an average income of $3,300 per person per year, even though they have fulfilled the savings conditions, is unjust; and

asserts that the family home ownership plan announced on 13 February by the Opposition offends every decent Australian instinct for fair play.

Mr Scholes:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are now 160 General Business Notices, including Orders of the Day, on the Notice Paper. I ask that you, Mr Speaker, take up with the Leader of the House the question of the number of notices and ask whether there is any manner in which they can be dealt with. The procedure is becoming farcical.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The point of order raises an issue to which I wish to draw the attention of all honourable members. Under the Standing Orders every member has the right, when notices are called, to give notice of intention to move a motion. I have accepted those notices and will continue to do so. However, I now say to all members of the House that in future I will not accept a notice which argues its case; I will accept only a motion which puts a simple proposition. In relation to the matter of taking up the issue with the Leader of the House, I am the servant of the House and I will do so.

page 2486

IRAN: OPENING OF PARLIAMENT

Notice of Motion

Mr YATES:
Holt

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

That this House resolves to send a Parliamentary Delegation, led by the Right Honourable Mr Speaker, to attend the opening of the Parliament of Iran and to discuss the release of the United States diplomatic hostages held in that country.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have just indicated to the House that I am the servant of the House. If the House chooses to send me, I will go, but it will be a decision of the House.

page 2486

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2486

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Acting Treasurer and relates to the interest rates applying under the new tap system for government borrowings which represent a rise of 0.5 per cent for government bonds and 0.6 per cent for semi-government borrowings. Is there now a margin from one per cent to almost 2 per cent between overdraft rates on borrowings under $100,000 and rates on government securities? Is the Minister concerned that persons therefore conceivably can borrow from trading banks at 10.5 per cent and immediately re-lend at nearly 2 per cent more for gilt-edged securities? Is the Minister also concerned that the trading banks now have a strong incentive to concentrate lending on large corporate, government and semigovernment borrowers, rather than on smaller borrowers, including potential home buyers, thereby raising the real possibility of a severe credit squeeze for smaller borrowers? Does the Minister regard such an interest rate regime as sustainable?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– There is every indication that the introduction of the tap system has been very successful. I repeat what I said yesterday, that is, that the rates set by the Commonwealth were not designed in any attempt to lead the market but simply to reflect the market. As the honourable member indicated in his question, interest rates on amounts over $ 100,000 are a matter of agreement or negotiation between the bank and the client. Under $100,000 there is a limit upon the interest rates which banks can charge. The Government has been approached with regard to the removal of that limit. It is not an approach that has any appeal to us. I have had no indication and no evidence has been given to me that smaller borrowers are being disadvantaged by banks. The substantial majority of borrowers are, of course, in the lower than $100,000 area. Finally, I wish to make one comment about interest rates generally. I do not regard this as predicting anything, but it is pleasing to see that interest rates in the United States of America are starting to come down, not only in the prime rate but also in other areas of borrowing. It is happening not only in the United States but also in the Eurodollar market. I think that is good news.

page 2486

QUESTION

BUSINESS DIRECTORIES: UNSOLICITED ENTRIES

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

– Has the attention of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs been drawn to complaints that international organisations are writing to Australian companies purporting to make charges for unsolicited entries in business directories? What action can he take about that?

Mr GARLAND:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– My attention has been drawn to a number of these activities. The Trade Practices Commission is very concerned about them and has investigated a number of cases. It is particularly concerned about the activities of a German company which appears to have sent invoices or statements to all Australian subscribers in the telex directory and whose conduct seems to contravene the Trade Practices Act insofar as it sets out a price for the making of a directory entry but it does not state just as prominently that no claim is made for payment. That company is outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia. So no direct action can be taken. The fact is that telex subscribers are receiving identical invoices for these amounts. The Commission issued a statement warning telex subscribers of the illegality of those charges and drew the matter to the attention of the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany. I am advised that the Commission was informed recently that the Embassy had indicated that the relevant German authority has been asked to bring criminal charges against that company in respect of its conduct in sending invoices or statements to Australian subscribers. The Trade Practices Commission has been concerned about the operations of a number of other overseas organisations. In the majority of cases the publications involve the directories of subscribers to various communications services. Consequently, the Commission has arranged with Telecom Australia to send a circular letter to the 30,000 Australian telex subscribers alerting them to these practices and to the fact that no official international telex directory exists.

page 2487

QUESTION

TAX AVOIDANCE

Mr LEO McLEAY:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Has the Acting Treasurer seen reports of statements made yesterday by Mr S. E. K. Hulme, Q.C., in which he said not only that it was impossible to redraft an effective antiavoidance section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act but also that such a section was not even desirable? As Mr Hulme was chosen by the Government to review this redraft of section 260, has he communicated these thoughts to the Government and, in this light, does the Government intend to proceed with these measures? Does the Government regard Mr Hulme ‘s solution of continued scheme by scheme legislation, with the resultant massive increase in the complexity of an already very complex Act, as feasible? Finally, as Mr Hulme is regarded as one of the leading tax avoidance lawyers in the country, why did the Government choose him to review this redraft of section 260, thereby giving him plenty of time to find ways around the proposed legislation which could be communicated to the rest of the tax avoidance industry?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I have not met Mr Hulme, Q.C.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You should have.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Maybe I should have, but the fact is that I have not met him. The appointment was made by the Treasurer. No doubt it was made after consideration of people who would be prepared to assist the Government. I read Mr Hulme ‘s comments. Many comments are made by all manner of people in Australia about the taxation system and tax avoidance. No doubt every .member of the Parliament is concerned about the incidence of tax avoidance. It is pertinent, however, to point out that the one Treasurer who has done something about it in recent years is the present Treasurer. I am not aware of any moves in that direction by the Labor Party Government in its three years in office. I cannot recall easily any decisions which the Labor Party took, any initiatives which it took, in that direction. There may have been some. Certainly there was a lot of talk about it and very little action. The present Treasurer has had people looking at section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. I will bring to his attention the honourable member’s question, which contained a number of elements. If we can give the honourable member any further advice upon the Treasurer’s return, it will be given to him.

page 2487

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– My question, which is directed to the Acting Treasurer, relates to the one I asked yesterday. Is he aware that the very successful sale of bonds in the market yesterday was mainly directed to 1985 medium term bonds? Is it correct that, of the $2 50m offered, $150m was taken up? Is all this consistent with the Government’s policy of achieving a balance between medium term and short term securities and a reduction of the internal Budget deficit? Does he think it wise now, as I do, that the tap should be turned down to a drip to prevent pressure on bank liquidity with an adverse effect on the availability of funds for the private sector of the economy in the June quarter?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-It was gratifying to see the introduction of the tap system yesterday. It was a successful day. Not only was it successful for reasons of monetary policy, but also the introduction of the system dispelled the pessimistic attitude that a number of people in the Labor Party took to its introduction at this particular time. It was of course the first day. The right honourable member for Lowe will forgive me if I do not react to the figure that he gave. All I want to say is that a number of figures have been given in the media today and all of them cannot be correct. Honourable members may recall that the

Treasurer said when he announced this system that after the end of each month he would announce the number of bonds that were taken up. No doubt when the Treasurer returns next week he will make a statement indicating exactly what sales have been made. The right honourable member for Lowe, as one of the great disciples of private enterprise, expresses his concern about liquidity. I simply indicate to him that we will be watching that very carefully. The sales of the bonds are consistent with our fight against inflation, but we will ensure that they do not hamper the economic recovery of which there are increasing signs.

page 2488

QUESTION

OVERSEAS AIR SERVICES

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask a question of the Minister for Transport. Is it a fact that it would require a 100 per cent seat factor to allow Ansett Airlines of Australia to offer a Darwin to Singapore return air fare of $353? In fact, did Ansett suggest an indicative lowest fare of $303? Is it also a fact that one B747 weekly service between Darwin and Singapore would carry the same passenger load as three B727 weekly services on that route? Furthermore, is it a fact that the cost of three B727 weekly services would be 50 per cent more than that of one B747 service? On the basis of the simple economics of the airline industry, does the Minister not agree that there is room for the gravest suspicion about the economics of Ansett ‘s proposals and perhaps even- perish the thought- the motives behind those proposals?

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

– I will take the questions on notice because they involve a certain amount of research. I could not say yes or no in precise terms to the first two questions or to the fourth question. I can say yes to the third question. I will give consideration to the last two questions which the Leader of the Opposition has asked. I hope to be able to give him an answer this afternoon.

page 2488

QUESTION

AFGHANISTAN

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to a recent advertisement in a national newspaper which opposes the Government’s policy on events in Afghanistan? Does he regard this event as a manifestation of interest in the Press in Australia from the bazaars and other places in the Levant?

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

– I think the honourable gentleman is referring to an advertisement that was placed in the National Times and which was drawn to my attention last night. I would not like those who publish the National Times to think that my rule about weekend newspapers was broken on this occasion. There is nothing particularly unusual about the advertisement as such, because it was placed by that well known organisation which is plainly a communist front organisation, the Association for International Co-operation and Disarmament. It opposes the Government’s boycott of the Olympic Games. It opposes support of selective sanctions against the Soviet Union. It opposes the fact that military expenditure is being increased by the present Government. It indicates that we should develop an independent and non-aligned foreign policy, which obviously has very great relevance to the relationship with the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the other traditional allies that Australia has supported over a long period. It would have significant implications for joint bases in Australia. There is nothing unusual in any of that, coming as it does from that communist front organisation.

What is perhaps worthy of note is that in the list of names of those people and parliamentarians who supported the advertisement one finds the names of a number of members of parliament. They include Bob Brown, the Labor member for Cessnock; Ken Gabb, the Labor member for Earlwood; Mr Hunter, the Labor member for Lake Macquarie; Mr Johnstone, the Labor member for Broken Hill; Mr Sam B. Jones, the Labor member for Waratah; Mr Rogan and Mr Wade, the Labor members for East Hills and Newcastle; and some others. That is not the whole list, of course. It also includes the names of Senator Jean Melzer, an Australian Labor Party senator for Victoria, and somebody who calls himself Peter Walsh. Having regard to the other names on the list, we can only assume that he is the Labor senator for Western Australia. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition should disassociate himself and his party totally from the sentiments expressed in that advertisement. I also believe that Mr Wran should disassociate himself from the members of his parliamentary party who have joined in that advertisement.

In these circumstances there is a great cloud over the attitudes of the Australian Labor Party. That has been made very plain in recent times with the move to the left within the party, especially since the Labor Party conference in Adelaide and especially since the growing power of the socialist Left in Victoria and the socialist Left in Queensland -

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Which members of the Labor Party seem to treat very much as a joke in this Parliament. That is a fact of life which the people of Australia will not treat as a joke whenever an election is held.

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the Leader of the Opposition to cease making that noise.

Mr Hayden:

– He is making a fool of himself.

Mr SPEAKER:

-It is unseemly. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to cease his continual interjections from the table.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, I suggest that you arrange for the Prime Minister to cease making a fool of himself. The situation is -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

– May I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, about your administration of the Standing Orders?

Mr SPEAKER:

-No. The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I asked the Leader of the Opposition to cease his continual interjecting from the table. When I make that request, which is a proper request under the Standing Orders, it is not an invitation for the Leader of the Opposition to state, loudly, offensive words. I ask him to behave in an appropriate fashion.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order about the general administration of Standing Orders and the way in which they are loaded at least in that respect, if not in other respects. Mr Speaker, you will clearly recall that, when attempts were made from this side of the House at Question Time to raise concern about Mr Urbanchich and extreme right wing influences in the Liberal Party of New South Wales, you ruled that out of order. We are prepared to accept that sort of ruling as long as there is some consistency in the way in which, generally, Question Time is administered. There seems to be an unevenness, however, if we are prevented from raising these questions but the Prime Minister can prime up a less than active back bencher to read out a question prepared for him and of exactly a nature that will allow the Prime Minister to indulge in his cold war fantasies.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Prime Minister wish to speak to the point of order which was raised by the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I thought the Leader of the Opposition was trying to raise a point of order. I wish to speak to the point of order. The

Leader of the Opposition seems to have missed the point that the advertisement was attacking Government policy on a matter which we regard as important to national security. The advertisement was attacking Government policy in a way which made it perfectly plain that members of the Australian Labor Party supported this advertisement.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, this is the sort of unfairness which brings your own credibility into some question. I have no hesitation in saying so.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I must indicate to the House that I will administer the Standing Orders as they are. A question is in order if it seeks information about a matter for which a Minister is responsible to the Parliament. The question asked by the honourable member for North Sydney was such a question. Therefore the question was in order. When the Minister is answering the question he is entitled to answer as he chooses, provided the answer is relevant to the question. In the instant case the question and answer were in order. The points about which the Leader of the Opposition complains can only be a complaint about the Standing Orders. He is perfectly entitled to write to me about the Standing Orders. I will call a meeting of the Standing Orders Committee to have the matter considered. I must say to the Leader of the Opposition that if he has objections to the Standing Orders it does not entitle him to interject continually. I ask him to cease doing that.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, in relation to that point, in respect of the general standard of conduct in the House and the temper that develops at times, and out of deference to you, because your task is not easy, I must say that if we have Standing Orders which are going to be abused by the behaviour -

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Hayden:

– No. It is important that I make this point so that you, Mr Speaker, understand why the Opposition reacts in the way in which it does. It is not just a matter of having Standing Orders enshrined in the Standing Orders as printed. There is also a matter of proper conduct and conventions about proper conduct. Conventions, of course, have very poor exchange value.

Mr Viner:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr Hayden:

– I am on my feet on a point of order. Sit down!

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Both honourable gentlemen will resume their seats. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition and I follow his point, but I say to him that I will administer the Standing Orders as they are. I ask him, therefore, to cease interjecting continually. I also ask all honourable members on the Opposition benches to comply with my request not to interject.

Mr Innes:

– What about the people over there?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I indicate to the honourable member for Melbourne that he, too, must cease interjecting.

page 2490

QUESTION

INFLATION

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I refer the Acting Treasurer to his answer to a question I asked him yesterday in which he said that I was being unfair in taking only one index of inflation as an indicator of a significantly worsening situation. I ask the honourable gentleman whether he is aware that the latest figures, on an annual rate of increase basis, are as follows: The export price index is up 26. 1 per cent; the index for materials used in manufacturing industry is up 37.1 per cent; the index for materials used in nonresidential building is up 14.2 per cent; the index for materials used in house building is up 14.9 per cent; the index for articles produced in manufacturing industry is up 1 7.2 per cent; and the food index is up 15.6 per cent. Is it not a fact that these increases are largely self-inflicted because of the Government’s petrol pricing policy? I ask the Minister to name one price index that indicates that inflation is not significantly worse than it was a year ago.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Again I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that it is a very unwise practice to take indices, irrespective of where they come from, in isolation and, whether they be for a month or a quarter, to multiply them by the appropriate figure and say that because of that the inflationary battle is being lost. I repeat what I said yesterday: Taking into account the international pressures upon both inflation and interest rates, Australia is doing very well indeed in its fight against inflation. The proof of that is the overseas investment that is coming into this country simply because the objective overseas investor likes what is going on, likes the stability and the consistency of policy and is seeking to invest in this country.

The food component in the consumer price index for the March quarter was very substantial, but we all know that it fluctuates from time to time. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has referred again to the impact of the oil import parity pricing policy on inflation. Let me concede again that it has an inflationary impact. We acknowledge that. But, I repeat, that policy is essential to the long term economic recovery and security of this country. Unless we maintain the greatest degree of self-sufficiency in oil, unless we conserve it, unless we encourage further exploration and unless we encourage alternative uses of energy, we will have in Australia economic problems which will be virtually insurmountable. Therefore, allowing for the Government’s decision on oil and some changes to the health scheme, we are combating inflation very well indeed.

page 2490

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF

Mr MOORE:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

-Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to claims that the seas and submerged lands package undermines the Commonwealth Government ‘s capacity to protect the Great Barrier Reef? Are these claims correct?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The claims that have been made in that regard are totally wrong. In clear and unequivocal statements, both inside and outside this House, the Commonwealth Government has made it plain that it will not permit exploration for petroleum in the Great Barrier Reef region. We will not permit the renewal of petroleum exploration in the region until the results of both short and longer term research into the reef’s ecosystem are known. This follows our decisions on the reports of the royal commissions into petroleum drilling in the area of the Great Barrier Reef itself. Those decisions were very clearly announced in this House on 4 June of last year. On 14 June the Premier of Queensland and I confirmed that it is the policy of both of our governments to prohibit any drilling on the reef or any drilling or mining which could in any way damage the reef. Those policy decisions are binding on both the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government.

The rights and title to be vested in the State of Queensland as a result of our initiatives in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act exercise are very clearly subject to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. The powers of the Commonwealth under that Act remain supreme. They are untouched by the package which has been introduced. I think that is the main point to emphasise in this matter, because there has been a suggestion that the legislation which has been introduced touches upon, and diminishes, our capacity to protect the reef through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, and it does not do that. Our responsibilities and powers under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act are in no way diminished as a result of the Seas and Submerged Lands Act exercise.

The policy of the Commonwealth is very clear. We are progressively declaring sections of the’ Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, and I would expect that by the end of this year about- one quarter of the length of the reef of 2,000 kilometres will be marine park. We are taking advice from the Marine Park Authority. It is a Commonwealth-State body but the powers are virtually the Commonwealth’s under Commonwealth legislation. As recommendations are received from that body we are acting to have marine parks declared. That will be the continuing policy of the Government.

We have given greater support to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Last year it started with a staff of 18. That was increased, at the request of the Authority, to 29. The staff is to be increased to 44. I think there is a limit, in a new body of this kind, to the rate at which it can assimilate staff and usefully direct them to their proper functions and responsibilities. But the growth of the staff of the Authority shows very clearly the importance and priority which this Commonwealth Government places on these matters.

In no formal way has the statement that was issued by the Premier of Queensland and me on 14 June ever been brought to the notice of this House, and in a moment I would like to seek authority to have the statement incorporated in Hansard so that the record on the matter can be complete. Again I would like to emphasise that that statement indicated that what we are doing in relation to the other States will be the same for Queensland, but with full regard to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and to my parliamentary statement of 4 June on petroleum exploration in the Great Barrier Reef. The statement pointed out that both the Premier and I confirmed that it was the policy of our respective governments to prohibit any drilling on the reef or any drilling or mining which could damage the reef.

Mr Keating:

– I rise on a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Blaxland on a point of order.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– It is not going to be a point of order, Mr Speaker, because the honourable gentleman never raises a point of order. What he does seek to do is to interrupt answers in this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Blaxland on a point of order.

Mr Keating:

- Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister is deliberately misleading the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman have a point of order?

Mr Keating:

– He has already admitted that three-quarters of the Great Barrier Reef is not subject to law, and the agreement has no force in law.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I indicate to the honourable member for Blaxland that if he acts in that fashion I will have to discipline him. The honourable gentleman had no call. He indicated a point of order. He did not have a point of order. He wanted to make an argument. I will have to discipline him if he does it again.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

-Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to make a submission. This matter is the subject of a debate later today. I ask you to rule whether it is in accordance with the practice of the House to have virtually a debate which answers questions in advance of what is listed on the program for later in the day. All of these matters are to be the subject of debate. They are already on the Notice Paper.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I rule on the point of order thus: It is in order for a question to be asked seeking information about a debate that is to come on later in the day. The right honourable gentleman, as I understand it, is giving a set of facts. Each of those facts will be capable of being debated during the debate on the issue. Accordingly, that means that there should be no interjections.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The relevant part of the statement of 14 June reads:

Both the Premier and the Prime Minister confirmed that it was the policies of their respective governments to prohibit any drilling on the Reef or any drilling or mining which could damage the Reef.

A moment ago there was an interjection which indicated that the joint statement by the Premier and me does not have the force of law. But what does have the force of law is the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and the Authority established under that Act, which will be totally unimpaired as a result of the package of measures now before the House. The measures that are now before the House pay due regard to that Act and to that Authority and make it perfectly plain that that Act and that Authority will stand supreme in relation to the protection of the reef. The Australian Labor Party is being purely mischievous in seeking to suggest otherwise. So that the record may be complete, and so that I will not need to read the statement of 14 June 1979 to the House in full, I ask that it be incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

PRIME MINISTER

For press 14 June 1979

Great Barrier Reef

The Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, and the Premier, Mr Joh Bjelke-Petersen, conferred today on the future consultative arrangements for joint consideration of recommendations of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. This Authority is established by the Commonwealth Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, which will continue unchanged.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is designed to provide for the progressive declarations and oversight of Marine Parks in the Region of the Great Barrier Reef The boundaries of this Region will remain as defined in the Commonwealth legislation.

No provision has to date been made for both governments to co-ordinate policy at the ministerial level. Accordingly, it was agreed at today’s meeting to establish a Ministerial Council comprising Commonwealth and State Ministers particularly representing marine park, conservation, science and tourism.

The Commonwealth Ministers will be Phillip Lynch, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, whose portfolio responsibilities include tourism- a major activity in the area of the Great Barrier Reef- and Senator Webster, the Minister for Science and the Environment who is directly responsible for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

The Queensland Ministers will be Mr Newberry, the Minister for Culture, National Parks and Recreation, and Mr Hodges, the Minister for Maritime Services and Tourism.

Mr Fraser and Mr Bjelke-Petersen agreed that the first section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park- the Capricornia section- should be processed by the Ministerial Council as an immediate task to enable early proclamation to take place.

They also agreed that as the sections of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park are proclaimed, the day-to-day management should be undertaken by officers of the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service, who, in discharging these responsibilities, will be subject to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The Authority will continue to have the responsibility for: recommending the declaration of Parks; developing zoning plans and plans of management of Parks; and arranging for research and investigation relevant to Marine Parks.

In relation to the Territorial sea, the Premier and the Prime Minister agreed that the arrangements with Queensland which will flow from the agreements of the June 1978 Premiers’ Conference will be on the same basis as arrangements to be entered into in respect of other States, but with full regard to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and to the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Statement of 4 June on Petroleum Exploration in the Great Barrier Reef.

Both the Premier and the Prime Minister confirmed that it was the policies of their respective governments to prohibit any drilling on the Reef or any drilling or mining which could damage the Reef.

Mr Bjelke-Petersen and Mr Fraser agreed that the program of short and longer term research into the Great Barrier Reef eco-system referred to in that Statement will be monitored by the Ministerial Council, and will be closely supervised by the Marine Park Authority.

By creating an appropriate consultative mechanism these arrangements will serve to ensure that the Authority functions within the framework of the joint policies of the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments as they further develop.

The two Governments will be consulting forthwith on implementation of these arrangements.

Both the Premier and the Prime Minister affirmed that the basic policy intention of both governments was to ensure that the Great Barrier Reef area be recognised and preserved as an important feature of Queensland’s and Australia ‘s heritage.

page 2492

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister why he continues to try to assure this House that the Federal Government has power over the whole of the Great Barrier Reef region when the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act provides that the only portion of which the Federal Government has control is that portion which is declared part of the Marine Park? In other words, the rest of the reef- at least that portion which involves the territorial sea three miles off the Queensland coast and around the islands off the Queensland coast- will remain under the control of the Queensland Government. I repeat the question: Why does the Prime Minister continue to assert that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act protects that part of the reef that is not declared?

Mr THOMSON:
Minister for Science and the Environment · LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

-The Government’s policy is quite clear. I use the words ‘unequivocal’, categoric’ and ‘clear’. I suggest that the honourable member consult a dictionary, perhaps the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, to see what those words mean. It is quite clear that the Commonwealth has power to prohibit drilling on the reef or any drilling that will affect the reef. That authority is clear under many Acts.

Mr Scholes:

– Which Act? Name one.

Mr THOMSON:

-The environmental protection Act, to name one. If it is in the national interest that Act can be invoked. If it were in the national interest, and it would be in the national interest if there were drilling on the reef, the Commonwealth would invoke that Act to protect the reef. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act gives the Commonwealth power also to prohibit drilling. If there were any suggestion of any drilling on the reef, that Act could be invoked in respect of that section of the reef. No power under that Act has been surrendered by the Commonwealth. That is quite clear. I repeat the words ‘categoric’ and ‘unequivocal’. I hope that the honourable member for Robertson, the honourable member for Blaxland and the Leader of the Opposition will find out what they really mean.

page 2493

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

-The motion has been submitted in writing. I call the honourable member for Robertson.

Mr COHEN:

-A few days ago, on the 28th of last month, I issued a statement -

Motion ( by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

Mr Keating:

– You are not going to take the debate on. Are you going to sit there, after you have roasted us, and not take the debate?

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Keating:

– My God, how weak can you be!

Mr SPEAKER:

– I warn the honourable member for Blaxland.

Mr Keating:

– Well, how weak can they be!

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honourable member for Blaxland behaves in that fashion, I will have to name him.

Question put-

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

AYES: 82

NOES: 36

Majority……. 46

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– It is unbelievable that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) should regale the House and then not defend his Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson) in this responsible area.

Motion (by Mr Viner) put:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

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

AYES: 81

NOES: 35

Majority……. 46

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr VINER:
Leader of the House · Stirling · LP

– This is quite clearly a spurious censure motion. The Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson) has answered questions repeatedly in the House.

Motion (by Mr Hurford) proposed:

That the Leader of the House be not further heard.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It relates to the timing of these matters. It way my understanding that the Leader of the House first moved that the question be now put on the motion. He has nothing more to say.

Mr SPEAKER:

-No, I heard first the motion that the Leader of the House be not further heard.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question before the Chair is the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. The Leader of the House is entitled to move the motion which he was prevented from moving by an earlier motion.

Motion (by Mr Viner) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question put:

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

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

AYES: 35

NOES: 80

Majority……. 45

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2495

COMMITTEE OF OVERSEAS PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · Balaclava · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Committee of Overseas Professional Qualifications for the year ended December 1979.

page 2495

COPYRIGHT TRIBUNAL

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for the Capital Territory and Acting Attorney-General · Wentworth · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the inquiry by the Copyright Tribunal into the royalty payable in respect of records generally.

page 2495

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

Air Navigation Amendment Bill 1980.

Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill 1 980.

Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1980.

Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1980.

Bounty (Polyester-Cotton Yarn) Amendment Bill 1980.

Bounty (Rotary Cultivators) Amendment Bill 1980.

Bounty ( Drilling Bits ) Bill 1 980.

page 2495

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Viner) agreed to:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 13 May next, at 2.15 p.m., unless Mr Speaker shall fix an alternative day or hour of meeting, to be notified by telegram or letter addressed to each member of the House.

page 2495

QUESTION

HOUSING INDUSTRY AND HOME OWNERSHIP

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

– I move:

Housing has always depicted the very nature of society, perhaps more than any other observable factor in our lives. It is quite easy to identify suburbs in any city by the nature of the housing. It is quite obvious that people are placed into categories when their housing is examined, whether it is in one of the great cities, in one of the suburbs or one of the provincial towns. Two features of that housing have always attracted attention. They are the style which depicts its sociological background- many a person has earned a higher degree from the universities by examining that aspect of it- and its ownership. I want to refer to that second aspect in great detail today.

For many people, the purchase of a home is the largest investment that they will ever make and it is the largest asset that they will ever acquire. If society were ever to be reformed, housing always would have to play a significant part in that reformation. Let me give an example. When, during World War II, proposals were made for the changed development of Western society following the Depression, housing always figured very prominently in those proposals. I refer, for example, to the Beveridge proposals for full employment in a free society. Those proposals were revolutionary. But as one of the first ingredients of those proposals there was to be a changed attitude towards housing and home ownership. It is not to be forgotten that after Lord Beveridge ‘s first proposals, significantly there followed within a week one of the great battles of World War II, the battle of El Alamein. In looking at housing we are looking at the very nature of society and we are looking at the products of fundamental reforms in the society.

Another matter always deserves to be examined in relation to housing. It is the most easy observable equity that occurs within the community. Widespread home ownership means a wide spread of assets; very narrow home ownership most often means a very small spread or a concentration of assets. Therefore today I want to deal with some housing schemes that have been proposed from that most important ingredient: The matter of equity and the matter of fairness in relation to equity. I want to deal with schemes that have been deceptive and schemes that should never have been proposed. In many ways there could be little more cruel in a community than to propose schemes for housing that could not deliver what was proposed but, in fact, depended upon an abiding and growing sense of inequity, deception and unfairness. In this proposal for equity, interest rates are important. We know that interest rates ultimately follow the market and that they will depend upon other matters. They will depend upon inflation, short term monetary movements and a variety of other factors. But ultimately they will respond to a market; they cannot be ignored in relation to that market.

When the Opposition in this place has criticised the Government in respect of interest rates, it ought to be remembered that it has never yet made a workable proposal which would cause interest rates to be reduced. It has made two proposals on housing over the last 10 years. By way of example I refer to the fact that in the early 1970s, the Opposition did make proposals on interest rates but they were littered with a series of penalties. The prelude to the Australian Labor Party attaining power in 1972 was a Launceston conference of the Australian Labor Party. The proposal at that conference was to reduce interest rates by about 2 per cent. That was to be the answer of the Labor Party to home ownership in Australia. That proposal gained headlines in this country. In fact, it had attached to it four serious penalties which deserve to be known by this House. They were the reasons why this proposal was dropped before the Labor Party came into office. The first of the four penalties which applied to that proposal was to penalise young- Australians who saved for a home.

Mr Howe:

– What about the 2 per cent drop in interest rates promised in 1977?

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

-The honourable member will have his turn. I have only 20 minutes to speak on this matter. The honourable member should just restrain himself and keep that moustache growing. The first ALP proposal was to penalise young Australians who saved for a home. The person who saved the least would have benefited the greatest. The second penalty which was attached to this proposal would have been a vote against modest and low income earners. A person who negotiated a large loan of $100,000, for example, obtained six or seven times the benefit of a person who negotiated a $ 1 5,000 loan. The third penalty operated against those who worked and saved to meet their mortgage early. If they paid it off in fewer than 10 years it attracted a penalty. Finally, it affected all of those people who negotiated their loans other than through the traditional sources. That is, one-third of Australians would have been deprived of the benefit of such a scheme.

I cite those proposals only by way of very quick illustration. On the one occasion when an attempt was made by the Labor Party to develop a policy in terms of interest rates, it had attached to it four severe and very great penalties. I suggest- it will become crystal clear- that in the three schemes that have been proposed by the Labor Party for housing, the home ownership scheme, the home improvement scheme and the rental scheme, there are a myriad of penalties attached to them. The Australian Labor Party will have to drop those schemes in the same way in which it dropped them when it was in government. The Labor Party has a fertile imagination in respect of housing schemes which it dropped in the early 1 970s. Could it be otherwise?

Let me deal, for example, with the proposals. I will do so in detail so that the House can follow what the Opposition intends were it to obtain power. On 13 February this year the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) accompanied by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) proposed a home ownership scheme which would provide a grant of $3,000 by the Federal Government directly to the lending institution on behalf of respective home buyers. That grant was to be implemented over a period of four years. The grant would be available to single income earners earning up to $16,000 per annum and couples with a joint income of up to $24,000. Eligibility would be dependent upon saving at least $3,000 in a period of at least 12 months. That all sounds very well and even appealling but let us look at the equity and fairness of it and the number of penalties that would be proposed under such a scheme.

I am well aware that wherever a person lives, whether it is in an undeveloped country or a developed country, it is a sense of equity and fairness that moves people in relation to these matters more than any other. There is a sense of equity in terms of housing as appropriate to Port Hedland as it would be to Wollongong and as appropriate to Kew as it would be, for example, to Redfern. A sense of equity and fairness always has to be borne in mind. Equity and fairness have been thrown out of the window in respect of these schemes. I want to detail quickly the penalties that would be imposed if such a scheme were developed. Firstly, it is a penalty upon those families with the greatest number of children as they will have the greatest difficulty in obtaining the grant. I will read out three figures. A single person with a disposable income of $12,500 per annum will get the grant if that person can save. A married couple without children with a disposable income each of $9,500 per annum will get the grant. A man and his wife with, say, five or six children with an amount of $3,200 available per person are debarred from the scheme even though that family has saved. Is that a sense of fairness, equity and justice that will appeal to Australians? That is the first penalty which relates to the disposable income available per person.

The second penalty is this: There are many households in Australia where, for reasons of education, developing a home, building a new room or whatever, a wife goes out to work. If a wife in a family of five, six or seven children- as I have- goes out to work, and goes over the limit, that family is debarred from being able to benefit from the scheme. There is an absolute, cruel cut-off point. That occurs in hundreds of thousands of families in Australia. Members of the Opposition may disagree, but that is the second penalty. The third penalty is interesting. The slow saver is penalised. An amount of $3,000 has to be saved over a period of at least 12 months. After 12 months and one day a person may engineer some money from a rich uncle or a rich grandparent and that person will qualify for the benefit. In the home savings scheme there has always been an attempt to find evidence of saving over a period of three years, and a maximum amount in one year. Those who save slowly will be penalised by being put on a waiting list compared with those who are able to engineer rapid savings in a period of just over 12 months.

The fourth penalty is that there is a totally brutal, complete, cut-off point. Anything over the limit disqualifies a person from being able to obtain the grant of $3,000. The Australian Labor Party has not heard of shading-in arrangements where people do not quite qualify at the margin. It is a brutal, unthought through, cut-off point. Let me deal with the fifth penalty. What happens to that great proportion of Australians- it was 30 per cent some years ago- who do not obtain their funds or loans for housing from the established institutions? They obtain them from other sources. Are they to be debarred? Are only those people able to qualify who obtained their funds from a building society, a savings bank, a credit union or an established institution? Some years ago 30 per cent of the funds were obtained from sources other than those. Are these people to be completely debarred from the scheme? The answer is yes. I say to the honourable member for Reid that compared with the position some years ago the Australian Labor Party has at least developed some more penalties which it proposes to attach to any home ownership scheme.

Let me indicate the sixth penalty which deserves to be examined. All of those people who are able to organise their income in ways whereby they can accumulate wealth instead of income can qualify even though their actual increase in assets per year is, for example, $50,000. Let me give an example of discretionary trusts. A person could have $50,000 a year going into a discretionary trust. If $26,000 of that were disposed of elsewhere to accumulate resources for use at a later date the income available would qualify that person to benefit from this scheme. A wage and salary earner who is not in that position and who cannot dispose of assets in that way is disqualified and relatively penalised. A fitter and turner working in a coal mine doing a bit of overtime work is disqualified completely and totally. Of course he is disqualified more if he has a number of children to support. What happens in respect of private companies which can dispose of assets or can accumulate them in the form of wealth rather than in the form of income? They will qualify no matter what the yearly return happens to be as long as they come within the limit that is stated in this scheme as enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Reid. Once we attempt to develop income schemes which have advantages attached to them we wreak on them a whole series of penalties which need to be taken care of.

I will repeat what I said sometime ago. The last time something of this nature was attempted was in 1971-72. The scheme was dropped because it was pointed out that four or five penalties were attached to it. This proposal has at least half a dozen penalties attached to it. I implore the honourable member for Reid to think again in respect of his scheme. It ought to be dropped because it is unsatisfactory. I now turn to the second scheme which was enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition on 13 February. In relation to the home improvement plan he said that Labor would make loans of up to $3,000 over five years available for home improvements. These loans would be means tested. They would be available to single income home owners with an income up to $12,000 and to couples with an income of $16,000. Interest would be in line with savings bank home loans. That all sounds very good, nice and acceptable. What are the penalties attached to this proposition? Let me illustrate them. A single income earner with a disposable income after tax of $7,000 and more will qualify. But a fitter and turner who is earning significant overtime and who wants to put a room on the back of his house because his wife is expecting another child or because they want a study for one of their children will be disqualified if, for example, his family consists of a wife and five children and more than $2,200 per person is available to that household. That family would not qualify under that scheme. The Opposition has invoked a series of penalties similar to those which apply to the other scheme. Let us take, for example, the family in which there are a number of children and the wife goes out to work in order to be able to buy some home improvements and the husband, who is a tradesman, does some part time work. Because their extra income takes them over the limit, that family is also out so far as the scheme is concerned.

I say to the honourable member for Reid that in respect of the home improvement scheme- I will not go through them all- there are only five penalties whereas in respect of the home ownership scheme there are six penalties. When the honourable member for Reid has considered all the penalties I have enunciated, I will give him a couple more. The Australian community wants to know what is involved in any home ownership plan. In terms of the distribution of resources and in terms of the distribution of home ownership, Australians more than anyone else want to have a sense of equity and a sense of fairness in that what is appropriate for one person is appropriate for another.

I conclude my remarks by taking the House back into ancient Greece. When the Athenians were defeated in one of their great battles it is reported that a courier came back and announced to the Athenians that they had had a great and complete victory. For two days the Athenians rejoiced and were exultant at that victory. When the courier was ultimately arraigned before one of the magistrates and asked to explain, his comment was: ‘Am I your enemy because I gave ye two happy days?’ The Opposition’s proposal was announced by the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Reid two months ago. They might have had two happy months thinking that the scheme was going unanalysed, unreported and unexposed. The two happy months are over. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition should think again and should deal fairly, openly and honestly with the series of penalties I have enunciated. The Labor Party should consider above all that no scheme will be acceptable in this country unless it is fair, unless it is open, unless it is honest and unless there is taken away from it a myriad of unfair and unjust penalties unacceptable to Australians.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr Ewen Cameron:
INDI, VICTORIA · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-The honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) has a General Business motion before the House but he did not discuss the motion at all. He did not really deal in depth with the housing problem that exists in this country. He simply tried to ridicule the Australian Labor Party’s policy. We know that the honourable member for Lilley is so embarrassed about his Government’s policy on housing that he was not prepared to analyse this very serious situation. He knows that he is a supporter of a government that is responsible for a great transfer of wealth from the majority of the people to the corporate sector. Since November 1975, the Government which he supports has been responsible for the transfer of over $4,000m from the people to the corporate sector. To explain what I mean by the corporate sector, there are about 200,000 companies that make out taxation returns each year. Of that number, the top 400 companies or one-fifth of one per cent of all companies earn more than 50 per cent of the profit of all companies. It is to that sector, which I describe as the corporate sector, that this Government has been transferring an enormous amount of funds.

This Government has cut social priorities and one of the major funding priorities it has cut is housing. It has cut public housing funding right across the board. In contrast, in 1974-75, 3.9 per cent of the Budget allocation was made available by the then Labor Government for public housing. But the allocation this year has been cut’ to 1.1 per cent. That is how sad and drastic the situation is. Next year, it will be even worse because of this Government’s priorities. I stress that, next to unemployment, housing is the most serious social problem in this country and the situation is worsening every day. In the first place, this Government is cutting drastically the funds for public housing for Aboriginals and for State housing authorities. The Government has also set a ceiling on private sector housing. To get a full grant of $2,000 under the Government’s Home Savings Grants Scheme a person has to have saved for three years. But a person who wants to acquire a house and land in excess of $35,000 cannot get the full $2,000. The Scheme cuts out completely at $40,000. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) and other honourable members who live in metropolitan Sydney know that nowhere in Sydney can a house and land be bought for less than $40,000. In fact, a new house at the bottom of the market in Sydney at present costs about $42,000.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– Tell us about your scheme.

Mr UREN:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, the whole housing situation is so serious that I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard- in particular, for the information of the honourable member for Lilley, who is interjecting- building statistics on new dwellings commenced in the years 1970-71 to 1978-79. 1 point out that these are Australian Bureau of Statistics figures.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr UREN:

-I thank the House. The honourable member for Lilley, who moved this motion, was Minister for Housing in the McMahon Government from March 1971 to December 1972. 1 want to give the House some understanding of the buoyancy of the housing situation at the time when the honourable member for Lilley was Minister for Housing. The table I have incorporated shows that in 1970-71 120,000-odd dwellings were commenced in the private sector. In the public sector, over 1 8,000 dwellings were commenced. In other words, over 140,000 homes were commenced. But the figures for 1978-79 show that private dwelling commencements dropped to 109,000-odd and dwellings in the public sector dropped to about 9,000- almost half the commencements in 1970-71. In total, about 119,000 homes were built in 1978-79. That is the situation in the housing sector in this country today.

There are at present 75,000 families on the housing commission lists, and the number is growing. At least 100,000 people are homeless and that number is growing. At least 200,000 people are living in temporary accommodation and caravans, and that number is growing. This is a serious social problem, yet this year only about 120,000 homes will be built. The Government’s Indicative Planning Council says that the industry can build 135,000 dwellings in a year without creating inflationary pressures and that it is operating at 12 per cent below capacity, yet the Government is not encouraging home building. One would think that in an era when we have the serious problem of unemployment and the serious social problem of people without housing, a government with some compassion would say: ‘It is common sense for us to try to stimulate housing construction because by stimulating that construction we will create employment’. Stimulating housing would create employment. When people obtain homes they also need refrigerators, washing machines and furnishings. It has a cumulative employment effect but, sad to relate, that is not the line that is taken by this Government. The truth is that because its philosophy has been to engage in an enormous transfer of wealth resources from the many, the people, to the few, the corporate sector, it is opposed to such an action. I make clear, and nail to the mast, the fact that this Government is negative and will not take any positive action in regard to housing the people.

Labor’s housing policy has been criticised. Labor intends to attack this awful social problem of inadequate housing by making a threepronged thrust. Labor will attack it in the private sector by assisting those who want to buy a home in that way. Labor will give them the opportunity to do so. Secondly, we will stimulate public sector housing by spending in the first year at least an extra $80m, in respect of rental housing in particular. In some cases we will encourage the housing commissions to spot-purchase homes in the inner city so that we can assist with the problems of poor people on low incomes without driving them out to the fringes of our capital cities. Thirdly, we will reintroduce the Australian Housing Corporation, which will ensure the continuing capital flow, the liquidity, that is needed in the housing sector. We are approaching an era when the demands of such highly capital intensive industries as aluminium smelting, which employ, very few people, will drain away from the housing sector a great deal of the capital that is available. Therefore, we will need the Australian Housing Corporation so that liquidity within the housing industry can be maintained.

I tum now to Labor’s family home purchase assistance scheme. I propose to relate some of its details by way of explanation. We intend to make the sum of $3,000 available to a family home purchaser, with a single income of not more than $16,000 a year. If both husband and wife are working their joint income may amount to $24,000 a year. The direct grant will be made over a period of four years. In the first year it will be $1,200, in the second year $900, in the third year $600 and in the fourth year $300. 1 have before me an example of the way in which the formula would work and I ask leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

How the Family Home Purchase Assistance Scheme will work

Take a single income family on average weekly earnings ($237/week or $12,400/year) wanting to purchase a home at the bottom end of the market in Sydney or Melbourne.

The purchase price of the home is $40,000 (land is around $10,000 and the construction cost of the 12 square house is around $30,000)

How the grant is then used to assist with mortgage repayments is set out below.

Mr UREN:

-I thank the House. Let us assume that an eligible single income family, with average earnings of $237 a week or $12,400 a year, wished to purchase a home at the bottom end of the market in Sydney or Melbourne. The purchase price would be around $40,000. The land would cost about $10,000 and the cost of construction would be about $30,000. The family could borrow from a building society at about 1 1 .5 per cent for a period of 25 years, with repayments equal to 25 per cent of income, or $25,200. The additional borrowing available as a result of Labor’s policy would enable the home seeker, because of the guaranteed provision of $3,000, to borrow another $9,750 approximately. Thus total borrowing power would amount to $34,950 and a deposit of some $5,050 instead of the normal figure of some $15,000 would be needed. Repayments would amount to about $3,100 in the first year, $3,400 in the second year, $3,700 in the third year and $4,000 in the fourth year. That would be possible with the assistance of the subsidy provided by a Labor government. At no time would borrowings exceed 25 per cent of the home seeker’s income.

Unless such a scheme is available it will become simply impossible for 9 out of 10 young people to get their foot on the first rung of the home ownership ladder. The median price of housing is, in Sydney, $58,000, in Melbourne $47,000, in Brisbane $33,000, in Adelaide $32,000, in Perth $41,000 and in Canberra $37,000. I repeat, in the absence of such a scheme more and more families will be disqualified from ever owning a home. Additionally, this Government is moving money away from the private sector and abandoning it to free market forces. In other words, it is assisting the wealthy to obtain homes.

Our second thrust will be in the direction of public housing. Our third will be the formation of the Australian Housing Corporation. One of the important aspects of such a corporation is a second mortgage interest scheme, under which we will be able to make money available but not at an astronomically high interest rate. The rate will be similar to that for a normal loan obtained through a bank or building society. Moreover, the second mortgage would be repayable over the life of the principal loan and not over the short term. We have discussed the matter with banks and building societies and in every way our homes savings grants proposal is being accepted by those organisations. There has been no criticism of it within the housing and finance industries. What other opposition or government has placed its housing program before the people some nine months before an election so that it can be examined and understood, so that people can be given an opportunity to know what Labor is doing? It is not presented as a gimmick three or four weeks before an election. I repeat, Labor has placed before the people of Australia, nine months in advance, its comprehensive housing policy, so that they may examine and understand it.

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

Mr CADMAN:
Mitchell

– I move, in respect of the motion before the House:

That all words after ‘That’ (first occurring) be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

having regard to the long-term requirements for housing, this House commends Government action to contain inflation and interest rates and stabilise the housing industry:

positive policies should be continued to assist home buyers and home renters as a prerequisite to advancing the Australian way of life; and

above all, Government policies should continue to observe equity and fairness and not be subject to a multitude of penalties as proposed by the Australian Labor Party.’

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Bourchier:

– I will second the amendment.

Mr CADMAN:

– The basis of moving that amendment to the motion of the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) is a simple one. On our return to government at the end of 1977 the honourable member for Lilley, along with many of us, expressed concern about the direction of the housing industry and, particularly, about the ability of families to purchase homes. He has moved this motion as a way of drawing the attention of the House to some of the deficiencies in the system which existed at that time. Through positive decisions of government and the advocacy of a number of honourable members on this side of the House, including the honourable member for Lilley, government policy has been successful in stabilising the housing industry and containing inflation and interest rates. I think under those circumstances it is quite understandable that the honourable member for Lilley accepts what has been achieved by the Government, supports it and now goes on to look at other matters which are important to the housing industry in Australia today.

First of all, I draw the attention of the House to some of the factors which are relevant to the cost of housing and which affect home buyers and to the areas in which the Government has been successful in achieving an equitable scheme and an equitable management of the economy to assist home buyers. I remind honourable members of the days in 1974 and 1975 when wages were increasing by 23 per cent per annum and when the cost of building materials was increasing by something over 30 per cent per annum. These factors alone lent great instability to the building industry and made it almost impossible for people to purchase their homes. It was impossible for them to know the finished cost of their houses. It was nearly impossible for them to raise finance because the Treasurer of the day had an active policy of rapidly increasing interest rates. There is no doubt that the key factors in making homes available to a large section of our community are the capacity to raise a deposit, the capacity to meet commitments and the capacity to continue to make repayments. A great proportion of those repayments, of course, must be allocated to the repayment of interest.

The building industry in Australia today is stable. The Government has been successful in containing interest rates and inflation. It must continue to bear down on those two most important factors involved in the acquisition of homes to allow State housing authorities, as the providers of welfare housing, to achieve sensible and reasonable budgets instead of being constantly torpedoed by increasing costs brought about by the inability to manage the economy. In the report produced by the Housing Advisory Council at its meeting in March of this year, statistics were produced which indicated that according to the National Capital Account the average prices of housing, iti 1 974-75 terms and as a percentage of gross domestic product, have remained stable. For instance, the average price in 1974, in terms of the gross domestic product, was $61,254. That has risen over five years to $68,613. Wherever one looks for statistics in this regard, one finds that stability in the housing industry has been achieved by the present Government.

I think one must also recognise some of the initiatives taken by the Government in the housing area. A greatly increased proportion of housing funds has been devoted to welfare housing, with an increase of funds to the States- $ 100m in 1979-80 compared with $ 14m in 1978-79. Funds have been specifically directed to assist pensioners and Aboriginals. The pensioner proportion is $30m and for Aboriginals it is $20m. Never previously has action been taken by a Federal government to ensure that specific areas of need are catered for under housing agreements. An amendment of the Home Savings Grants Scheme has taken place to introduce a value limit which makes the program more cost effective. Doubtless, the House and the community are aware of the increase in funds in the last Budget. The contribution to the Home Savings Grants Scheme was increased from $20m to a massive $75m in the one year. That is a record of concern for the first home buyer. It is a record of concern whereby people who are least likely to achieve home ownership are assisted in a positive and helpful way.

The formation of the Housing Advisory Council and other bodies to advise government is starting to bear fruit. They are giving accurate and relevant advice to the Government to assist in the process of decision making. A private scheme has been adopted for the insurance of deposits. This scheme will free up the system and may slightly affect interest rates, but it will certainly help to increase the availability of funds. Needless to say, there are sufficient funds for the demand in the housing industry today if one looks at the position of private home buyers.

In the speech by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) some concerns were expressed about the position of first home buyers. Those concerns are shared by both sides of the House. The Government has under review, and is constantly reviewing, the appropriateness of the Home Savings Grants Scheme to see whether it meets the requirements of first home buyers. However, the honourable member for Reid and his Party have sought to introduce a new family home ownership scheme which, they say, is more substantial and more attractive than the Home Savings Grants Scheme. I disagree completely with the proposals that have been put forward by the Labor Party. I think that the honourable member for Lilley has clearly demonstrated their shortcomings and the inequitable and unfair approach that is being taken by the Labor Party in its family home ownership scheme. I draw the attention of the House once more to the factors related to the Labor Party’s scheme. For instance, a couple with no children and with a disposable income of $9,400 each will come within the scheme. A man and wife with six children and with a disposable income of $3,300 are out of the scheme.

Mr Howe:

– You are nit picking.

Mr CADMAN:

– Goodness gracious me! The Labor Party is denying access to housing to the people it claims to stand for. Let it wait until organisations such as Shelter, which are really interested in and concerned about the .welfare of individuals, their ability to achieve home ownership and their capacity to rent, understand this process by which the Labor Party says that a couple with a disposable income of $9,400 each is in the scheme but that the people whom the Labor Party’s policy says it stands for, and who are part of its family package- a man and a wife with six children with an income of $3,300 each- are out of the scheme. The same -thing applies to the home improvements scheme. Those people with additional funds, the people with two incomes, will gain advantage. The people the Labor Party should be seeking to assist in these circumstances are the single income families with children. Again, the twoincome family with a disposable income of $7,000 would be eligible for assistance under the home improvement scheme but a man and a wife with four children and a disposable income of $2,200 would not.

In the home ownership scheme designed by the Labor Party there are six distinct penalties which work against the well-being of families and those people on low fixed incomes. There are at least four penalties in the home improvement scheme. I think that this is a wonderful opportunity for honourable members opposite to take their policy to a back room, to look at it carefully, to rewrite it and then to tear it up. It is of no use to the very community which the Labor Party claims to stand for. I am disappointed that some of the ideas which tend to give support to the Government’s proposals with regard to the importance of home ownership have not been brought to fruition. Some of the concepts and some of the ideas are there, but the Labor Party has not been able to plan effectively a worthwhile program. I would think that the proposal that first home buyers receive a $3,000 grant paid over four years, provided that certain saving conditions can be fulfilled -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman)Order! It being two hours after the time fixed for the meeting of the House the debate on the motion is interrupted.

Motion ( by Mr Eric Robinson) proposed:

That the time for the discussion of notices, General Business, be extended until 12.4S p.m.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-We do not want to divide on this motion; we want to agree to it. However, will the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier) allow an Opposition member to speak when the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) concludes his speech? Unless we get that guarantee we will divide on this motion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Chair is not in a position to make a decision.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr CADMAN:

– I draw the attention of the House to the fact that payment of grants depends upon an applicant saving at least $3,000 over 12 months. How many families with children, with heavy commitments, with a mortgage, with payments that they cannot avoid such as hire purchase commitments for furniture, can manage to save this amount when they live in rented premises? These families want to own their own home but they have commitments. The bread winner of the family must have a car. He must make some sort of allocation for transport to get backwards and forwards to work. As I have said, many families already have hire purchase commitments on necessities such as furniture, refrigerators and washing machines. These are things that the average family needs. In those circumstances, I wonder how a family will be able to save at least- the proposal is for ‘at least’-$3,000 over a period of 12 months? I do not think that that is a sensible proposal if we are to encourage home ownership.

The Labor Party proposes a massively increased welfare sector through housing commission services and State welfare housing schemes. I can see that the Labor Party would have to do that because its program would force a fair proportion of the Australian community out of the home ownership area into the area in which it would be dependent on welfare housing. The people who will be forced out of a home ownership scheme will be the ones who are on single incomes, the ones who cannot save and the ones with large families. I do not think that the Labor Party wanted that sort of proposal. That was not its intention when it designed this scheme because the statement of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), when he introduced this proposal, and the statements of the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), made publicly and in this chamber, deny that attitude. However, the program does not meet the claims which they make for it.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– They should go back and have another think.

Mr CADMAN:

– The honourable member for Lilley suggests that it be redone. I also suggest that it be redone. The Labor Party’s cost estimates are way out. On the figures that I have it would seem that the Labor Party has underestimated significantly the cost of its program. The cost may be as much as $30m in the first year and $100m in year four. I think it is most significant to examine on a cost estimate basis the program’s effectiveness, its complicated nature, the way in which it will be delivered and the people to whom it denies access. Therefore I suggest to honourable members opposite that there is still time for them to take out their policy, tear it up and come back here with something that will work for the benefit of the Australian people.

Mr BOURCHIER:
Bendigo

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:

-Does the honourable member for Bendigo wish to exercise his right to second the amendment?

Mr BOURCHIER:

– Yes.

Motion (by Mr Howe) put:

That the honourable member for Batman be now heard.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr A. W. Jarman)

AYES: 32

NOES: 74

Majority…… 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Debate interrupted.

page 2504

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:

-! acknowledge and welcome a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Jim Cope.

Honourable members:

– Hear, hear!

page 2504

HOUSING INDUSTRY AND HOME OWNERSHIP

Debate resumed.

Mr BOURCHIER:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I have only one minute left, so there is not a great deal I can say. The only thing I wish to put is that the disgraceful exhibition by the Labor Party in the tactic it employed in this instance will not be forgotten by this side of the House. I can assure the Opposition of that. However, to get back to the point, in the very brief -

Mr Scholes:

– I raise a point of order Mr Deputy Speaker. The Standing Orders provide that a member cannot reflect on a decision of this House. The honourable member’s remarks were a reflection on a decision and the procedures of this House, and are therefore out of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I am afraid that I did not hear what the honourable member was saying. The level of noise in the chamber was very high.

Mr BOURCHIER:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, under the Labor Party housing proposal, Labor plans to re-introduce the age old scheme it tried to introduce when it was previously in government - the Australian Housing Corporation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The time allotted for precedence of General Business has expired. The honourable member for Bendigo will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be made an Order of the Day under General Business for the next day of sitting.

page 2504

ETHNIC COMMUNITY

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:

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

The failure of the Government to consult effectively with the ethnic community in the formulation of policy for the ethnic community.

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

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

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

-The main feature of Liberal Government policy has undoubtedly been -

Mr VINER:
Leader of the House · Stirling · LP

– I move:

In doing so, I invite the honourable member for Maribyrnong, pursuant to the arrangements for handling matters of public importance, when the House resumes after next week’s recess to put up the matter again. I am sure that my colleague the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee) will be very happy to debate it.

Mr Uren:

– I want to protest against this action.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is this a point of order?

Mr Uren:

– There has only been one matter of public importance this week.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is the honourable member making a point of order?

Mr Uren:

– I think it is about time that we in the Opposition -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The question is: That the business of the day be called on.

Mr Hurford:

– With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, because there is a lot of business on the Notice Paper and because I hope, in view of what has happened today, that in future the Leader of the House will allow matters of public importance, we will not call for a division on this occasion. However, we hope that this action will be responded to appropriately by the Government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2504

TASMANIA AGREEMENT (LAUNCESTON PRECISION TOOL ANNEXE) BILL 1980

Government Business, Notice No. 1, having

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the Government’s decision, announced in the 1979-80 Budget, to provide financial assistance to the State of Tasmania for the re-equipment of the Launceston Precision Tool Annexe. The Bill provides for assistance to Tasmania by way of loan of up to $343,000 for the acquisition of equipment essential to the viability of the operation of the Precision Tool Annexe. The proposal follows the Government’s consideration of the report by Sir Bede Callaghan of his Inquiry into the Structure of Industry and the Employment Situation in Tasmania and our decision to offer assistance to Tasmania for a number of projects.

The Precision Tool Annexe was established by the Commonwealth during the Second World War with the aim of assisting the war effort through the manufacture of precision jigs, gauges, dies and tools mainly required in the manufacture of aircraft. After the war, the Precision Tool Annexe was transferred to Tasmania and in recent years has operated under the control of the Tasmanian Transport Commission. Studies undertaken by the Commonwealth have indicated that the Precision Tool Annexe will have a continuing and valuable role as a provider of services to industry and through the manufacture of precision items. An increasing role is seen for the Annexe in supporting heavy industry in the fabrication and repair of equipment parts- for example, in mining and paper manufacture. The Annexe also has an important part to play in training apprentices.

The loan of $343,000 provided for in the Bill is for purchase of equipment, including certain machine tools to replace those now beyond economical repair, additional equipment for the electroplating section, new lathes and milling machines suitable for production work and apprentice training and computer facilities. The computer facilities will be used to improve accounting practices leading to more rapid estimating and costing of jobs. Ultimately, the computer facilities will also be used in the preparation and storage of programs for numerically controlled machine tools, of which four are presently in use. The Government believes that provision of this loan will assist in improving productivity at the Precision Tool Annexe. The upgrading of facilities will improve both the quality and quantity of its output and will bring benefits to manufacturers and heavy industry. It will also ensure that Tasmania has the nucleus for a precision engineering industry and thus better employment opportunities for skilled workers. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Blewett) adjourned.

page 2505

WESTERN AUSTRALIA AGREEMENT (ORD RIVER IRRIGATION) BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Western Australia Agreement (Ord River Irrigation) Act 1968 so that loan funds still available under the Act can also be used for handling and processing facilities for produce from the Ord River Irrigation Area. The proposed changes to the 1968 Agreement Act are relatively minor. The scope of Commonwealth assistance to the State for development of water resources in the Kimberley region will be broadened to include the construction of crop handling and processing facilities. Loan funds for these purposes will be provided on terms, conditions and rates of interest agreed to from time to time by the Minister for National Development and Energy and the State Treasurer.

It will be recalled that the report of the Commonwealth-State Ord River Irrigation Area Review Committee, under the independent chairmanship of Sir Norman Young, was tabled by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in the Parliament on 27 February 1979. Among other matters, it recommended that consideration be given to the use of funds still available under the Western Australia Agreement (Ord River Irrigation) Act 1968 for crop handling and processing facilities when justified by successful commercial farming. The Government accepted this recommendation. The State has now asked for assistance towards the cost of an additional 3,000-tonne capacity rice storage and associated installations to cope with the projected expansion of the industry following its commercial success over the past few seasons. The estimated cost of these installations is $718,000. This loan will be fully serviced by rice growers.

There were difficult times for Ord River farmers after the cessation of cotton-growing at the end of the 1973-74 season, following the build-up of resistance by insect pests to commercial insecticides. Numerous other crops were then tried which, on the basis of past research and experimental results, appeared to offer prospects for success. Rice growing has had a long research experience at the Ord, and a serious nutritional deficiency limiting yields was rectified some years ago. The Ord has a significant advantage over rice growing areas in southern New South Wales, in that two crops can be grown annually. Total yields of 10 to 12 tonnes of paddy rice per hectare are being achieved and varieties currently under test indicate the potential for further improving the performance of the industry. By courtesy of the Western Australian Government, honourable members will have an opportunity of sampling this quality long grain rice in the parliamentary dining room.

Other main commercial crops now being successfully grown are sunflowers, soybeans and sorghum. The first commercial crop of peanuts grown on sandy soil is approaching harvest. Crop forecasts for the current dry season are for 3,000 hectares of sunflowers, 1,000 hectares of sorghum, 550 hectares of rice and 1,500 hectares of other crops. Sugar-cane also is being grown with encouraging results at the Ord. A commercial-sized trial plantation of sugar-cane is now in its third year of operation, following an encouraging feasibility study by CSR Ltd in 1975, and yields from this plantation compare more than favourably with those from the best fully irrigated cane crops in Queensland.

The establishment of the Ord irrigation scheme was an ambitious attempt to establish large scale capital-intensive irrigated agriculture to utilise the vast quantity of an uncommitted water resource in tropical Australia. To some extent, it is also a pilot project in that its successes and failures have important implications for water and associated land resources in many other regions in the north. The economic and social disadvantages inherent in the remoteness of the Ord from markets and sources of supply must be balanced by the advantages of a farming system which permits the full utilisation of a 12-month growing season, and abundant water resources and radiant energy. Recent results at the Ord appear to indicate that such a system is gradually evolving. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Blewett) adjourned.

page 2506

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

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

That, during the consideration of the matter referred to the Committee of Privileges on 23 April 1 980, Mr Scholes be discharged from attendance on the Committee and Mr Holding be appointed to serve in his place.

page 2506

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF

Mr THOMSON:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Leichhardt · NCP/NP

– In answer to a question by the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) this morning I stated that the environment protection Act could be invoked to protect the Great Barrier Reef. I would like to add to the answer that I gave. This statement is true in relation to decisions taken by or on behalf of the Commonwealth.

Sitting suspended from 12.59 to 2.15 p.m.

page 2506

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1980

Bill presented by Mr Eric Robinson, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The major purpose of this Bill is to give effect to four important taxation proposals announced in the 1979-80 Budget Speech. Important for the tourist industry is a scheme of tax deductions for depreciation of new buildings for the accommodation of travellers. Important in the context of the need to conserve scarce energy resources are measures to ease the cost of converting or replacing oil-fired equipment. The imposition of a maximum of $ 1 8,000 as the basis of depreciation allowances for cars and station wagons costing more than that is also to be provided by the Bill. The remaining Budget measure will provide a means of taxing lessees of cars and station wagons on profits made on disposal of these vehicles. The personal tax reliefs announced on 6 March 1980 are also contained in this Bill and in the related Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980 that I will introduce shortly. Other amendments in the Bill will give effect to the statement by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) oh 19 August 1979 that a disposal of plant during the first 12 months of its use- when made within public company groups- will not, in denned circumstances, cause the vendor company to lose its entitlement to the investment allowance. As foreshadowed, some technical deficiencies in the relevant provisions are also being remedied. There are also one or two other items in the Bill. I will speak about these later but first I will give the House an account of the major subjects of the Bill.

Buildings for Traveller Accommodation

Following the announcement of this initiative in the 1979-80 Budget Speech, the Treasurer issued a very detailed statement about it on 23 December 1979. Except for some variations of the scheme to meet representations that have been made, the amendments proposed by the Bill are in accordance with the Treasurer’s statement. I will therefore confine myself to key points. The new allowance will authorise fixed annual deductions of 2lA per cent of the construction cost of new buildings used in Australia to produce income by providing short term accommodation for travellers. Eligible buildings will comprise hotels,’ motels, guest houses and apartment buildings, the construction of which started after 21 August 1979. To be eligible, a hotel, motel or guest house must contain at least 10 bedrooms wholly or principally to accommodate travellers. An apartment building must contain at least 10 apartments, flats or units available wholly or principally for short term accommodation. The allowance will also apply to some extensions or alterations to buildings if the extensions or alterations are started after 21 August 1979. For this work to be eligible the building, as extended or altered, must be a hotel, motel or guest house that contains at least 10 bedrooms for travellers or an apartment building that comprises at least 10 apartments, fiats or units for short term use by travellers.

It is desirable to note two changes that, as a result of representations received since then, have been made to the plan the Treasurer announced on 23 December. The Treasurer indicated then that apartments, units or flats would be eligible for the new allowance only if the whole building consists of traveller accommodation units and associated facilities. On the other hand, he stated that if a building comprises a hotel and, say, a major shopping centre, so much of the cost of the building as is referable to the hotel would qualify for the new allowance. The government has now decided that this should apply also to buildings that include apartments, units or flats. Accordingly, where such a building consists of apartments, units or flats as well as shops, provision is to be made for the cost of the accommodation part of the building to be eligible for the proposed deductions.

The second change in the announced plan concerns the ownership of buildings that include apartments, units or flats. It had been indicated that buildings in this category would qualify only if the entire building is owned or leased by the taxpayer claiming the allowance. It has been decided to ease this requirement. This is being done in recognition of the fact that, in order to facilitate financing, such buildings may be owned by more than one person, for example, through separate strata titles. At the same time, the Government considers that it ought not to depart from the basic ‘ 10 unit’ test for the allowance. Accordingly, where there is more than one owner of a building containing apartments, units or flats for traveller accommodation, the allowance will be limited to taxpayers who own or lease at least 10 such suites in the building. While the Government accepts that this extension can be fitted within the scope of the scheme, I must say that it has added significantly to the complexity and length of the legislation.

In general, entitlement to the allowance will first vest in the owner of a building who uses it for purposes of producing assessable income and who incurs the cost of constructing or extending the building. The deduction will continue to be available in subsequent years, as long as the building continues to be used wholly or principally for the accommodation of travellers. Entitlement to the allowance will generally follow the ownership of the building over the 40-year period and balancing adjustments will not be made where a building is sold for an amount greater or less than its written down value for tax purposes at the time of the sale. Where a person constructs a building on leasehold land, or otherwise incurs building costs as a lessee, that person will, subject to other requirements being met, qualify for the allowance while remaining the lessee. If the lease is assigned, entitlement to the deduction will pass to the assignee. If the lease terminates, any residual entitlement will pass to the owner to whom the building reverts.

Although there are to be no balancing adjustments on sale of an eligible building, such adjustments will be available when a building is destroyed. In this case, the owner or lessee will be allowed a deduction where the written down value or undeducted cost of the building exceeds the amount of any salvage or insurance recoveries accruing as a result of the destruction. Deductions are, of course, to be available only where an eligible building is used for the production of assessable income. It follows that if a tax-exempt body incurs construction costs on a building that it owns a deduction will not be available to the body. Moreover, there is to be a safeguard against tax exempt bodies attempting to benefit from the allowance under arrangements made after today that seek to confer entitlement to deductions on a taxable entity on terms ensuring that a substantial part of the resulting tax benefit is to be enjoyed by the exempt body. I turn now to another subject.

Converting or Replacing Oil-fired Plant

The Bill implements the proposal to provide special concessions to encourage the conversion or replacement of certain oil-fired business plant so that alternative energy sources will be used. The Treasurer gave comprehensive details of these concessions in a statement issued on 12 December 1 979 and in this introductory speech I will be relatively brief. The amendments to give effect to this proposal also take into account the liquefied petroleum gas taxation initiative announced by the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick), on 8 April 1980. That announcement varied the earlier statement by the Treasurer insofar as conversions or replacements involve LPG-powered plant.

The incentives take two forms. Where existing plant is converted, the cost of the conversion will be fully deductible in the year in which it is incurred. Where existing plant is replaced, the cost of the replacement plant is to qualify for a 40 per cent conversion allowance in addition to normal depreciation allowances. The conversion allowance, which I think all will acknowledge is a generous incentive, will be available in the year in which the replacement plant is first used or installed ready for use and held in reserve. It will take the place of any 20 per cent investment allowance that might otherwise have applied. To qualify for either concession, the converted or replacement plant must be for use by an end userwho might be the owner or a lessee- wholly and exclusively in Australia and wholly and exclusively for the purpose of producing assessable income. Oil-fired plant being replaced or converted to other appropriate energy sources must have been in use in Australia and in the production of assessable income on the particular premises as at 21 August 1979, or be equipment for such use that an owner had by that date contracted to acquire or started to construct.

The concessions will be available in respect of both new and secondhand plant and there will be no qualifying monetary limit as there is for the investment allowance, lt will not be relevant that the converted or replacement plant is of greater capacity than the plant that is being replaced or converted. Nor will the concessions be forfeited if the replaced plant is retained in an operational condition as back up or booster plant, or where it would be uneconomic to remove it. The concessions will also be available in respect of the cost of converting or replacing ancillary plant that is used primarily and directly in association with the main plant. The concessions will not be available in respect of mobile plant or installations associated with such plant. Thus road vehicles, ships, earthmoving equipment and forklift trucks will not be within the scope of the new concessions.

Like the investment allowance, the 40 per cent conversion allowance will be available in respect of leased plant. The primary entitlement to the allowance will rest with the owner- the leasing company- which be able to transfer all or part of the allowance to the lessee-user. Conversion costs that are deductible to a leasing company will, however, not be transferable to a lessee. I will not detain the House with a lengthy account of the various tests of a timing character. They are fully explained in the explanatory memorandum and it is enough to observe here that the concessions will apply to conversion or replacement, after Budget day but before 1 July 1984, of plant held or contracted for at Budget day. Expressed very broadly, conversions or replacements from oil-fired plant to LPG-fired plant made after Budget day and on or before 8 April 1980- but not after- will qualify. Correspondingly, conversions or replacements from LPG use after 8 April 1 980 will be eligible. $18,000 Depreciation Limit

Under this 1 979-80 Budget proposal there is to be a limit on the cost base for calculating depreciation allowances on new and secondhand cars and station-wagons, including those that have four-wheel-drive. Such vehicles leased out by the owners or used to provide general services to the public will be included in the limitation. A limit of $18,000 is to apply in respect of the 1979-80 income year while the limit for future years will be indexed by movements in the motor vehicle purchase sub-group of the consumer price index. The movement to the end of the March 1980 quarter, for example, will provide the basis for the 1980-81 limit. The limit fixed for a particular year will be applicable to a vehicle for the whole of the period of its ownership by a person. On its sale to another person the then ruling limit will become applicable, again for all of the years that the new owner uses it and seeks depreciation allowances.

Honourable members will recall that there have been some transitional modifications of the original proposal that the $18,000 limit was to apply to vehicles acquired under contracts entered into after 21 August 1979. These modifications were announced by the Treasurer on 16 October 1979 and mean that vehicles that dealers and importers had on hand at, or had ordered by, 21 August 1979 may be excluded from the depreciation limit. I should stress that these transitional arrangements will apply only in respect of the first owner-user of a vehicle covered by the transitional arrangements. Any subsequent owner-user of that vehicle will be subject to the limit that applies for the year in which he or she acquires and first uses the vehicle.

As reflected in the terms of the Bill, this will mean that the $18,000 limit will apply to a vehicle ordered by a taxpayer after 2 1 August 1979 unless the vehicle was on hand as trading stock of a dealer or importer at that date or was part of a firm order placed by such a person as at that date. For cars and station-wagons that are leased, the limit will apply to the owner-lessor of the vehicle and, of course, will affect lessors regardless of the particular method they use to draw up their accounts. Because of this adjustment to a lessor’s depreciation allowances, there will be no restriction on a lessee’s deduction for lease rentals. Before leaving this proposal I should mention that the Government has received further representations seeking either its complete withdrawal or its further modification. However the Government remains convinced that there is sound justification for the limit.

Assessibilty of Profits on Sale of Leased Vehicles

The remaining 1 979-80 Budget announcement dealt with in the Bill is the proposed amendment to ensure that, where a car or station-wagon has been held under a lease agreement and the charges payable under the agreement have been allowable as income tax deductions, any profit made by the lessee through an acquisition and subsequent sale of the vehicle will bear tax to an appropriate extent. Provisions incorporated in the Bill for this purpose will apply to any profits on disposals of cars or station-wagons, including four-wheel-drive vehicles, acquired from lessors after 2 1 August 1979. So that the intended effects of the provisions may not be circumvented, they are not to be limited to profits made by lessees only. They will necessarily extend also to a profit made on disposal of a vehicle by a relative or other associate of its lessee. Other safeguards against attempts to avoid the intended effects have also been included. Under the new provisions, profit arising from the purchase and later disposal of a vehicle by a lessee or an associate is to be included in the assessable income of the person deriving the profit, to the extent to which it is not otherwise taxable in the hands of that person. The amount to be so assessed is, however, not to exceed an amount calculated to represent depreciation of the vehicle during the period it was under lease. There are also, I might add, provisions of an anti-avoidance nature dealing with a series of disposals of a vehicle.

Concessional Rebates

I turn now to non-Budget measures contained in the Bill. It seems appropriate that I speak first about the substantial increases in concessional rebates that were announced by the Treasurer on 6 March 1980 and which will have effect from the commencement of the 1 980-8 1 income year. The maximum rebate for a dependent spouse, a daughter housekeeper and a housekeeper will be increased from $597 to $800. The rebate for a parent will rise from $539 to $722. Maintenance of an invalid relative will attract a maximum rebate of $362 rather than $270 and the sole parent rebate will be enlarged from $417 to $559. Notional rebates for children under the zone allowance provisions will be increased by an equivalent percentage. The level of separate net income that a dependant may earn before the relevant maximum rebate is reduced will also be increased from $203 to $272.

As indicated by the Treasurer when he announced them, these increases are greater than would have resulted from indexation and are a response to what the Government believes to be a relative disadvantage of single income families- particularly those on low incomesunder present taxation arrangements. The increased rebates will be reflected, together with the tax reductions resulting from indexation of the rates scale, in reduced pay-as-you-earn deductions made from salaries and wages from 1 July 1980.

Investment Allowance

On 19 August 1979 the Treasurer foreshadowed amendments to the investment allowance provisions. Under the present law, the investment allowance is automatically forfeited if, within 12 months of the first use of plant, the plant is disposed of or another person is granted a right to use it. The Government considers that, although this rule is necessary as a safeguarding measure, it should not operate to inhibit the reorganisation of public company groups for genuine business reasons. Accordingly, the Bill modifies the ‘ 12 months’ rule in the way outlined in the Treasurer’s statement.

The Treasurer’s statement also foreshadowed amendments to remedy some technical deficiencies in the rules for withdrawal of the investment allowance where plant is disposed of after being leased or where the lessee permits another person to use it. The Bill contains these amendments.

Gifts

An amendment to the gift provisions will authorise deductions for donations of $2 or more to the Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. This body has been set up in Australia to take over the functions of the Australian Regional Council of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, donations to which have been tax deductible since 1956.

Royalties

Finally, the Bill deals briefly with the matter of royalties derived from sources in Australia by residents of other countries. The recent Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1980 contained measures arising from a court decision and, in part, amended the definition of ‘royalty’ so that it will include not only designated payments but also amounts credited but not actually paid over. Those amendments shoud have correspondingly changed the provisions that set out when royalties have a source in Australia but they omitted to take that further step. This purely technical deficiency is now being overcome, with effect from today. I have spoken at some length about a number of matters that are of considerable complexity. Honourable members who want to do so will be able to find a more extensive explanation of the various measures in the explanatory memorandum that is being circulated. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Innes) adjourned.

page 2510

INCOME TAX (RATES) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1980

Bill presented by Mr Eric Robinson, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I move:

This Bill, which amends the Income Tax (Rates) Act 1 976, will provide for the indexation of the personal tax rate scale that is to apply for 1980-81. As already announced, there will be half, rather than full, indexation. The resulting reduction in tax, in addition to any reduction that a taxpayer will enjoy from the associated increases in rebates for dependants, will be reflected in pay-as-you-earn deductions from 1 July next. As also foreshadowed by the Treasurer (Mr Howard), the Bill will add to the matters to which the Governor-General is to have regard in making regulations prescribing an indexation factor for 1980-81, or a later year. The further matters are the effects on the consumer price index of the health insurance changes that were announced on 24 May 1979 and of Government decisions for import parity pricing of crude oil. The indexation factor for 1 980-8 1 will be available shortly.

An effect of the indexation proposed by the Bill will be that the marginal rates of tax in the standard scale will become payable at higher income levels than at present. Indexation does not change the tax rates themselves. These will remain at 32 per cent on income above the minimum taxable amount, 46 per cent on the next step, and 60 per cent as the top marginal rate. What indexation does mean is that a part of taxable income that otherwise would have been taxed at 32 per cent will from 1 July fall into the zero rated step, that is, the minimum taxable income will be increased. Similarly, parts of taxable income that would have been taxed at the 46 per cent or the 60 per cent rate will instead be taxed at the 32 per cent or the 46 per cent rate respectively. The important thing is that all individual taxpayers will benefit from the tax reductions proposed by these amendments. Details of the provisions of the Bill are contained in an explanatory memorandum being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Innes) adjourned.

page 2510

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1980

Bill presented by Mr Eric Robinson, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I move:

This Bill follows the announcement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) of 14 April 1980 of measures to assist primary producers in improvement of water supplies. It will amend the income tax law to provide immediate deductibility for capital expenditures incurred by primary producers on plant or structural improvements in order to conserve or convey water for use in a business of primary production. Under the present law, these expenditures- when made on plant on which depreciation allowances are available- are deductible as depreciation allowances over the estimated life of the plant; otherwise, they are deductible over a period of 10 years. By providing for a much more rapid write-off for tax purposes, the Government is seeking to encourage primary producers to increase their capacity to withstand drought.

Under the terms of the Bill, full deductibility in the year of incurrence will be available in respect of capital expenditure incurred by a primary producer on plant or structural improvements, for conserving or conveying water for use in carrying on the business of primary production. This includes expenditure on dams, earth tanks, underground tanks, aboveground tanks, tank stands, bores, wells, irrigation channels, pipes, pumps and windmills. If any item is also for use for domestic purposes then only the part of the cost that relates to business use will be deductible. This, of course, is also the case with depreciation allowances. Capital expenditures will qualify for immediate deductibility where they are incurred on or after 14 April 1980 under a contract entered into on or after that date or, if incurred on an item constructed by the taxpayer, construction started on or after that date.

Expenditure on plant or structural improvements for conserving or conveying water that, under the present law, attracts the 20 per cent investment allowance will continue to do so. Also, the measures proposed by the Bill will not affect any entitlement that a primary producer has to the 40 per cent allowance for energy conversion, for example, where a petrol-fuelled pump is replaced by an electric pump. In these circumstances, of course, the conversion allowance takes the place on the investment allowance that would otherwise be available. Full details of technical aspects of the Bill, including measures of a familiar kind against any unintended exploitation of the new deduction, are contained in an explanatory memorandum that will be circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Innes) adjourned.

page 2511

NORTHERN TERRITORY (COMMONWEALTH LANDS) BILL 1980

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 the Bill is to confirm the validity of notifications of the acquisition of lands by the Commonwealth in the Northern Territory, under section 70 of the Northern Territory (SelfGovernment) Act 1978 and gazetted in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. SI 16 on 29 June 1978. The chief provisions of the Bill are:

  1. Clause 3(1) is designed to put beyond any doubt as a matter of law the validity of all the notices of acquisition made under section 70 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 which were gazetted on 29 June 1978.
  2. Clause 3 (2) is to correct a notice of acquisition in the Gazette on 29 June 1978. The notice related to land for the Ulura National Park and included a description of land which was already vested in the Director of National Parks and Wildlife.
  3. Clause 3(3) relates the application of clauses 3(1) and 3 (2 ) to the notifications in the Gazette on 29 June 1978.

On the commencing day of self-government in the Northern Territory, that is on 1 July 1 978, all the Commonwealth’s fee simple interests in land in the Northern Territory were vested in the Northern Territory of Australia. The machinery for the Commonwealth to retain land it required for its own purposes included the provision under the Northern Territory (SelfGovernment) Act 1978, for the Commonwealth to acquire such transferred land back from the Territory either prior to commencing day, or for a period of twelve months following that date. In accordance with that Act the Commonwealth acquired some parcels of land by publishing a notice of acquisition in the Gazette on 29 June 1978. Since then questions have been raised in relation to the technical validity of the acquisitions, based on whether the notifications in the

Gazette of 29 June 1978 fully met the requirements of the Northern Territory (SelfGovernment) Act 1 978.

Honourable members will appreciate the problems this would cause the Commonwealth when I mention that those lands acquired included lands for defence purposes such as Darwin airport, Pine Gap and other defence facilities in the Territory. It also included land for transport purposes, for example Alice Springs and other airports. As well land was acquired for the Uluru and Kakadu National Parks. Honourable members will be aware that this latter acquisition has already been the subject of some dispute between the Northern Territory and Commonwealth governments and includes the area for the Jabiru township, which services the Ranger uranium activities in the Northern Territory.

Whilst it is possible that particular difficulties between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory may be capable of resolution by understandings between governments, any such understandings would not bind third parties which might seek to use the legal issues to obstruct the policies and activities of both governments. As well, honourable members should be aware that these legal issues could have an affect on other areas and any undertakings between governments would not ensure, for example, that the Airports (Business Concessions) Act would still apply to areas such as Darwin and Alice Springs airports or that other Commonwealth legislation would apply to defence lands. The Government has therefore decided that it is appropriate, in fact essential, that legislation be passed to validate the acquisitions of 29 June 1 978. 1 commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Innes) adjourned.

page 2512

PATENTS AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Productivity · Bass · LP

– I move:

This Bill is concerned primarily with procedures by which a patent may be obtained for an invention, rather than with the nature of patent protection. Honourable members on reading the Bill will no doubt find, as I have found, that the procedures are technical and sometimes complex. However, the principles behind these procedures are basic to any scheme of industrial property protection. The Government seeks by the patent system to encourage research and development and to provide a more conducive climate for innovation in Australian industry, and these fundamental principles and procedures cannot be lightly passed over.

The main purpose of a patent system, of course, is to stimulate industrial invention and innovation by granting limited monopoly rights to inventors and by increasing the public availability of technical information by way of patent literature. The procedures supporting the patent system should directly support these objectives. But it must always be remembered, where both monopolies and the provision of information are concerned, that third parries, competitors in industry and the community at large have rights and interests to protect. These must be given proper consideration along with those of inventors.

In particular, we cannot afford to forget that in Australia a large proportion of patent applications come from overseas, and the competitors in industry with interests to protect include Australian companies. The procedures involved in granting patents, therefore, must always be designed to achieve a proper balance between these interests, and at the same time must be administratively workable. These factors will certainly be considered by the Industrial Property Advisory Committee, which has been given the task of a comprehensive review of the Australian patent system. Administrative procedures, legislation, provision of information and international aspects of the system, and how these impinge on the effectiveness of the patent system in encouraging the adoption of new technology, all fall within the broad terms of reference of that review.

Returning to the Bill, it will be seen that its provisions are particularly concerned with the time limits within which certain actions must be undertaken during the prosecution of a patent application before the Patent Office. It is not hard to see why time limits are provided for in the Patents Act. Their primary purpose is to enable competitors in industry to carry on their affairs with some certainty as to whether they are impinging on someone else ‘s patent rights. Without time limits, no one could ever be sure of whether a patent would eventually be granted or refused, or what its priority date might be. If there is a set time limit, however, and a third party knows it has not been complied with in a particular case, he can base his actions on the sure knowledge that the applicant has forgone his rights.

This does not mean that time limits should be absolutely inviolate. There are a number of time limits laid down in the Patents Act which are very significant, since an applicant who fails to observe them may incur a penalty involving the loss of anything up to all of his potential rights to a patent. Therefore, it has been recognised in the past that it would be unfair arbitrarily to deprive a patent applicant of rights on purely technical grounds for failure to observe time limits, particularly where the failure was due to factors beyond the applicant’s control. Thus, there are provisions already in the Patents Act which allow the Commissioner of Patents under certain conditions to extend the times laid down for doing things under the Act. The most important of these is section 160, which allows for extensions of time where there are circumstances beyond the control of the person concerned, or where there is an error or omission on the part of the person concerned or of his agent or attorney.

The background to this Bill is simply that the wording of section 160 has proved to be inadequate to provide relief in the situations where it is needed. The approach of the Patent Office for some 17 years was based on the view that the purpose of section 160 was generally to overcome procedural difficulties with time limits in cases where the applicant had genuinely intended to proceed with his application, but something had gone wrong. Therefore, it was the long-standing practice of the Patent Office to grant section 160 extensions of time liberally, applying them to a wide variety of times in procedures under the Patents Act. Recently, however, there have been several challenges to this liberal approach with the result that imperfections in the operation of section 160 have become apparent.

It is important, in order to understand the Bill, to know something about the uses of section 1 60 in practice, and I propose to outline them briefly. By far the most common and important usages have been in relation to four particular procedures and time limits under the Patents Act. The first of these is in relation to the time limit for sealing a patent under section 66. Sealing is the formality by which a patent is finally granted after passing through the stages of examination in the Patent Office and of any opposition by competitors of the applicant. In fact this usage of section 160 raises no problems here, since it is explicitly provided in section 66 that section 160 extensions may be sought. I mention it simply as part of the background to the Bill.

A second usage of section 160 is in relation to the time within which a patent application may be accepted by the Commissioner. Acceptance marks the stage at which the Commissioner announces his satisfaction with an application, and it is then open to third parties to oppose the granting of a patent. The time limit for achieving acceptance is laid down by section 54, but it is important to note that there is no explicit provision that section 160 can extend the time. The past practice of using section 1 60 to extend the acceptance period was based on the general wording of section 160 itself.

A third usage is in relation to what I will call the ‘convention period’. The procedures for convention applications derive from the terms of an international convention known as the Paris Convention. Under this Convention, if an applicant for a patent in one of the member countries applies in another member country for a patent for the same invention within 12 months of the earlier application, the application retains a priority date corresponding to the earlier application date. The priority date is extremely important, since it is the date at which it must be determined whether an invention is new, and therefore whether it may be patented. The convention period is set down in sections 141 and 142. There is no express provision that section 160 can apply to extend the period. Past usage was based on the general wording of section 1 60.

The fourth common usage of section 160 has been to extend the 12-month period for lodging what is known as a complete-after-provisional specification. It arises where an applicant chooses to lodge a provisional specification when the patent application is first lodged. The idea of a provisional specification is that, whilst it must describe the invention, the description need not be in the fullest detail. After lodging a provisional specification, the applicant must within 12 months lodge a complete specification, giving a full description of the invention, if he is to retain a priority date corresponding to the filing date of the provisional specification. The period for lodging a complete-after-provisional specification is set down in section 41. As with the acceptance period and the convention period, there is no express provision that section 160 can operate to extend the completeafterprovisional period.

These, then, have been the common extensions of time granted in practice in the past. In December 1978, however, a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal held, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the use of section 160 in relation to the period for acceptance in section 54 was invalid.

Then, in early 1979, the Deputy Commissioner of Patents, in a hearing in relation to a patent application, was asked to decide whether or not section 160 could be used to extend the Convention period. In deciding that it could not, the Deputy Commissioner was following advice received from the Attorney-General’s Department. No challenge has been made to extensions of the complete-after-provisional period. However, there is at least some doubt as to the validity of these extensions, since there is some similarity to the acceptance period, which was held to be unable to be extended. The effects of these two decisions, the correctness of which was subsequently confirmed by the AttorneyGeneral’s Department, are very serious.

The first effect is that the Commissioner is now precluded from granting any extensions of the Convention period or of the acceptance period. The seriousness of this became apparent in mid- 1979 when an industrial dispute at the Redfern Mail Exchange caused a large number of documents concerning patent applications to be delayed in transit. These included a number of Convention applications which, as a consequence of the mail disruption, failed to be lodged within the Convention period. A delay caused by an industrial dispute thus caused a number of patent applicants to lose the priority rights which they otherwise would have had, and thereby jeopardised their potential rights to patents for their inventions. A straight-forward extension of time procedure would have obviated this problem.

Similar types of delay occurring during processing of an application can cause even more deleterious consequences for an applicant, if the effect of the delay is that the time for acceptance of the application has passed. In this case the application lapses and, without a statutory provision for an extension of time, a patent is irretrievably precluded from being granted. The applicants who suffer have done no more than rely on the postal system to deliver their letters in the usual time, and at present there is no remedy or possibility for any mitigation of their loss of rights. These losses, whilst they flow from legal interpretations of the wording of the Patents Act, are quite arbitrary within the philosophy of the Act, which is generally to encourage the granting of patents, always provided that third parties’ rights are protected.

The Government decided therefore that remedial legislation was necessary, and provisions of the Bill ensure that extensions of time are available in appropriate circumstances. These provisions are intended to deal specifically with the acceptance period, the Convention period, and the lodgment of complete-after-provisional specifications, so that the availability of extensions of time will for the future be put beyond doubt in these cases. Additionally, the Bill contains a catch-all provision to cope generally with late lodgment of any documents where the lateness is attributable to postal delays.

However, before going into these provisions in more detail, I wish first to explain another problem which arises from the recent findings that some extensions granted in the past were invalid. Legal advice from the Attorney-General’s Department is that a patent which was granted after an invalid extension of the acceptance period is itself invalid. This is because the acceptance period had expired, and the expiry could not be overcome by an invalid extension. Therefore, the application, as a matter of law, had lapsed, and a patent cannot validly be granted on a lapsed application. Similarly, in the case of a purported extension of the Convention period, the consequence of the invalidity of the extension is that the Convention priority date will be lost.

These consequences are certainly very serious. It must be remembered that all parties were acting in good faith, with no challenge having been made to the correctness of the extensions during the 17 years before the end of 1978. The Bill therefore includes provisions in sub-clause 21 ( 1 ), retrospectively validating extensions of time purported to have been granted in the past and which now are held, or might be held, to be invalid. All consequences flowing from the extensions, such as patents subsequently granted and Convention priority dates, are also validated. This restores the position which all parties had apparently been content to rely on prior to the recent change in interpretation.

Certain difficulties stem from the validation provisions, and I feel that they are sufficiently important for me to go into some explanation of them here. They occur because of possible disadvantages to third parties. The Bill, in fact, makes provision for two types of cases in which a person may be adversely affected by the validation provision in sub-clause 21 ( 1 ).

The first of these arises because, in the eyes of the law, third parties may as a result of the validation be deprived of property rights. I should perhaps point out that they may never in the past have been aware that they possessed those rights, and they may never have suspected the invalidity of any extension of time granted in respect of a patent application. However, that does not affect the legal position.

An example of the type of property which might be involved would be where a person had entered into business commitments in relation to an invention. He may also have acquired goodwill in setting up a business, for example to sell the invention. These assets may legally constitute a form of ‘property’. If that invention was the subject of a patent which turned out to be invalid, the property rights arising from the business commitments and the goodwill would properly belong to the person of whom I am speaking, since there can be no such thing as an infringement of an invalid patent. If, however, the patent is now retrospectively validated, that person will lose his property rights in the invention since they will retrospectively be given to the patentee. Of course, both the patentee and the other person may never have had any reason to believe that the patent was invalid, but that does not affect the legal position as to who the property belongs to.

The opinion of the Attorney-General’s Department is that property losses such as these would constitute an ‘acquisition’ of property in the terms of paragraph 5 1 (xxxi) of the Constitution. What this means is that because of paragraph 5 1 (xxxi), the validation provisions in this Bill would fail for Constitutional reasons if the Bill did not also provide for compensation on just terms for the person from whom the property has been legally ‘acquired’. Therefore provision is made in sub-clause 22 ( 1 ) of the Bill for compensation of such third parties by a person whose patent is validated by the Bill.

The ‘acquisition’ of property here would not, of course, be for the benefit of the Commonwealth. Rather, the acquisition from third parties which arises from the Bill’s retrospective validation would be for the benefit of the owner of the validated patent. However, this does not affect the Constitutional need to provide for compensation on just terms. It is therefore considered appropriate that the compensation be provided by the patentee who benefits from the validation, and clause 22 has been drafted to give effect to this. Clause 22 does not involve any expenditure of public funds for compensation.

It cannot be forseen whether any cases requiring compensation will in fact arise as a result of the validation provision. It would seem likely that the existence of the compensation provisions in clause 22 would create a good ground for negotiation between the parties if such a case did arise, and the most likely outcome of that negotiation would be expected to be a licence to use the patented invention on terms agreeable to both parties. In the event that the parties did not agree, there would be recourse to the Courts under clause 22.

I have gone into the validation and compensation provisions at some length because I believe that they would prove rather difficult for anyone who was not an expert in property and constitutional law. However, as I have said, they are not the only protection provided for affected third parties.

The other type of case which I mentioned earlier, and which involves adverse effects caused by the validation provisions, arises because there may be people who have actually acted on the view that a patent was invalid because of an invalid extension of time. There may turn out to be some cases in which this view was held before the recent change in practice although, as I have said, no open challenge has been made in the 17 years before the practice was overturned. However, since the changed practice, there is a stronger possibility that a person may have acted in reliance on a patent’s being invalid for this reason.

Had such a person been sued for infringement of the patent, the invalidity of the patent would, of course, have provided him with a defence. However, the retrospective validation provision in sub-clause 21(1) would deprive him of this defence even though he had based his actions on it.

Therefore sub-clause 21 (2) provides immunity from infringement proceedings for such a person. To obtain this protection a person would have to satisfy the court that he acted on the view that the patent was invalid by reason of an invalid extension of time under section 160. Infringers who did not suspect invalidity of the patent for this reason would still be liable in an infringement action in respect of a patent validated by sub-clause 21(1) as if the patent had never been invalid.

Having outlined the provisions of the Bill in a general way, the detail of the procedures in the provisions need not be given an encyclopaedic explanation now. However, there are certain very important features of some of the clauses which I would like to explain in a little more detail.

I mentioned earlier that there is a catch-all provision to cope with delays attributable to postal interruptions. Clause 16 inserts new section 172B to deal specifically with those problems. This section enables the Commissioner, by direct administrative action, to cause documents delayed in the post to the Patent Office to be deemed to have been lodged at the time at which they would have arrived in the ordinary course of post. This procedure is especially suited to coping with widespread disruptions to the postal system, such as those caused by industrial disputes, since these may well affect many hundreds of documents addressed to the Patent Office. Because the section does not require the applicant to make a special request to have the deeming action taken, the Commissioner will be able to cope with such delays quickly and directly. It is expected that this provision will obviate a good many of the cases of hardship arising from postal interruptions, and with a minimum of fuss.

Actions of the Commissioner taken under section 172B would be reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and it is important to note that all decisions made under the extension provisions proposed to be introduced by this Bill would be similarly reviewable. This is highly desirable to protect both applicants and third parties. Apart from this general provision to cope with postal delays, there are specific provisions which enable the extension of the Convention period, the acceptance period, and the time for lodging complete-after-provisional specifications. All of these provisions contain machinery for making regulations for the protection of third parties who are adversely affected where an extension is allowed. Additionally, there is the opportunity for opposition to extensions of more than three months duration. Thus, the balance of interests which I discussed earlier is always kept in mind.

Without expressing any view as to the desirability in the long term of granting extensions of the Convention period, and bearing in mind the fact that the Industrial Property Advisory Committee is undertaking a review of the patent system, the Government has come to the following views. Firstly, past extensions of the Convention period should be validated. Secondly, extensions of time should be available in principle to applicants claiming priority under the Convention and who have exercised reasonable care in attempting to meet the Convention period, but have failed for reasons beyond their control. Clause 13 of the Bill introduces new section 142AAA to achieve this object.

In the case of extensions of the acceptance period and of the time for lodging completeafterprovisional specifications, the grounds for seeking an extension are the same as those currently set out in section 1 60. For extensions of the Convention period, however, the grounds in section 142AAA are limited to circumstances beyond the control of the applicant and his agent or attorney. Also, in such cases, the maximum extension to be available is six months. This corresponds to the time at which a Convention application would normally have become open to public inspection if it had been lodged in time. The provision of these more restricted grounds is appropriate in view of the fact that many countries allow no extensions at all of the Convention period. While a draconian attitude allowing no extensions of the Convention period would not be conducive to the inflow of technology into Australia, it would be unfair to Australian industry to give overseas applicants undue advantages in Australia which Australian applicants do not receive overseas.

As an adjunct to these restricted extensions of the Convention period, I have asked the Commissioner of Patents to raise and pursue, in the international industrial property arena, the suggestion that other Convention countries should relax their requirement of strict conformity to the 12 month Convention period. Any developments in this area will clearly be highly relevant to the Industrial Property Advisory Committee’s review of the patent system. In clearing up these particular areas of difficulty which have arisen in connection with extensions of time, it is also appropriate to strengthen the discretionary power of the Commissioner to grant or refuse extensions. It is important that applicants should have to justify extensions properly, and it is therefore made clear that the Commissioner has a wide general discretion in these questions. Additionally, to give guidance both to the Commissioner and to applicants for extensions of time, a number of specific criteria are expressly stated in the new sections introduced by the Bill. This is to avoid the virtually automatic grant of extensions which occurred under earlier Patent Office practice, based on the view that there are severe limits in the Act as it stands to the discretion to refuse extensions. The exercise of this discretion is, of course, subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

An ancillary matter to the provision of extensions of time relates to the date of a patent. Clauses 6 and 9 make special provisions regarding the date of a patent where an extension of time has been granted to lodge a completeafterprovisional or a Convention application. This is necessary to avoid abuses which might be available to applicants who deliberately delay lodgment in the hope of an extension of time. Since the term of a patent runs for 16 years from the date of the patent, special provision is necessary to avoid a longer effective life of a patent which might be obtainable in this unfair manner.

Another timing difficulty dealt with in the Bill has arisen in connection with the making of divisional applications. I should explain that divisional applications arise, for example, where an original application is found to claim two inventions. One invention must then be made the subject of a separate application. Clause 7 eases the restrictions imposed by time limits for lodging divisional applications under section 51. Clauses 5 and 20 are transitional provisions which were incorrectly omitted, in relation to divisional applications, from the Patents Amendment Act 1979.

The other significant matter included in the Bill relates to discipline in the patent attorney profession. Clause 10 inserts new section 135a which enables the making of more wide-ranging regulations with respect to professional conduct of patent attorneys, as has been requested by the patent attorney profession. The AttorneyGeneral’s Department has advised that the present regulation-making powers are inadequate for this purpose. The present regulations allow only for discipline by way of deregistration for such things as disgraceful conduct.

While this Bill does not make any substantial changes to the actual nature of patents, I think it is evident that it is of crucial importance. Any legal system which confers rights must also contain procedures which avoid arbitrary frustration of persons seeking those rights. More importantly, any rights which turn out to have been purely illusory and void because of a procedural defect, are no rights at all. What has happened in the patent system is that a procedural defect has been uncovered- albeit dependent on questions of wording of an Act of Parliament- and that defect has not only put obstacles in the way of obtaining a patent, but has also rendered many existing patents defective and even void. The Bill corrects these defects to give proper effect to patent rights already granted and to rationalise the procedures whereby patents may be obtained in the future. The rights of applicants and patentees, and also of competitors in industry, are safeguarded. These things are vitally important in encouraging innovation and development in Australian industry. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Innes) adjourned.

page 2517

IMMIGRATION (UNAUTHORIZED ARRIVALS) BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · Balaclava · LP

– I move:

Some governments are prepared to regard persecution, prejudice and discrimination as acceptable. Even worse, there are governments prepared to expel their unwanted populations without concern for the people themselves or for the consequences their policies have for other countries. Some governments may unpredictably change their attitude and allow a large group of citizens who were previously refused permission to leave, to accept offers of sanctuary. This situation, occurring today in Cuba, seems to be largely aimed at achieving Cuba’s own ends. But whatever the reason, freedom is too highly prized to be refused. This sort of situation, unfortunately, can lead to rackets involving the clandestine importation of illegal immigrants flouting the laws of the country of entry. Such ventures may involve the carriage of people secreted in ships and aircraft crossing national borders. Their motivation is greed and the returns can be large.

This Bill is directed at people who may attempt to bring people to Australia without first obtaining permisson for their entry. It is intended to deal with anyone who attempts to introduce to Australia, by sea or air, passengers who have not obtained prior authority for travel to Australia. I emphasise that it is not directed at the passengers themselves, whose situation may not be of their making and who may well qualify for consideration as refugees and, eventually, for resettlement under refugee programs. Events in the past few years have heightened concern at Australia ‘s vulnerability to this type of action.

Towards the end of 1978 five large freighters filled with Vietnamese arrived in parts of South East Asia. The Southern Cross sailed into Indonesian waters, the Hai Hong arrived off Malaysia, the Huey Fong and the Sky Luck showed up in Hong Kong and the Tung An went to the Philippines. Each carried between 1,500 and 3,000 passengers who had paid to leave their homeland with the sanction of their Government.

Over the past five years, small boatloads of refugees have made their way direct to our shores. A total of 53 such small boats has arrived in Australia carrying a total of 2,067 people. This total number is smaller than the numbers carried by some of the large vessels I mentioned. We have continued to be concerned about the risks taken by people in small boats who undertake this hazardous journey. The Government has established machinery to ensure that only those among these arrivals who qualify to remain in Australia are permitted to do so. We have noted that the Vietnamese Government, to date, has kept to its undertaking to maintain a moratorium on organised departures of its people. Whilst we hope that the moratorium will continue and that no other similar situations will arise, there is at present no adequate legislative provision for dealing with the arrival of vessels carrying people without visas or other prior authority to travel to Australia in the sorts of circumstances I have mentioned. This is not surprising. Few governments have domestic legislation of this kind available. For this reason I am introducing legislation which is sufficiently comprehensive to deal with such situations, which will provide severe penalties for people be they owners, masters, crew, agents or charterers involved in such dealings and which will enable the Government to control such operations in Australia’s waters.

This Bill will enable the Government to take firm, responsible action against those profiting from human distress. In so doing, it will provide for the first time for adequate controls on vessels, be they refugee-carrying vessels or not, which might sail without invitation to Australia. To those who might argue that the penalties are harsh, I respond that they need to be so to deal with situations where millions of dollars can be made. While the situation remains stable we do not expect to need to use legislation of this kind. On the other hand, given the pattern of recent history, we must be ready to control new challenges which might be pressed on us by racketeers trafficking in human beings.

Australia has an extensive refugee resettlement program. We intend to continue that program at a responsible level. These measures are not intended to have a deleterious effect on innocent passengers. Separate machinery exists to deal with any problems posed by their arrival. Applicants for refugee status are considered by the Committee on the Determination of Refugee Status- the DORS Committee. Genuine refugees are granted sanctuary in conformity with the conditions laid down by the 1 95 1 Geneva Convention and 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees. The DORS Committee’s consideration is related to the definition of a refugee provided in the convention.

Genuine refugees have nothing to fear in seeking Australian Government assistance. That is not to say that we will always be in a position to accept without question large numbers of refugees who push their claims for resettlement ahead of those of their compatriates who wait patiently in camps overseas. The Convention provides that we should offer asylum to genuine refugees presenting themselves here. That does not mean that Australia is bound to resettle them here. We must retain the right to make satisfactory arrangements in appropriate cases for refugees who should be resettled elsewhere. Whilst we recognise that for 2,067 Vietnamese arrivals Australia has become a country of first asylum, from time to time we have made arrangements with other countries for the resettlement of refugees where we believe there are compelling reasons for them to go to those countries. Such reasons may include the presence of family members in those countries. They may also relate to the responsibilities of those governments to accept refugees from vessels carrying their flags.

This Bill is intended to deter ships’ owners, masters, crew, agents and charterers from bringing people without visas or other proper prior authority to travel to Australia. We have no reason to believe that any vessel of this kind is currently sailing towards Australia but we cannot afford to assume that in the future no such vessels might try to make their way here.

I shall now deal with some particular aspects of the Bill. Clause 6 is central to the scheme of controlling unauthorised arrivals to Australia. The clause makes it an offence, punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 or 10 years’ imprisonment, or both, for the operators, including crew members, of aircraft and ships to bring into Australia more than five relevant persons. A relevant person is defined in clause 3 to mean a person who is not an Australian citizen, does not hold a visa or a return endorsement for travel to Australia or is not exempted by the Minister from the necessity to obtain a visa or return endorsement.

The number of relevant persons may be increased or decreased by regulation under the Bill. Clause 5 authorises the making of regulations prescribing different numbers of persons for different classes or types of vessels. The Government has given careful consideration to determining the appropriate number of relevant persons. Five has been selected as a means of excluding from the heavy penalties contained in the Bill small boats and commercial flights and cruises which may include a small number of unauthorised persons on board and which may inadvertently bring to Australia persons who have not been issued with a visa or return endorsement. I have instructed my Department to examine the means whereby regulations can be made that will differentiate between bona fide commercial carriers and the unscrupulous people at whom this Bill is directed.

As mentioned previously, the Bill is designed as a deterrent to profiteers bringing unauthorised arrivals to Australia. Failure to render the crew of a vessel strictly liable would lessen this deterrent effect. Whilst it is unusual for crew members to be liable for offences experience has shown that crew members of the big refugee boats have been intimately involved in the operation. It is therefore considered that because of the special situation to which the Bill is directed, participating crew members should be equally liable for the offence. Persons coming to Australia on board an aircraft will be treated as having been brought to Australia only if the aircraft lands in Australia, whether or not they have disembarked. Persons coming to Australia on a ship will be treated as having been brought to Australia on the ship if it brings them into Australian waters.

Because clause 6 applies to aircraft and ships which bring people to Australia in circumstances where the people do not intend to disembark in Australia and where it is not really intended that the aircraft or ship come into a port in Australia, the clause sets out a number of defences that may be raised in a prosecution for an offence against the clause. Sub-clause 6(7) makes it a defence in relation to an aircraft if the person charged establishes that the aircraft landed in Australia only by reason of an unforeseen emergency. Subclause 6(8) makes it a defence to a prosecution in relation to a ship if the person charged satisfies the court that the ship entered the territorial sea in the right of innocent passage or if the ship entered Australian waters in consequence of an unforeseen emergency which rendered it necessary for the ship to be brought into Australian waters in order to secure the safety of the ship, its cargo or human life.

Sub-clauses 6 (3) and 6 (4) deal with the situation where a vessel has been commandeered by persons and after such commandeering has taken place, more than five relevant persons are brought to Australia. The offence in these subclauses involves substantially the same elements of the principal offence but makes liable, instead of the owner, master, crew, agent and charterer, each person involved in the commandeering.

Should a vessel come within the provisions of the Bill, clause 7 makes it an offence for any person, without lawful excuse, to disable or scuttle the vessel. The offence is punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 or 10 years’ imprisonment or both. It will be a defence under the clause if the person can satisfy the court that it was reasonable in all the circumstances for him to take the action he did in order to secure the safety of the vessel, its cargo or human life.

Clauses 8 and 9 regulate the disembarkation of persons from vessels to which the Bill applies. Clause 8 establishes an offence of disembarkation from ships or leaving an appointed airport without written permission. The effect of the clause is to require the master and crew of the vessel to see that no one other than Australian citizens, and those who have been granted an entry permit or have been exempted from obtaining an entry permit, disembark from the vessel without authority. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the master and crew members liable to a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment for two years, or both, in respect of each person who disembarks without authority. Because it is possible that, having regard to the condition of the vessel or the situation in which the vessel is placed, persons have to disembark in order to protect themselves from being killed or injured, sub-clause 8(11) provides that it is a defence to a prosecution if the person charged establishes that there were reasonable grounds to believe that had the person remained on board the vessel he was in danger of being killed or injured.

Clause 9 establishes a procedure whereby the persons concerned may be permitted to disembark from a vessel that has entered Australia as a result of an emergency without their being deemed to have entered Australia. Clause 10 provides that persons who have disembarked in accordance with a permit may be granted an entry permit under the Migration Act permitting them to remain in Australia or that the Minister may direct that they have entered Australia, become prohibited immigrants, and thus liable to deportation under the Migration Act. Where persons have disembarked either with or without a permit from a vessel that has entered Australia as a result of an emergency, Clause 1 1 provides that the master may be required to remove or make arrangements for the removal of those persons from Australia without charge to the Commonwealth. Failure to comply with such a requirement renders the master liable to a penalty of $5,000 or two years ‘imprison ment, or both, in respect of each person he refuses or fails to remove. Clause 1 3 imposes a liability on the master of the vessel to reimburse the Commonwealth the costs it may have incurred in maintaining persons who have disembarked from the vessel and were required to obtain a disembarkation permit.

Clauses 16 and 17 are largely facilitation provisions which enable the boarding, searching and detention of vessels in relation to which a clause 6, 7 or 8 offence is believed to have been committed.Clause 1 8 provides that if the master of an aircraft or ship claims that an unforeseen emergency affecting the airworthiness of the aircraft or the seaworthiness of the ship rendered it necessary to bring persons on board that aircraft or ship to Australia, the Minister may require the master to undertake the necessary repairs within a specified time. If those repairs are not undertaken and completed within that time, the master becomes liable to the same penalty that he would have incurred if he had been prosecuted under clause 6 and was unable to avail himself of the defence in relation to an unforeseen emergency.

Clause 19, a supplementary provision, provides that where circumstances giving rise to an unforeseen emergency have ceased to exist- for instance, by virtue of completion of repairs; abatement of a storm, or hospitalising of sick persons who were on board the aircraft or shipthe Minister may, by notice in writing, require the master to cause the vessel to leave Australia within a period specified in the notice. The penalty for failure to comply with the notice is the same as the penalty for the primary offence in clause 6. Clause 20 provides that, in addition to any penalty that may be imposed for an offence against clauses 6, 7, 8, 11, 18 or 19, a court may also order the forfeiture of the vessel or the vessel and its cargo. Before any proceedings for an offence which attracts a maximum penalty of $100,000 and/or 10 years’ imprisonment, the consent of the Attorney-General is required to be obtained. This requirement is contained in clause 23 of the Bill. It further provides that, notwithstanding the fact that the Attorney’s consent has not been obtained, a person can be charged for the offence, arrested, and remanded in custody or released on bail.

Finally, clauses 2 and 3 1 provide that the Bill is to come into operation on a date to be proclaimed and remain in force for a period of 12 months, unless sooner repealed. Clause 31 provides that the Governor-General may extend the Act’s operation for periods of up to a maximum of 12 months but only in accordance with a resolution passed by both Houses of the Parliament. This will give the Parliament control over the extension of the operation of the Act. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government sees the Bill as an essential part of maintaining immigration controls and believes that it will provide an effective deterrent to the operators of vessels who may consider bringing unauthorised persons to Australia. I commend the Bill to the house.

Debate (on motion by Mr Innes) adjourned.

page 2520

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I move:

The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1980 now before the House proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1966. The purpose of this Bill is to enact tariff changes made by Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 31-35 (1979) and Proposals Nos 1-7 ( 1980) which have been introduced into the Parliament at different times since 25 October last year. It also gives effect to a decision by the Government to add certain circular saw blades to Schedule A of the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement from 1 January this year. Changes contained in this Bill arise, in the main, from decisions by the Government on reports by the Industries Assistance Commission on the following: baby carriages and parts therefor; coated copying film; certain engines not exceeding 7.46 kW; rotary cultivators; and tractors having a power of less than 15 kW; dental materials; furniture; grapes and wine; passenger motor vehicles and components- import restrictions; removal of primage duty; rubber products; ships, boats and other vessels not exceeding 6,000 tons gross register; and spirits, spirituous beverages, et cetera.

Honourable members will recall that in my speech at the time of introducing into the House the various Customs Tariff Proposals giving effect to the Government’s decisions on these reports, I gave a comprehensive account of the IAC’s recommendations and the bases for our decisions. In view of this earlier advice, I propose at this time to review only briefly the background to the main amendments contained in this Bill. The Government has generally accepted the recommendations made by the IAC in its reports covered by this Bill and notes the Commission ‘s findings that acceptance of recommended levels of assistance will allow local industry to maintain its share of the market and continue a relatively constant level of employment. In some instances, the Government has decided to defer introduction of, or phase in, the long-term level of assistance recommended by the Commission in order to help local manufacturers consolidate their market position or assist in a period of development. The Commission’s recommendations in its report on grapes and wine and on spirits, spirituous beverages, et cetera, were generally not accepted by the Government. The Government considered that it was not an appropriate time to reduce levels of protection to wine producers and grape growers as it could hamper their efforts to adjust production to market requirements. The Commission’s recommendations for spirits, which proposed slight increases in duties to most potable spirits, were considered by the Government to provide little impact on imported spirit prices and would have required Australia to enter into negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to obtain release from tariff bindings on certain spirituous beverages. The Government did, however, reduce the excise rate for grape brandies to enhance the competitive position of this product.

This Bill also contains amendments giving effect to Government initiatives on Australia’s trade with developing countries. The Government decided that an anomaly existed whereby developing countries were disadvantaged because of the existence of a preference available to certain goods from British sources, and it was decided to eliminate the preferential margin on some 500 items from 1 January this year. In addition, a review of developing country preferences resulted in the provision of new or increased margins of preference for an additional 66 products from developing countries. Other main amendments contained in the Bill arise from Australia’s bilateral settlements with the United States of America, Japan and the European Community. As a result of the negotiations, rates of duty applying to a number of tariff items have been reduced.

Honourable members will also recall that the Government introduced last year a 2 per cent revenue duty on certain imported products. At that time, exemptions from the revenue duty were provided for goods bound at a free rate of duty under international trade commitments. However, subsequent examination revealed that certain goods were bound at levels between free and 2 per cent and the imposition of the special revenue duty on these goods constitutes a breach of our international commitments. Corrective action is contained in this Bill to provide exemption from 1 July 1979. A consolidated list of amendments setting out the nature of changes in duty rates and the origin of each change has been prepared and copies are available from the Table Office. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Innes) adjourned.

page 2521

TARIFF PROPOSALS

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I move:

The Customs Tariffproposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1966. Proposals No. 8, in the main, implement the Government’s decision on recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission in its report on gearboxes, gears and shaft couplings. This report does not cover goods for use in motor vehicles. In its report, the Commission recommended a long term general rate of 25 per cent on imports of all goods under reference. This rate is 2.5 per cent higher than the long term rate presently assisting the major part of Australian production. In addition, the Commission recommended that certain gearboxes and shaft couplings presently attracting temporary import duties, should continue to be dutiable at 35 per cent for a further two years before reducing to the 25 per cent long term rate.

In recommending this assistance, the Commission noted that, whilst the total sales value of locally manufactured goods has remained constant over the last four years, imports have increased and it is apparent that the local manufacturers’ share of the market, excluding by-law imports, has declined from 60 per cent to 44 per cent. The Commission also noted that a number of local manufacturers of goods which have been assisted by the temporary duties have commenced, or planned to commence, operations to improve their efficiency and competitive position. The Commission has considered these manufacturers should be given an opportunity to complete the changes and consequently recommended that the 35 per cent rate continue for a further two years. Local manufacturers had, however, sought a 35 per cent rate for all goods under reference. The Commission could not clearly establish the extent of price disadvantages for a wide range of products and, in its view, local manufacturers could not substantiate the extent of protection they had requested.

The Commission stated in its report that, if the planned changes in the industry’s product range are achieved, the implementation of these Proposals is not expected to result in any significant reductions in the level of activity or employment in the industry. In the shorter term, there may be some contraction in activity and employment in the sector producing small to medium helical, bevel and spur gear reducers. In the longer term, whilst the level of activity may be maintained, the relationship between activity and employment may change because of, for example, new methods of production or new product designs.

The Government is in general agreement with the Commission’s findings and has decided that the long term rate of 25 per cent as recommended should apply to all goods under reference. In respect of assistance in the shorter term, however, the Government notes the changes planned by local industry. To ensure sufficient time is available for these changes to become fully effective, the Government has decided to extend the extra short term assistance recommended by the Commission a further year but at a reduced rate. This means the goods which currently attract 35 per cent will continue to be dutiable at 35 per cent for two years, then reduce to 30 per cent for one year after which 25 per cent will apply. The new duties will operate from tomorrow.

The Proposals also contain two changes of an administrative nature. The alterations relate to defining more clearly the intention of existing legislation. No change in duties is involved. A comprehensive summary of the duty changes has been prepared and circulated to honourable members. I commend the Proposals to the House.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-Tariff Proposals are not debated separately. They are merely put on the bottom of the Notice Paper and then, if I remember correctly, a validation Bill is introduced, as has just happened. I presume that that validation Bill does not cover this measure. So it will be some time before we will be able to debate this measure. This is not a measure that I have had any time to study, but I take this opportunity to state that, in circumstances in which there will not be a debate within a short period, it would be even more helpful if the second reading speech were to set out more details of the Industries Assistance Commission ‘s report, such as details of how many firms and employees are involved in the manufacture of these gear boxes, and other pertinent information.

Again I draw to the attention of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) and the House a campaign that I have been waging for a couple of years- since I became shadow Minister in this area- about the manner in which we deal with such important matters. It is my conviction and the conviction of many of my colleagues- probably all of them, although we have not discussed this matter in great depth- that there ought to be a committee of the Parliament to which such detailed measures are sent for examination. Matters of far less importance are examined by committees but these tariff measures are left to lie on the bottom of the Notice Paper and very little attention is given to them. It is normal merely to move that the debate be now adjourned but, in the circumstances, I seek leave to continue my remarks when this matter is again brought forward for debate.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Mr GARLAND (Curtin-Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs)- Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a brief statement?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

The Minister may proceed.

Mr GARLAND:

– These Proposals, in a procedure that goes back to Federation, are brought forward in a Bill such as the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill that I introduced earlier. I have read what the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) has said on other occasions. I must say with all candour that I do not believe it is practicable to adopt his suggestion. It would require a complete change in the proceedings and the legislation. Perhaps that could be debated on another occasion. There will be an opportunity for such debate. The detail sought by the honourable member is, in the main, set out in the Industries Assistance Commission reports which, of course, are tabled in the House. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence. I will not proceed any further with the matter. I wanted to make those remarks because I believe no Minister has yet responded in the House to the suggestions that have been made.

page 2522

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Report

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on gearboxes, gears and shaft couplings. Most of the information sought by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) is contained in that report.

page 2523

COASTAL WATERS (STATE POWERS) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 April, on motion by Mr Malcolm Fraser:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, the Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Powers) Bill, the Coastal Waters (State Title) Bill, the Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Title) Bill and the Seas and Submerged Lands Amendment Bill as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

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

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– As indicated by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann), this is a cognate debate on five Bills which can be summarised as follows: In two of the Bills the Commonwealth Government is to give title to the States and the Northern Territory of what is called the territorial sea, which will extend for at least three miles, if not more, depending upon how the starting point is drawn. In addition there are two other complementary pieces of legislation under which the Commonwealth will abdicate or give away its sovereignty over those areas by giving to the States and the Northern Territory so-called powers to deal with those areas to which title has been given. The other measure is an amendment to the Seas and Submerged Lands Act which provides that if the States have enacted legislation in the area, which at present is deemed to be in conflict with the Seas and Submerged Land Act, such State legislation will be validated. In other words, it is a machinery matter.

The fundamental objection to this package of Bills is that the Commonwealth is now dismembering federation. We had much difficulty trying to develop Australia as a nation. It has now been a federation for a long period- some 80 years. The whole concept of our being Australians is that we are one people and one nation, with one sovereignty and one international standing. The Government is developing through the package of legislation which is before us today the dismemberment of federation in that Australia can have at least seven different identities. This is so because we are attempting to use what are in some cases doubtful powers under the Constitution to give away not only sovereignty but also the right, title and interest in the submerged areas off-shore. I think any Australian who is worthy of his salt would say that this is an incredibly weak approach to adopt to our national interest and our natural resources. If we give them away, as is proposed here, they can be passed on to anybody. They will not just stop at the States. They will stop at wherever the States wants to pass them on.

Let us come back to the question of why we have this peculiar approach in a national Parliament to assets which belong to the whole of Australia. It is a definite political approach. It has come about as follows: The seas and submerged lands legislation was introduced by the Labor Government in 1973 on the basis that we had taken part in the International Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, which defined the rights of coastal states. Because Australia was a party to the international convention it was right and proper that we should legislate in accordance with that convention. Honourable members will notice that when that Bill was introduced into this House on 1 7 May 1973 by Mr Rex Connor, the Labor Minister at the time, it was opposed by the present Government. The then honourable member for Parramatta, who is now the chief judge of the Federal Court, was the leading speaker for the then Opposition, but his opposition was limited. Rather than approve of the Bill at the time, he said:

Whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading and accepting that the question of sovereignty should be determined . . .

That was the stance adopted by the then Opposition, which is the present Government. The question of sovereignty has now been determined. It took some two years of litigation. The High Court made a very valuable and distinguishable judgment. It said that as a sovereign nation we had the power to control the resources from the low water mark. That is recognised not only in the High Court but also in the international sphere. The legislation that we passed- we had the power to pass it- did not abrogate all State rights. The Seas and Submerged Lands Act states in section 1 4:

Nothing in this Part affects sovereignty or sovereign rights in respect of any waters of the sea that are waters of or within any bay, gulf or . . . remain within the limits of the State, . . .

Section 15 states:

Nothing in this Part shall be taken to vest in the Crown in right of the Commonwealth any wharf, . . . pier. breakwater, building, . . . pipeline, . . . navigational aid, buoy, cable or other structure or works.

Section 16 states:

The preceding provisions of this Part … do not limit or exclude the operation of any law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory . . . and do not limit or exclude the operation of any law of a State in force at the date of commencement of this Act . . .

So that legislation provided a reasonable and rational proposition through which we could achieve some understanding of how a federal system works, on the basis of which we could pass legislation in accordance with the peace, order and good government of our people. But to come into this House with a package of legislation which provides that we no longer have any interest in these submerged areas and will transfer the right, title and interest in them is an abdication of responsibility. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) was very proud of this legislation when he introduced it last Wednesday. It is a tragedy to think that we have this sort of naive approach, if I can put it on that basis. I think it was a determined political approach to guarantee that the Commonwealth Government -the national Government- would not be able to get back into the field once this legislation had been passed.

Mr Hodgman:

-Quite right, too.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-‘ Quite right, too’, comes the interjection. It is incredible to think that we have a national parliament with national responsibility, yet it is quite right to give that responsibility away. Let us develop this thought a little further as we go through the legislation. Whilst the Prime Minister was able to describe it as an historic package- it is historic in the sense that nobody else would ever introduce it and such legislation has not been introduced beforeand a great milestone, I very much doubt it. We say it is an historic sell-out and will be a millstone around the neck of any future Federal government. It has been deliberately designed in that way.

Under this legislation, complete power and title to the territorial sea and the seabed of the territorial sea are being given to the States and the Northern Territory. The truly historic decision of the High Court in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act case is being overturned. The question of the control of off-shore resources has been a matter of contention. It certainly ripped apart the conservative governments of the 1960s and early 1970s. In May 1970 the Gorton Government went very close to being the first Government for almost 30 years to be defeated in the House of Representatives. The issue was then off-shore resources. The Territorial Seas and Continental Shelf Bill which was introduced in April of that year was never proceeded with in view of the fact that the Government was on the point of splitting. In May 1973 the late Rex Connor- a great Australian, a man of real vision and a man who admired people and who had a national interest- introduced the seas and submerged lands legislation. At the time he made the following comment:

The off-shore problems I have indicated are national problems and require national solutions. It is for us- here in the national Parliament- to provide the legislative framework which will enable the national Government to exert its sovereign national rights and to speak with authority in national terms on these matters . . .

Those words were true seven years ago and they are true today. Since 1977 this Government has been attempting to reverse the decision of the High Court in 1975. In October 1977, a resolution was passed at the Premiers Conference which provided, amongst other things, that: limits and powers of each State should be extended to embrace the territorial sea adjacent to it.

These Bills now achieve this. Our objection to them is twofold. Firstly, we believe that the Commonwealth has international sovereignty in the territorial sea; it should also have the title and the power to deal with the issues of national importance which are associated with that area. I remind the Prime Minister that his own views seem to have changed. I have before me a letter that he wrote on 8 November 1976 to Sir Charles Court. In answer to what was obviously a letter from Sir Charles Court suggesting that this territorial area should be transferred to the States, he had this to say: 1 have received similar approaches from the Premiers of Victoria and Tasmania.

I am writing now to inform you that the important question thus raised has now been considered by the Commonwealth Government.

The position of the Government is that it regards the High Court decision in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act Case, that sovereignty over the territorial sea is vested in the Commonwealth and not in the States, as having settled the general issue of sovereignty over the territorial sea.

In taking this position my Government has had regard to the advice it has received from its law officers that the Commonwealth Government could not legally accede to the States’ requests.

He went on to say that he appreciated that different views may be contained in this but he hoped that what had been done by the High Court solved the matter for all time. I have paraphrased what he said. He hoped that the matter would not be re-opened. The preamble to the article in which this letter was quoted stated:

The Prime Minister . . . has told the Premiers that sovereignty over the Continental Shelf is firmly vested in the Commonwealth and that the States should not entertain territorial ambitions for the off-shore waters.

What an about-face has taken place now. That was said in November 1976. As I said, in 1977 there was a further suggestion that something should be done. Honourable members will see, as I develop what I want to say, the weak political approach of the Liberal-National Country Party political partnership in this country. If there are strong State Premiers- not necessarily good ones, but strong ones like Sir Charles Court and Mr Bjelke-Petersen- they will dictate what ought to be the legislation, in their interests and not in the national interests. That is the objection. The giving of the territorial sea and the rich natural resources that go with it to the seven State and territorial governments could not be in the national interest, and it is not.

The Fraser Government has a belief that foreign capital ought to be wooed into Australia on the most favourable terms to develop our resources. When we have reactionary Premiers like Sir Charles Court and Mr Bjelke-Petersen who believe in selling resources as cheaply and as quickly as possible, that will be their approach. But they are not even good administrators. If honourable members look at the question of human rights from the point of view of Aboriginal land rights, at the question of equal adult sufferage and at the question of responsibility in government, they will see that in those basic fundamental matters those Premiers are the worst in Australia and have abdicated their responsibilities. Is it any wonder that they would be urging that they have control over rich resources to which they have no legal right?

However, the States would be foolish to believe that they will not pay dearly for what the Prime Minister has described as great generosity if this Government is returned at the next federal election. One might wonder why we have a Federal government at all. On other occasions of inaction, the Government has absolved itself of responsibility by pleading that there is doubt about its constitutional powers. On this occasion it is seeking a very doubtful constitutional arrangement, about which we will say more later, in order to overturn a High Court decision which clearly gave the Commonwealth the power. Some of the best reasons why the Commonwealth should have control over the territorial sea are contained in the judgments given by the High Court in the seas and submerged lands case. The Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, in an unimpeachable judgment stated:

This result conforms in my opinion to an essential feature of a Federation, namely that it is the Nation and not the integers of the Federation which must have the power to protect and control as a national function the area of the marginal seas, the sea-bed and air space and the continental shelf and incline.

That is Sir Garfield Barwick ‘s approach to Federation. In his opinion the Federal Government should have that control, that sovereignty and that power. Mr Justice Mason said:

The control and regulation by the coastal states of its territorial sea . . . is an aspect of its external sovereignty and its external relationships with other nations. It is therefore a function as appropriate to the Commonwealth as it is inappropriate to the States.

His Honour Mr Justice Murphy said:

The area of the territorial sea is tens of thousands of square kilometres. The area of the disputed submarine lands and subsoil is millions of square kilometres. Their resources are probably worth thousands of billions of dollars. They belong to the nation, not to the States. The right over them is vested in and exercisable by the Government of Australia on behalf of all the people of Australia.

The Government has rejected all of this reasoning and turned its head on the very matter that was settled by the High Court in 1975. The Opposition has never believed that the Commonwealth should have exclusive power over the territorial seas. The Prime Minister was good enough in his second reading speech to quote from the Australian Labor Party platform on offshore sovereignty. He might also have quoted from the section which states that colonial impediments on the power of States should also be removed.

It is quite ironic that one of these colonial relics, the Privy Council, which the conservative States are so keen to retain, is responsible for interpreting the relationship between State parliaments and imperial law as if the States were British colonies of the nineteenth century. I refer here to the Western Australian Oteri case which concerned fishermen involved in picking up cray pots 22 miles off-shore. They were prosecuted under a State Act. The case went on appeal to the Privy Council which made no reference to the seas and submerged lands decision at all. The Privy Council had the audacity and the ignorance to suggest that the Commonwealth Government did not have the competence to legislate in this area on criminal matters. How can we be a nation if we have this sort of aspect on dealing with our laws. The Queensland Government, in particular, is almost obsessive in its desire to retain colonial links with Britain. Yet when the British Government- we give it credit from this point of view- refused to advise the reappointment of Sir Colin Hannah as Governor of Queensland, the Queensland Premier stated that a foreign government was interfering in the affairs of Queensland. Sir Colin Hannah clearly indicated his views as to what. he thought of other parts of Australia. But the British Government took advice from the national government of Australia on what sort of appointment should be made. If the British Government can do it, it is about time the Australian Government did something about Australia being a nation and looking after its people.

There is no reason whatever why State laws should be subject to imperial law. There is no reason why the States should not have power to legislate extraterritorially even though the Statute of Westminster does not apply to the States. Of course, such laws would need to have a sufficient connection with the States. The States should be able to legislate in the off-shore area subject to any overriding Commonwealth legislation provided State laws did not in any way impinge upon Commonwealth title to and sovereignty of the territorial sea and the continental shelf.

In 1979, in supporting the crimes at sea legislation, we suggested several ways that the legislation might have been improved. We suggested, for example, that the Commonwealth could apply to the territorial seas and the seas generally surrounding Australia a criminal law. This law could be the law of Victoria, for example, but it would be uniform. Alternatively, we could introduce our own criminal code and say that that applied. At least we would have uniformity in what we were about. We shared the concern of the States over Robinson’s case which did appear to raise some doubts as to the extraterritorial application of State laws. Robinson’s case relates to an ancient wreck of Dutch origin found off the Western Australian coast. The Western Australian Government passed legislation which it felt would deal with that wreck. The High Court, though, decided that it did not do so. I do not know whether its decision was altogether wise because it could not see a connection with the peace, order and good government of the laws of Western Australia relating to the wreck. I have no doubt that the Court was well aware of the national interest of the people of Holland and the Government of Holland in that wreck. That may have influenced the decision. But there were no problems in the more recent decision in the case of Pearc v. Florenca in which it was said clearly that the Western Australian fisheries legislation was in order and it could apply. The High Court so held because it related to the peace, order and good government of the people of Western Australia. That is an intelligent application of what we are about. It can be done, but not to the extent of abdicating and giving away resources as we have done here.

What we have here is the handing over of the territorial sea and all the resources with-it. We have handed away the powers also. We must ask the question why section 5 1 (xxxviii) of the Constitution has been used. It has never been used before. That section talks about where, at the time of Federation, the States request the United Kingdom to exercise on their behalf powers which cannot otherwise be exercised then, whatever those powers may be, they can be exercised by the Commonwealth. It is suggested now that this is the way we can bring in the powers legislation. In my submission there would have to be some gap in the legislation to justify that. But there is political reasoning behind this matter which guarantees that this Government lacks bona fides in its approach to the situation. It accords with what I said earlier that the Prime Minister was right in 1976 when he said that there was no legal power which allowed this to happen. Since then there has been some suggestion that some power can be found in some ancient provision of the Constitution called section 51, placitum (xxxviii), which obviously relates to something very remote indeed and probably only to a change in the State Constitutions. Let us have a look at what was said at the 1 978 Premiers Conference. Sir Charles Court asked:

If the Commonwealth did this -

That is, used section 51 (xxxviii) of the Constitution-

Could not the next Commonwealth government reverse it? We are trying to avoid this.

He did not want a national government to come into the situation. The Attorney-General (Senator Durack) who comes from Western Australia, and who seems to be subservient to the Premier over there, said:

There is a strong legal opinion that an action taken by the Commonwealth under section 51 (xxxviii) at the request of the States could not be repealed without the request of the States.

That is the reason why this Government is so anxious to put this legislation through; not in the national interest, but on the basis that we would have a de facto alteration of the Constitution without consulting the people of Australia. That is why the Government is concerned. It is worried about the fact that when a Labor government comes into office it will try to do something about this legislation. That we will do. There is no right or propriety to think that this Government will alter the Constitution of Australia on the basis that this is a request from Sir Charles Court. It is undemocratic, it is not in accordance with the wishes of the people and it is very clear that it has been done to try to prevent the Australian Labor Party from enacting its policies on a national basis. This is an attempt to bind a future Labor government without any reference to the Australian people. It is a flagrant abuse of parliamentary procedure. It is in breach of the most basic traditions of parliamentary democracy.

Other methods of giving the States power over the territorial sea to the exclusion of the Commonwealth could easily have been adopted. The most obvious method would have been simply for the Commonwealth to pass a law under the external affairs power which would have given the States power over, but not title to, the territorial sea. The Government obviously believes that such a method would have been constitutionally valid as it has employed it under the Coastal Waters (State Titles) Bill. The failure to use the external affairs power on this occasion raises doubts about the validity of section 51 (xxxviii). I simply point out that there is no reason why the external affairs power could not have been used. So we have to face these difficulties. The Government has come up with a solution in which it says the use of section 5 1 (xxxviii) guarantees that we cannot retake the title. I am very concerned because when one looks at the Coastal Waters (State Title) Bill one sees that section 4(5) of the Coastal Waters Act allows the State to divest itself of its rights and titles. We can insert a provision here and a State Government, having got the title, can in relation to that title deal with another country, such as Japan or Russia and, on the international aspect of the covenant, the Commonwealth can be held responsible for those actions. We would have no control over any dealing with that area of land.

Is section 5 1 (xxxviii) valid? I submit that it is not. If, at the time of Federation, the Commonwealth had the power under the Constitution to do what it had to do there is no suggestion that the United Kingdom Government had any power other than what was between the States and the national government. If the Commonwealth did not have the power one wonders how it would get it now. How could we have the competence to do something now which apparently we could not do at that time of 1900? It flies in the face of reasonable deduction to think that we can now invent a power which was not deemed to exist in 1900, and apparently which could have been used only by the United Kingdom Parliament. We cannot suggest that that is the power which we will use now. If there is any power at all it can be obtained only by an alteration to the State constitutions which, of course, could well have been done at the time and can still be done. The Commonwealth could do that for them. This has nothing to do with the territorial sea entitlement which has been clearly decided by the High Court of Australia.

In dealing with this matter, both Quick and Garran, and Lumb and Ryan denied that the question of the power could be used to support extra-territorial legislation because in the term of this unusual position the words ‘within the Commonwealth’ were used and that excluded any construction of extra-territoriality. There is also doubt as to the meaning of the words: ‘Any power which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom . . .’. That is the part which I have already elaborated upon. I want to come to these other points. The seas and submerged lands case clearly established that the Commonwealth had complete power. It is clear, without going into details because of the shortage of time, that that was emphasising that the power, if the Commonwealth did not have it at Federation, has accrued to us since that time. Let me sum up the constitutional position. Quick and Garran state:

It is difficult to see what power can be conferred on the Federal Parliament by the words of placitum (xxxviii).

Lumb and Ryan state:

The interpretation to be given to this head of power is that it is restricted to that small case of matters excepted from State control by the Constitution Acts of the States, or subject to a manner and form procedure laid down in those Constitutions.

So this piece of genius, which has been invented on the basis that the Commonwealth can give away its rights, may well be invalid. I assure honourable members that it will be the subject of test and litigation. It would be far better in the national interest that we start to look after our own resources. I make the point that we have had enough difficulty in the past- stupid as it may seem- and we should not be fighting ourselves as Australians. I was in Tokyo in 1976. I learned that the Commissioner from Western Australia in Tokyo was suggesting that the Japanese leaders should not meet the president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions because he was a communist. I ask honourable members to imagine what the Japanese thought of that kind of approach. Can honourable members imagine how it denigrated us as Australians when the Australian Ambassador was trying to arrange important conferences in Japan for a leader of the trade union movement, to have him betrayed by some fellow from Western Australia who thought he was acting in the best interests of Australia. Why do we not wake up and realise that the world is in an acute state? If we start to betray ourselves and fight each other on these issues our future is dim.

I ask honourable members to look at the influences of money coming into Queensland where land can be sold. This means that in addition to the land, the territorial sea can be sold. Under this title the States have the power to divest themselves of it. Can honourable members imagine the situation in Yeppoon where the title to Yeppoon might now extend three miles out into the ocean? As an Australian I wonder what the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) who is sitting opposite thinks of that? How could he stop that action under this legislation? The Commonwealth has already given it away. What does the legislation do from the point of pollution control or marine environment control? Most importantly, can honourable members imagine any one of us going to Japan and suggesting that we would be able to buy, lease or otherwise use part of its territorial sea? We would be laughed out of the country. Yet here we have a so-called national government coming in with legislation, betraying a High Court decision, that states: ‘We are a nation. We have international responsibilities. We have entered into a covenant and this exploration aspect leads us to the present suggestion that the territorial sea be extended to 12 miles on the international basis? We should do that, too. But would we do it on the basis of giving the 12 miles to the States and the Northern Territory?’ How does the Government expect us to survive and receive any respect if, as I say, we are to have seven little foreign countries trying to run the nation? The members of this Government have always been anxious to abdicate their responsibilities but, from the point of view of the nation, its resources and its heritage, why do they not act as Australians? States could still have their rights. There still could be complementary legislation. By giving away such rights and allegedly preventing any future government from getting them back, the Government is betraying its authority and betraying its trust. It is for those reasons that I oppose these propositions.

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

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr THOMSON:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Leichhardt · NCP/NP

– These Bills represent an historic package of legislation which is an outstanding demonstration of the success of the policy of co-operative federalism. It has been this Government’s firm conviction that the key to successful government in a federal system lies in co-operation, rather than confrontation, with the States. Through this package of Bills we have demonstrated that this approach can work extremely well.

The whole package of Bills has the support of all the State governments of Australia, regardless of the politics of those governments. The Federal Opposition is trying to beat up a phoney emotional argument about oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef. That is the only real comment that the Opposition has to make on an extremely significant and wide-ranging package of Bills. The Opposition refuses to listen to reason. It refuses to accept the assurances it has been given by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), by me and by the Premier of Queensland. Only this morning the Prime Minister reaffirmed that on 14 June last year he and the Premier of Queensland confirmed that it is the policy of both the Queensland and the Commonwealth governments ‘to prohibit any drilling on the reef or any drilling or mining which could in any way damage the reef. One cannot get much more specific than that. As the Prime Minister said, those policy decisions are binding on the Commonwealth Government and they are binding on the Queensland Government. One really wonders how often assurances have to be given before the Australian Labor Party understands these facts. The Prime Minister gave firm assurances this morning. In a joint statement of 14 June last year, which the Prime Minister tabled today, he said the same thing. The statement reads:

Both the Premier and the Prime Minister confirmed that it was the policies of their respective governments to prohibit any drilling on the reef, or any drilling or mining which could damage the reef.

As I say, that statement was tabled this morning. In a statement of 4 June last year, announcing the Commonwealth’s decisions on the question of future petroleum exploration in the area of the reef, the Prime Minister said:

The Commonwealth has . . . decided that . . there should be no further exploration for petroleum in the Great Barrier Reef region and that there should be no renewal of petroleum exploration permits in the region until the results of both short and longer term research are known.

Furthermore, in the same statement, the Prime Minister said that the decisions would give positive effect to the categoric and absolute guarantee he expressed in Parliament on 22 May when he made it clear that the Government would not permit any drilling on the Great Barrier Reef, or any drilling or mining which could damage the reef. Furthermore, the Prime Minister also said in his statement of 4 June:

Let there be no confusion on this point- no pan of the reef is going to be damaged by an activity that takes place on the reef or off the reef.

So the Labor Party is throwing out red herrings. It is worth while studying just why it is doing so. The reason is quite plain and straightforward: The Labor Party has been embarrassed by two State Labor governments which have recognised the crass stupidity of the Labor Party’s platform -

Mr Keating:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. This Minister was challenged this morning to debate this issue and he squibbed the challenge. He should not come in here and attack us now.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:

Order! There is no point of order.

Mr THOMSON:

-The honourable member for Blaxland obviously knows what I am about to say and is sensitive about it. I repeat: The Labor Party has been embarrassed by two State Labor governments which have recognised the crass stupidity of the Labor Party’s platform, as adopted at the Adelaide conference, and which recognise the fairness and the correctness of this Federal Government’s approach. This Government does not believe that it is right, when the Commonwealth and the States are each concerned with a matter, that the States should not be involved. All the States clearly agree with that. But the Opposition would deny the States any rights at all. Labor’s platform, adopted at the national conference last year, states that a Labor government would bring in Commonwealth legislation for regulation and exploitation of all off-shore resources within the 200-mile economic zone. That platform clearly has had a massive hole knocked through it now, and does it not hurt? In this House on 23 April, when the Prime Minister stated that the package of Bills has the support of all the States regardless of the politics of their government’, the Opposition’s spokesman on minerals and energy, the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), interjected: ‘Shame on them’. The honourable member for Blaxland obviously did not have a peaceful night’s sleep because when he was interviewed the next morning on the Australian Broadcasting Commission program AM and was asked what his reaction was to the fact that two Labor States had voted in favour of the Federal Government’s action, the honourable member for Blaxland replied: ‘They have broken Federal policy of the Party and it reflects no credit upon them whatsoever’. The fact is that the Labor Party’s policy is so stupid that it has been thoroughly thrown out by two State governments of the Labor Party’s own political persuasion.

I think there is a further point which should be recognised and understood with regard to this package of Bills, particularly in regard to the Great Barrier Reef. The fact is that the Great Barrier Reef is protected under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act.

Mr Keating:

– It is not. That is a he.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr THOMSON:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask that that remark be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member for Blaxland to withdraw it.

Mr Keating:

– I withdraw the word ‘lie’, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is an untruth. The Minister knows it. He spent all day trying to get over it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr THOMSON:

-The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act was introduced in 1975 by a Labor government. In the package of Bills that has just been introduced in the -

Honourable members:

Honourable members interjecting-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Corio may speak in the debate if he so wishes. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie will be speaking in the debate. I suggest, for the orderly conduct of the House, that we try to conduct this debate along proper lines.

Mr THOMSON:

-In the Coastal Waters (State Title) Bill which was introduced in this package of Bills it is clearly stated that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 is to continue to apply to the whole of the Great Barrier Reef region as denned in the Act.

Mr Keating:

– Only declared areas.

Mr THOMSON:

-The Great Barrier Reef region goes from low water mark to at least 160 kilometres east of the reef.

Mr Scholes:

– You do not know the Act.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Would the honourable member for Corio and the honourable member for Blaxland please cease interjecting?

Mr THOMSON:

-I have just said that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act applies to the coastal waters. It is specifically stated in the Coastal Waters (State Title) Bill. So what is the Labor Party getting so upset about? It seems absurd that one should have to remind the Labor Party of the contents of an Act which it introduced, but clearly there is a need to do so. I quote section 31 (5) of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975:

The Governor-General shall not make a Proclamation under this section except after consideration by the Executive Council of a report by the Authority in relation to the matter dealt with by the Proclamation.

That allows the Governor-General, advised by the Executive Council, to proclaim any part of the Great Barrier Reef region as a marine park. Once an area is so declared, drilling or mining therein are expressly forbidden by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act.

Mr Keating:

– What about non-declared areas?

Mr THOMSON:

– Progressively this Government is declaring as marine parks sections of the Great Barrier Reef. The first, the Capricornia section, has already been declared. The second, the Cairns section, is in the process of being declared and will have been declared well before the end of this year. Those two sections together constitute about 500 kilometres or 25 per cent of the 2,000 kilometres of the Great Barrier Reef. As the Marine Park Authority does its studies and produces zoning and management plans, each section will be progressively declared. But if there were any threat of mining occurring in any section of the Great Barrier Reef region the Government could quickly declare that section.

Mr Keating:

– You have shifted your ground since this morning.

Mr THOMSON:

-That is exactly what I said this morning: That if any part of the reef -

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MartinOrder! Both the honourable member for Blaxland and the honourable member for Corio will try to restrain themselves.

Mr Keating:

– The Minister was given an opportunity to debate it this morning. He squibbed the opportunity. He is now changing his tune and coming in with different advice from his Department.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-That is a point for debate.

Mr Lloyd:

– I rise on a point of order. I came to the House to hear the Minister, not the honourable member for Blaxland. I ask for your protection in this matter.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member’s point is well taken.

Mr THOMSON:

-I said this morning that if any part of the Great Barrier Reef region, as defined by the Act- it is a very large area extending for 2,000 kilometres and going well out into the sea- were threatened by drilling the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act could be invoked to give it absolute protection. That can be done.

Mr Keating:

– You referred to the environment protection Act.

Mr THOMSON:

-That is one of the package of Bills that can be used. There are many and that is one of them. The major measure which expressly prohibits drilling and mining of the reef is the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act of 1975. That takes care of any area within the Great Barrier Reef region. If it should be threatened by anything that would cause damage to the reef- anything at all- the Government could declare it a marine park. That gives an absolute and express protection against drilling and mining.

Mr Scholes:

– You have the power. Will you use it?

Mr THOMSON:

-The honourable member says that we have the power and asks whether we will use it. I can give him a categorical assurance that this Government will use its power to protect the reef. We have given an absolute commitment in that regard and will stick to it.

Mr Scholes:

– You sold out the Aborigines.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Corio, as a former Speaker, is not assisting.

Mr Scholes:

– He is out of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-If the honourable member for Corio continues to interject he will force me into a situation, much as I dislike it, of having to deal with him.

Mr Scholes:

– It is also out of order for a Minister to answer questions. In fact, I was speaking quietly to the honourable member for Blaxland and the Minister responded. If he responds he draws fire.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Corio is quite well aware that he is in the wrong.

Mr THOMSON:

-I will repeat, for the benefit of members of the Opposition who are listening, that this Federal Government has given a categorical assurance that there will be no drilling or mining on the reef or in any area where that could damage the reef. Nothing could be more categorical than that. I also give the assurance that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act will be invoked, if necessary, to prevent such mining. So there can be absolutely no doubt that within the Great Barrier Reef region the Commonwealth has the legislative power to act to protect the reef. I repeat, there is absolutely no doubt that within the Great Barrier Reef region the Commonwealth has absolute power to protect the reef.

Mr Keating:

– You have changed your tune.

Mr THOMSON:

-In case honourable members opposite are worried about any action outside of the marine park that might damage the reef, I shall quote section 66 (2) E, which reads:

The Governor-General may make regulations regulating or prohibiting acts (whether in the marine park or elsewhere) that may pollute water in a manner harmful to animals and plants in the Marine Park.

That means that if any damage is occurring as a result of activity in an area outside that which is proclaimed as a marine park, the GovernorGeneral may make regulations to prohibit the act or acts which are causing such damage to this magnificent and delicate ecosystem.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is too late after the damage is done, surely. How can he correct it after it is done? What a crazy statement!

Mr THOMSON:

– I am referring to areas outside of the marine park that can nevertheless come under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. There is no doubt that this Government has a complete and categorical commitment to the protection of the Great Barrier Reef. It has, as a result of the application of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act to the coastal waters of the Great Barrier Reef, provided such protection in the package of Bills that is being discussed today. The two sections of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act to which I have pointed give complete legislative authority to the Commonwealth to protect the Great Barrier Reef. I live on the reef and have a great love of it. I and my family are scuba divers and I agree entirely with the Government’s policy. I would do everything to see that that policy was carried out and the reef protected. There will be no drilling on the reef. Nor will there be any drilling that will damage the reef. The Commonwealth has complete legislative authority to carry out that promise.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Before I call the honourable member for Blaxland I inform honourable members that I intend to apply the same rules with regard to interjections, whether’ they come from the Government side or the Opposition side. I call the honourable member for Blaxland.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-These Bills, the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Bill 1980 -

Mr Roger Johnston:

– I rise on a point of order. Is it allowable for the honourable member for Corio to approach the Chair, wave his fists and yell? Is that not abuse of the Standing Orders and should he not be warned for it?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I did not accept it in that fashion. The honourable member and I were merely having a friendly discussion, with gesticulations.

Mr KEATING:

– These Bills, the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Bill 1980, the Coastal Waters (State Title) Bill 1980 and the other Bills in this cognate debate, represent a very bad day indeed for the Commonwealth Parliament. They are the product of the anti-federalism philosophy of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and undermine the concept of a nation that the federal movement spawned. The Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Garfield Barwick, summed up the offshore waters issue when he said in his judgment on the seas and submerged lands case:

  1. . once the low water mark is passed the international domain is reached.

This view was asserted in the Commonwealth Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973. It was supported by the High Court of Australia in 1975. At Federation, Australia became a nation and the off-shore waters of Australia became an international water, coming within the realm of the Commonwealth Parliament. For years the question of off-shore sovereignty has been debated. Most people believed that the power over this area was a Commonwealth power though arguments between the Commonwealth and the States prevented any declaration of sovereignty. The decision by the Commonwealth and the States in 1 967 to enact a common petroleum mining code for the adjacent area of each State was a conscious attempt to avoid raising questions as to the respective constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and the States.

In 1970 the issue was raised again with the presentation of the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill, which was not proceeded with due to a wrangle between the State and Commonwealth elements of the coalition parties. Opposition to Commonwealth control in those days came from Sir Henry Bolte with what he saw was his new-found wealth in Bass Strait, and Sir Charles Court in Western Australia. In the face of obstructionism by the conservative States rights elements in the Senate, the mining code sections of the Bill were dropped and the declaratory part was passed into law. It was then challenged by the coalition Government of New South Wales. The rest is history. The High Court held in favour of the Commonwealth. To any sensible person that should have been the end of it. The matter should have remained settled once and for all. Attempts by the recalcitrant State Premiers, Sir Charles Court and Mr BjelkePetersen, to overturn or to circumvent the High Court decision should have been treated with disdain. The subsequent policy of the Commonwealth represents a serious about-face, particularly by the Prime Minister from the position he held in late 1976. In a telex to the Western Australian Premier, Sir Charles Court, on 1 1 November 1976, the Prime Minister said:

The position of the Government is that it regards the High Court decision in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act case that sovereignty over the territorial sea is vested in the Commonwealth and not in the States, as having settled the general issue of sovereignty over the territorial sea.

In taking this position my Government has had regard to the advice it has received from its law officers that the Commonwealth could not legally accede to the States request on this matter. I appreciate that different views may be entertained on this question, but the matter that has been so recently resolved by -the High Court ought not, I think, to be re-opened.

The Prime Minister’s resolve later deteriorated. By 1977 he was on a new binge of anticentralism. States rights, or the new federalism as he called it, was then in vogue. As it turned out, the States were invited by the Commonwealth to make submissions on the manner in which the Commonwealth should exercise its off-shore rights. The States, of course, were quick to respond. They said that they no longer had power over essential State-type functions such as harbours, ports, wharves, et cetera, and that the situation had to be rectified. This, of course, was untrue. The Seas and Submerged Lands Act stated in Division 3, clause 14, quite specifically:

Nothing . . . affects sovereignty or sovereign rights in respect of any waters of the sea that are waters of or within any bay, gulf, estuary, river, creek, inlet, port or harbour and, (a) were on 1st January 1901 within the limits of the State . . .

It went on to say:

  1. . or in respect of the air space over, or in respect of the sea-bed or subsoil beneath, any such waters.

In other words, there was an express provision to maintain State control over these State-type responsibilities. The Bill went on further, at clause 1 5, to state:

Nothing in this part shall be taken to vest in the Crown in right of the Commonwealth any wharf, jetty, pier, breakwater, building, platform, pipeline, lighthouse, beacon, navigational aid, buoy, cable or other structure or works.

So, State-type responsibilities were fully recognised. The States argued for further powers. They said that they needed powers for beach protection, coastal waters protection, dredging and dredging dumpings- functions that they needed to exercise within the territorial sea. These functions are legitimate and could have been accommodated by Commonwealth legislation to grant to the States power over these functions within the territorial sea. With such powers and the powers available to the States under clauses 14 and 15 of the Seas and Submerged Lands Act, the States would have been able to deal fully with these responsibilities. But this was not enough. They wanted more. They wanted what they assumed had always been theirs until the High Court decision- that is, State power and title over the territorial sea. Ordinarily they would have had no chance of getting this power except that they now had a preCopernican obscurantist Prime Minister in office hell bent on returning Australia to its former colonial state.

On top of that, the threatening tones of Sir Charles Court and Mr Bjelke-Petersen in pursuit of narrow State interests made a sleazy deal all the more likely. The result of these coalition machinations is the gaggle of Bills we have before us today. The effect of these Bills is to vest in the States powers, proprietary rights and title over the land beneath the territorial sea. Some of the powers in themselves are not objectionable and would have been granted anyway by both coalition and Labor governments alike. What is objectionable is the manner in which the powers are to be granted. What is particularly objectionable is the granting to the States of the proprietary rights and titles to the sea bed. The granting of the powers is a piece of constitutional adventurism embarked upon with the intention of establishing a legal arrangement designed to preclude a repeal or alteration of the powers by a future Labor government. Essentially it has been hatched up by the perverse minds of the coalition parties to thwart the prerogatives of a future Commonwealth government.

The Coastal Waters (State Powers) Bill relies upon section 51, placitum (xxxviii) of the Constitution for its power. This section of the Constitution has never been used before. It is being used now, in my view unconstitutionally, to grant to the States powers over the territorial sea which would otherwise have been enjoyed by the Commonwealth Parliament. The technique is to have the States pass request Bills under this section to request the Commonwealth Parliament to enact an Act to grant powers. Instead of legislating under a more appropriate head of power, the Fraser Government has used section 51, placitum (xxxviii), on the basis that the repeal of this Act by the Commonwealth Parliament would require concurrent repeal by the States of the various request Bills. The Fraser Government would reason that a future Labor government would not be able to secure this concurrence.

It must be understood that there is no constitutional necessity for recourse to this head of power. Indeed, it raises further constitutional doubts which had been settled by the Seas and Submerged Lands Act case in 1975. It is the Fraser Government which is injecting uncertainty back into the issue. It will be the Fraser Government which will carry the responsibility for further upheaval. The constitutional malice involved in this scheme was revealed at the June 1978 Premiers Conference when Sir Charles Court said:

If the Commonwealth did this -

That is, devolve these powers to the States under section 5 1 (xxxviii)- could not the next Commonwealth Government reverse it? We are trying to avoid this.

The Commonwealth Attorney-General (Senator Durack) replied:

There is strong legal opinion that an action taken by the Commonwealth under section 51 (xxxviii) at the request of the States could not be repealed without the request of the States.

Since then further negotiations have apparently proceeded and agreement reached. This powers Bill cedes to the States power over a territorial sea of three nautical miles together with exclusive control over the projections or State-created structures beyond that limit. It also cedes to the States exclusive control over mining for petroleum or minerals within the territorial sea. The Commonwealth retains some powers for specific Commonwealth functions within the territorial sea, but a more general Commonwealth power within the territorial sea was a casualty of the more squalid negotiations.

The Coastal Waters (State Title) Bill interestingly does not rely upon section 51 (xxxviii). It relies upon the external affairs power. This is done obviously to protect its provisions from a successful challenge to the section 5 1 (xxxviii) powers scheme. The Government’s reasoning would be that if the powers scheme collapses, the rights and titles would remain secure. Quite obviously if the Government believes that the external affairs power can be used for the rights and titles legislation, the same power could have been used for the powers Bill. The Government thinks it has developed a Labor-proof scheme.

The use of the section 51 (xxxviii) device is to vest the powers, and the use of the external affairs power is to vest the rights and titles. The Government takes the view that the repeal of the titles Bills by a future Commonwealth government would involve the deterrent of prohibitive compensation.

What is so dishonest about this scheme is that the section 51 (xxxviii) power has been used under dubious constitutional precepts rather than there being resort to a referendum. Section 123 of the Constitution provides for an alteration of State limits by referendum. Sir Charles Court, Mr Bjelke-Petersen and Mr Fraser were not game to run the gauntlet of a referendum. The sense of nation of the Australian people would have denied them convenient political settlement. It should be well understood that a future Labor government will have no bar of this arrangement or the arrangement under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act for the establishment of joint Commonwealth-State authorities over petroleum mining. The likelihood is that the coastal waters legislation will fail upon its first test before the High Court, thereby obviating the need to introduce amending legislation.

Failing this, it can be argued that an enactment pursuant to section 51 (xxxviii) may be repealed in the same way as any other enactment of the Commonwealth. Alternatively, the repealing law may be supported by another head of power. Just because the States have passed request Bills seeking Commonwealth enactments, it does not automatically follow that the Commonwealth must seek the repeal of those request Bills to amend or to repeal its enactments. A request has been made and an enactment granted. It could be that the enactment may be repealed despite the request or a subsequent request for repeal. If repeal is not constitutionally possible without State concurrence, an alternative course may be provided by other Commonwealth legislation. Section 7 (c) of the State Powers Act provides:

Nothing in this Act shall be taken to . . .

give any force or effect to a provision of a law of a State to the extent of any inconsistency with a law of the Commonwealth or with the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia or the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act ‘.

It would therefore be open to the Commonwealth as a matter of law to legislate inconsistently with any State law authorised by the State Powers Act. Presumably the external affairs power could be relied upon to support Commonwealth legislation should other heads of power be inapplicable.

The right of the States to regulate mining for petroleum and minerals within the territorial sea could be denied the States by repealing the rights and titles legislation and then legislating inconsistently to overcome the State Powers Act under section 51 (xxxviii). The compensation implied in a repeal of the Coastal Waters (State Title) Act would, under the Constitution, need to be on just terms. But what would be just terms when the States are to be given these titles without any consideration other than simply by request? The States would find it difficult to argue cogently that there was some basis for massive compensation. By repeal they would be denied wealth that came to them in the first place by way of a political windfall. This is hardly a convincing argument for massive compensation.

These measures have been hailed by the Prime Minister as an historic constitutional settlement and a milestone in co-operative federalism. They are neither. They are a product of constitutional debauchery and political villainy designed to rob the Commonwealth of its international power in the territorial sea. It is an act of impertinence, perpetrated by the Commonwealth against the power of the Commonwealth Parliament. The division of the resources of the territorial sea among the seven governments can in no way serve the national interest nor the concept of a nation. The government of the territorial seas, the seabed and the air space of the continental shelf and margin should remain a function of the nation- of the national government. The creation of the national government was the essential purpose of federation. The Prime Minister’s modern concept of federation is in fact anti-federalism- a return to colonial concepts. The Opposition opposes these Bills. It will have no truck with a government bent upon perverting the national interest. In government it will restore the Commonwealth to its appropriate place of power above the sectional interests of the States whether they be Labor or Liberal.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-As chairman of the Government members law and government committee and Vice-Chairman of the Government members federal affairs committee I welcome this legislation. It is heroic, historic and possibly the best example of cooperative federalism ever to come before this Parliament. It follows, therefore, that I totally disassociate myself from the vicious and spiteful attacks on co-operative federalism which are exampled in the discussion on this legislation by speakers from the Opposition who have made contributions in the Parliament this afternoon. I have never in a 14 year parliamentary career, both State and Federal, witnessed such a vicious attack on Australia’s federal system of government as I have this afternoon from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) and a moment ago from the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating).

The Opposition attacks on this legislation reveal that it is more centralist today in 1980 than it was at any time during its ill-fated period of government from 1972 to 1975. Members of the Opposition are unmasked and exposed as State haters. I repeat that they hate States and they hate State governments regardless of political colour. Of course, this reminds us of the comments made by the former Prime Minister Mr Whitlam that the best service State parliaments could do was to vote themselves out of existence. The State haters are having a field day today. The Labor Party again reveals itself as committed to a centralist, socialist, republican Australia.

Why is it so important for the Labor Party to destroy the federal system of government? It is because it is very difficult, if not impossible, to socialise Australia while we have a federal system of government. If the Federal system of government were to collapse and were to be replaced by a centralised form of government, the socialisation of Australia could be far more easily obtained. The honourable member for Blaxland revealed himself as the champion- the undisputed champion- of Canberra centralism. It is interesting to comment that only last year the honourable member for Blaxland with a great flurry of trumpets was appointed the Opposition spokesman in this House on Tasmania, the State which I have the honour to represent. The honourable member for Blaxland and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) came down to Tasmania and addressed the Hobart Press Club. At that function the honourable member was publicly proclaimed the Labor Party spokesman on Tasmania in the House of Representatives. He was the man who would put the Labor Party’s views about Tasmania. What happened this year? Following the sacking of the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) a new list of shadow Ministers was released.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Order! In my view the comments of the honourable member for Denison are most irrelevant to the Bill. I suggest that he come back to the series of Bills under discussion.

Mr HODGMAN:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, out of deference to you, I will. If I can complete my sentence, the honourable member for Blaxland is now the spokesman for northern Australia. It follows that the views that he expressed today are as much against the interests of Tasmania as they are against the interests of the Northern Territory. I will come directly to the comments made by the honourable member for Blaxland both in this House and outside this House in opposition to these Bills. In other words, I will come to his arguments and, I submit, I will destroy them. I will reveal his statements to be not only inaccurate and legally unsound but also, as I have said, philosophically totally opposed to the federal system of government which is protected in this country by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. On 23 April the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) introduced the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Bill. During his speech he made what I thought was a very valid comment. He said:

I wish to add, and to emphasise, that this Bill- indeed the whole package- has the support of all the States regardless of the politics of their governments.

Mr Goodluck:

– Even Tasmania.

Mr HODGMAN:

– As my colleague confirms, even Tasmania. The comments of the Prime Minister are set out on page 2169 of Hansard The honourable member for Blaxland interjected:

Shame on them.

The Prime Minister responded:

The honourable gentleman, a shadow Minister, said: Shame on them’. So he is saying shame on the New South Wales Government and shame on the Tasmanian Government. Let that be known.

The honourable member for Blaxland ‘s hatred of the States extends to attacking two State Labor governments. I am not here to defend the Government in Tasmania or the Government in New South Wales. But I will defend the States. Even if there were six Labor State governments, I would defend their right to exist. Of course, the Labor Party wishes to see them abolished. The very next day the honourable member was invited to appear on the radio program AM. I will read the introductory remarks of Julie Flynn before she interviewed the honourable member for Blaxland. I will quote from the official transcript of AM for Thursday, 24 April 1980. Ms Flynn said:

The package of Bills has been described as a milestone in co-operative Federalism.

Quite right- 10 out of 10. She is completely correct in that assessment. She went on to say:

It follows more than 10 years of wrangling between the States and the Commonwealth. Prime Minister Gorton came to grief over his attempt to assert the Commonwealth ‘s rights and the Whitlam Government was forced to hold a joint sitting before its Bill was successful. It was challenged in the High Court and in 1976 the Court ruled unanimously in the Commonwealth’s favour.

A little later she went on to say:

Last year a compromise was worked out at the Premiers Conference, which in effect, cedes some of the Commonwealth powers to the States.

Again that is quite correct. She continued:

All the State Governments have passed legislation requesting passage of the Bills by the Federal Parliament, and both the Federal Government and the States -

That is all six States-

Are confident that the Bills represent a new era in State and Federal co-operation. However, the Federal Opposition sees the Bill as a sell-out to the States and an attempt to prevent any future Federal Government from asserting its rights over the States. Opposition Spokesman on Minerals and Energy, Mr Paul Keating -

Mr Keating said:

The Commonwealth can legislate to give powers to the States under its External Affairs power. This is not what the Government has done. It has gone through this legal ruse of having request bills passed by the States to use a section of the Constitution which has never been used before and which was designed -

These are interesting words-

For ‘pre-Federation ‘ -

I will come back to that. He continued: . . and use that power so as a future Labor Government would find it difficult to repeal the legislation. It just indicates the divisiveness surrounding Mr Fraser and the fact that he is the most divisive political leader we have ever had.

I invite any lawyer in Australia, any first year law student, to tell me how a provision in the Constitution can be, to quote the words of the honourable member for Blaxland, ‘pre-Federation’. There was no Federation before the Constitution was passed, and it is a legal nonsense, an absurdity, a ridiculous thing to say that a provision in the Australian Constitution is pre-Federation. The honourable member for Blaxland involved himself in what can be described only as schoolboy legal confidence trickery. He cannot have a provision in a Constitution which is preFederation. In effect, what he was saying was that that power could only have been used before 1 January 1 90 1 . To show how ridiculous and stupid that statement is I refer specifically to section 51, placitum (xxxviii), of the Constitution, which states:

The exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the States directly concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia:

Every single State Parliament in Australia of its own volition has passed legislation requesting the Fraser Government to bring this legislation into the Commonwealth Parliament. Yet the Opposition, and particularly the honourable member for Blaxland, claim that it is unconstitutional. The honourable member went further and said: ‘Shame on them for having done it’. In the interview Ms Flynn said to him:

What would a future Labor Government do about the legislation?

Listen to this answer. The honourable member for Blaxland said:

We would challenge the whole basis of the legislation and we would seek to repeal it and to introduce a Commonwealth mining code offshore and to exercise sovereignty.

This is pure unadulterated centralism.

We are not at issue with the question of the States having control over ports, estuaries, harbours, and some fishing rights. That is not at issue. The thing at issue is simply this: who runs oil in Australia offshore, the Commonwealth or the State Ministers for Mines?

Ms Flynn said:

But in the name of co-operation, isn’t it far better for an agreement that all parties are happy with?

The honourable member brushed that aside and gave a political answer, but I will not waste the time of the House by reading it. I come now to the final question and answer. Ms Flynn said:

I was just going to say, the two Labor States have voted, in fact, in favour of this Bill.

What did this supposed future Prime Minister of Australia, the honourable member for Blaxland, say? What was his response to Ms Flynn ‘s very reasonable suggestion that two Labor States had voted in favour of this Bill? I hope that Mr Wran and Mr Lowe are listening, because this is what the honourable member said about them:

They have broken Federal policy of the Party, and it reflects no credit upon them whatsoever.

Shame on the honourable member for Blaxland. Shame on the honourable member. Not only is he prepared to say ‘Shame and discredit on States who stick up for their rights’, but also he is prepared to claim publicly that two of his colleagues, Mr Wran and Mr Lowe, have broken party policy. On that point the honourable member for Blaxland is a voice in the wilderness. Nobody, not even the eloquent Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been prepared to say that the Premier of Tasmania and the Premier of New South Wales have broken party policy. Yet the honourable member for Blaxland, a confirmed prisoner of the pro-communist Left, one who was moderate only a few years ago but is now firmly in the grip of the Left, has come out publicly and condemned two State Labor Premiers because they did their duty and stood up for their States.

This is historic legislation which will be applauded by every federalist in Australia. It will be condemned by every socialist, every centralist, and by those on the other side of the chamber who espouse the cause of a republican Australia, with the States totally abolished and a unitary system of government here in Canberra, and a unicameral one at that, with the Senate out of the way as well. It is clear to anybody who heard the speeches made today by members of the Opposition that their hatred of the States, their contempt for State Premiers, their contempt for States’ rights is unparalleled. As I said earlier, it reveals the Labor Party today, wracked and torn asunder within itself, is nevertheless more centralist than it was in the period of government under Mr Whitlam from 1972 to 1975. Opposition members might think that they are winning popular support here in Canberra, and they might well get some support in Canberra by following a centralist line. But they should go out into the States where the real people live, to Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia and ask them what they think about the attitude of the Opposition towards States’ rights and the Federal system of government. They will find that the people on the Opposition benches who have espoused the views put today are completely out of touch. I say that with respect to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. They are completely out of touch with reality and with what the people of Australia want.

What has been the occasion for this outrageous, vicious and spiteful Labor Party attack on the Bill? This Bill gives the States control of territorial waters to a distance of three miles from low-water mark. What a terrible thing we have done; what a shameful thing we have done, according to the Opposition. In this country we have a 200-mile exclusive economic zone, and the miserable attitude from the other side of the House is this: Do not let the States have control of anything below low-water mark. Honourable members can imagine how I feel about that, coming from Tasmania, Australia’s only island State- a State described by a former Federal Attorney-General, Mr Enderby, as an island completely surrounded by water. That very profound statement made by Mr Enderby has gone down in the history of this Parliament as one of the greatest pronouncements of all time, and is only equalled by his other superb statement that nearly all Australia’s imports come from overseas. Having made that comment, I want to say that no Tasmanian, regardless of his political colour, will accept for one moment the Labor Party dictum that territorial rights end at lowwater mark.

Mr Burr:

– Doug Lowe doesn’t accept it.

Mr HODGMAN:

– Exactly. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) are here, as are all the Tasmanians when a matter affecting the State rights of Tasmania are under debate in this Parliament. The next point I come to is that the Labor Party opposes this legislation even though, apart from giving the States sovereignty with respect to the territorial waters, which will be renamed coastal waters, the subsoil underneath and the air above the Commonwealth retains the right to veto if in the national interest it is necessary to do so. The honourable member for Blaxland described this legislation as debauched. He talked about a sleazy deal. I do not express any surprise that in this debate the honourable member for Blaxland should take the opportunity to criticise such a great Premier as Sir Charles Court, who fights for his State and gets results. But fancy him saying in this Parliament that the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Lowe, has been involved in a sleazy deal, and that the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran, has involved himself in debauched legislation. This is not the sort of legislation we used to see in the Whitlam days, when Canberra waved the big stick and dictated and dominated. This legislation has come into this Parliament because every State government in Australia, every State Parliament in Australia, has said: ‘We need it in the national interest’.

The honourable member for Blaxland, the champion of centralism, had the effrontery to stand in this chamber and condemn, in what I would describe as inflammatory language, using words such as ‘debauchery’, ‘sleazy’, ‘corrupt’. He condemns not just six State Premiers, but six State Parliaments and six States. He should be reminded that we still have and will continue to have in this country for many years to come a federal system of government, and the strength of the Commonwealth is in the States. Without the States there is no Commonwealth. The point I make, not unkindly, is that all wisdom does not repose in Canberra and that Canberra, from the point of view of productivity, has not been exactly a startling success since it ceased to be a sheep farm.

This Parliament is composed of representatives of every State and Territory in the Commonwealth, yet a third of the members of the

House of Representatives are prepared to get up in this chamber and say: ‘The Government has sold away Commonwealth powers’. The fact of the matter is that until the High Court decision of 1975 nobody knew for sure who had responsibility with respect to off-shore waters and submerged lands. Nobody knew where the rights were. The Commonwealth and States, particularly the smaller States, got over the problem by ad hoc arrangements. State fisheries inspectors were also Commonwealth fisheries inspectors. A combination of procedures was used to bring about some form of working arrangement. In 1975 the High Court of Australia said that the Whitlam legislation, forced through a double sitting of this Parliament against the wishes of the people of Australia, was nevertheless constitutionally valid. It is the most hated legislation that the Whitlam Government ever put on the statute book. The fact that it was constitutional was the decision of the High Court; we cannot argue with that. That does not prevent the Australian people from hating it.

We now have co-operative federalism under which there is an arrangement for joint control of resources but with the States having primary control and title with respect to the 3-mile limit. In fact, the legislation is more generous than was the common law with respect to territorial waters. A series of straight lines is being drawn and there is a wide aligning up of the points of a bay which is not more than 24 miles long. There is no cribbing inch by inch down the coast of New South Wales or the coast of Tasmania. The Commonwealth has been generous to the States and the States appreciate it, even if the honourable member for Blaxland and his centralist colleagues do not. The Commonwealth could have brought this legislation to the Parliament and achieved this result in three ways. A referendum could have been put to the people of Australia following the decision of the High Court in 1975. That would have been costly and expensive. Alternatively, the Government could have asked the Parliament in Westminster to legislate. I believe that that would not be acceptable to the people of Australia.

What has happened is that six State Premiers- Liberal, Labor and National Country Party Premiers- have said: ‘We want this legislation’. The only people who oppose this legislation are the centralist socialists opposite. The honourable member for Blaxland has destroyed himself politically by his extraordinary and absurd performance over this legislation. It is a matter of contempt and shame that in 1980 there are still people on the other side of the House who are determined to destroy the federal system of government and, worse still, determined to destroy the States. As long as there are representatives from Tasmania and other States in this House they will not succeed. The Opposition is off-sides with the people of Australia. It is cutting across the whole basis of the constitutional structure of this country.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J. D. M. Dobie)- Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

-We have just had 20 minutes of the unadulterated drivel that usually emanates from the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). Whenever he is short on facts, which is 90 per cent of the time, he spends most of his time venting his spleen and pouring insults upon members of the Opposition. It is never a very good replacement for logical and sound argument. At least he has one thing to recommend him today, that is that it is May Day and he has a red carnation in his lapel. I do not propose to repeat the sequence of events that led to this infamous piece of legislation. Suffice it to say that after a considerable battle for almost a decade involving the Gorton Government and its near demise in attempting to determine who had sovereignty over the territorial sea and the continental shelf and the legislation of the Whitlam Government- the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973, which was one of the pieces of legislation resolved in the 1 974 double dissolution and the Joint Sitting of both Houses of Parliament- it is staggering to find that we now have a government that wishes to hand back to the States the power resolved by the High Court challenge that determined that sovereignty resided with the Commonwealth.

The package of Bills now before the House hands back to the States the powers the High Court had determined were rightfully the domain of the national Government. I want to concentrate on how that affects the future of the Great Barrier Reef. An examination of the legislation will reveal that, after this legislation has been passed, the Queensland Government will have power over the territorial sea up to three nautical miles from the low water mark of its coastline. It will include also control of the seas, above and below, for three nautical miles around the coral cays and islands that dot the 1,900- kilometre length and up to 300-kilometre width of the Great Barrier Reef region.

When I pointed this out in a Press release on Monday and stated that this was a massive act of deception by the Australian Government, I was accused by the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson) of trying to deceive the Australian people. What I said about the legislation was 100 per cent correct. Once the legislation is passed, the Queensland Government will have power to issue permits for exploration for drilling for oil in the territorial seas area now not part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. At the moment that would apply to 97.6 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef region. In a few months, when the next section of the Park is declared, it will apply to 91 per cent of the region.

When this debate erupted last March and April, and it became clear to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that there would be a serious electoral backlash against the Government if the reef were to be drilled for oil, a very carefully worded statement was made by the Prime Minister that attempted, probably with some success, to assuage the fears of the vast majority of Australians who were concerned about the future of the reef. I take my hat off to the Prime Minister. The statement was as slick, as oily and as glib as any statement he has ever made. It had all the familiar handiwork of the master craftsman who informed us years ago that he supported the leadership of the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Snedden. It had the same degree of cleverness as his statement about believing that governments, elected for three years, should serve their full term, the careful let out being the shrewdly added phrase extraordinary and reprehensible circumstances’. I could go on quoting public statements that indicate the cleverness of this Prime Minister and how we have all learnt not to believe anything he says but carefully to examine every word looking for the escape clause.

Let us look very carefully at what he said then and what he and his Minister for Science and the Environment have been saying ever since. I shall quote from the answer the Minister for Science and the Environment gave to a question from the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Dean) the other day. The question reads:

Is the Minister for Science and the Environment aware of a report in the Cairns Post today alleging a ‘monstrous deception’ by the Government about the Great Barrier Reef! If so, is the allegation correct?

After claiming that I was guilty of deception, the Minister went on to say:

On 4 June the Prime Minister said in this Parliament that the Government would not permit exploration for petroleum in the Great Barrier Reef area and would not permit the renewal of petroleum exploration permits in the region until the results of both short and long term research into the reef ecosystem are known.

Let us carefully examine that statement. Amora.torium is simply a delay of action, a putting off to some future period. The Minister tries to give the impression that a moratorium is a permanent state of affairs. He does not define what the period of short or long term research is likely to be. It may mean anything from one year to 10 years or more; nobody knows. But the suggestion that somehow or other a moratorium guarantees permanent protection of the reef is nonsense. The reef is safeguarded until such time as the Government decides that the moratorium is over. It does not even require legislative action; just when the Prime Minister decides. A moratorium is simply a stay of execution; it is not a full pardon. So that part of the Prime Minister’s statement does not give the assurances that the Australian people require regarding the safety of the reef from oU explorers or drillers.

The next part of the Minister’s statement was a quote from a joint statement by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Queensland on 14 June of last year. It said:

Both the Premier and the Prime Minister confirmed that it was the policy of their respective Governments to prohibit any drilling on the Reef or any drilling or mining which could damage the Reef.

Let us look closely at the first part of that statement. It reads: . . that it was the policy of their . . . Governments to prohibit any drilling on the Reef . . …

I emphasise the word ‘on’. The reef itself would probably constitute less than five per cent of the whole of the reef region. This statement carefully avoids any references to waters around the reef or near the reef. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of ecology must realise that drilling around or near the reef will do as much if not more damage to the reef as if one drilled oh the reef. In fact, it is likely that if drilling were restricted to reef islands the damage would be less than drilling in waters around the reef. One has a chance of containing oil spills on land, but none at sea. The next part of the statement reads: or any drilling or mining which could damage the Reef.

This is a meaningless statement and a worthless assurance. Once an oil well is drilled in the reef region it is not possible for either the Prime Minister or the Queensland Premier to give assurances that there will never be any damage done to the reef. Wherever there is an oil well there is a risk of leaks or a blowout. If a blowout occurs the assurances of the Prime Minister and the Queensland Premier will be worthless. The oil will go wherever the sea takes it. The recent oil spill at IXTOC I in the Gulf of Mexico off the

Yucatan Peninsula is a grim reminder of what can happen when a blow-out occurs. This oil well blew out in June last year and was capped only in March of this year. In the intervening nine months it spewed out 140 million gallons of light crude oil- the most toxic oil there is- and did immeasurable damage to the whole of the environment of the Gulf of Mexico. Currents carried the oil 800 kilometres to the Texas shore and wrecked the fishing, prawning and tourist industries of that region. The same sorts of assurances that oil blow-outs would not occur had been given to the people of Mexico and the southern United States. In 1969 oil leaks from wells of the west coast of the United States created massive pollution along the shoreline near the very beautiful city of Santa Barbara. I had the good fortune to visit that area a few months ago. The Minister continued in his answer to the question:

The honourable member for Robertson claims in his Press statement that all territorial seas around the islands and the Great Barrier Reef will be owned by Queensland until further sections of the Marine Park are declared. This claim is quite inaccurate.

What I said was 100 per cent correct. I quote from my Press statement:

The coastal waters legislation before Parliament will give Queensland total control of the water and sea bed for three nautical- miles around each of the myriad islands in the exposed reefs in the Great Barrier Reef except those in the Capricornia section of the Great Barrier Reef.

The Minister then went on to claim:

The Commonwealth recognises its international responsibilities for the Great Barrier Reef and so the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act will continue to apply to the whole of the reef region as defined. The right and title to be vested in the State of Queensland in respect of the sea bed of the territorial sea are to be subject to the operation of that Act.

What the Minister said was correct, but where the Government’s massive deception occurs is that he omitted to mention that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act applies only to that part of the Great Barrier Reef region that has been declared as part of the marine park. All the area outside of that is or will be under the control of the Queensland Government. The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Roger Johnston) shakes his head. I can hear him. I would like him to get up and explain where that statement is wrong. I hope he will have the opportunity. Nobody has yet said where our statement is incorrect at law. That is what the law says, no matter what the Government says in trying to deceive the Australian people. I challenge the Prime Minister and the Minister for Science and the Environment to show me where we are wrong at law. So far only one section of the reef region has been declared; that is the Capricornia section off Gladstone and Rockhampton. That section totals 6 per cent of the length of the reef but only 2.4 per cent of the total area. It is expected that a second section of the reef will be declared soon running from Lizard Island in the north to Innisfail in the south. That, I am informed, will bring the length of the reef area declared to about 25 per cent and the total area to just under 10 per cent.

However, let us not be deceived by talk about percentages. When we talk about percentages we must realise that we are talking about a highly mobile environment like the sea. The percentage of a marine park which is declared is irrelevant. It is possible for the Government to do in the Great Barrier Reef region what it did in Kakadu National Park.. It could draw a circle around the areas in which it wishes to permit oil drilling, as it drew a circle around the Kakadu National Park where it wished to permit uranium mining, say that those areas are not part of the park and then claim that 99 per cent of the reef region is in the park. It is possible under this devious Government to have a couple of hundred oil wells dotted along the Queensland coast and excluded from the marine park. This is what can be done and this is what it appears certain will happen under the Queensland and Federal governments.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– Oh, rubbish!

Mr COHEN:

-Is it rubbish? There is only one way in which the government can ensure that no drilling or mining will occur on the Great Barrier Reef. That is to declare the whole of the Great Barrier Reef region as part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. In April last year a public der bate erupted once again about whether the Great Barrier Reef was under threat from those who wished to drill for oil in the Great Barrier Reef region. Fears had been aroused by a constant stream of statements by oil industry personnel and conservative politicians, particularly those from Queensland including the Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, and the Minister for Mines, Mr Camm, that there must be exploration for oil in the Great Barrier Reef region. Let me quote some of the statements from these leaders. Mr Bjelke-Petersen was reported in the Canberra Times as having said in Brisbane on 27 February 1979:

Nobody’s going to suggest drilling in the reef, right through the reef. But there are so many places in the seas, in the breaks in the reef where even the Wallace Royal Commission says drilling can be done safely because currents flow away from the reef.

On 22 November 1 978 Mr Camm said:

A number of experiments on the possible effects of crude oil on coral growth .had shown that no damage whatsoever had been caused. ,

Listen to this bit:

In fact, in some instances, it had encouraged growth.

The search for oil in Australia must soon extend to the offshore areas of Queensland.

Mr Camm went on to say:

The chances of a major on-shore oil discovery in this State must not be ruled out. However, 1 believe it is time we extended our exploration activity to off-shore areas, where wc are likely to find new fields.

Mr Jacobi:

– Who said that?

Mr COHEN:

- Mr Camm, Minister for Mines in Queensland said it. On 17 May 1979 an article in the Age quoted Mr Camm. It stated: . . Australia had an obligation to honour contractual arrangements with the holders of six suspended permits. ‘We want to keep faith with the companies we’ve encouraged … to come to Australia to assist us in development of our mineral resources . . .

The National Times of 3 November had this to say:

The Queensland Government is unwilling to drop its ultimate aim of a hydrocarbon search under the reef region. Coincident with the Prime Minister’s broadcast, announcing the Capricornia Park to his electorate, Queensland’s Mines and Energy Minister Ron Camm told listeners to Mackay radio: ‘There is an embargo on oil exploration (only) until such time as the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments make a joint decision on what plans there are for the future’.

The article went on to say:

Commenting on its constitution in June, after a meeting in the central Queensland town of Emerald between the Prime Minister, Bjelke-Petersen … a Queensland Cabinet Minister told The National Times: ‘Joh took a purely political decision not to push for drilling. He knew he couldn’t win in the present political climate.

The article concluded:

And therein lies the key to Queensland ‘s attitude to future extensions of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act expressly forbids any form of mining in the park so that a full declaration of the park will forbid exploration, drilling or mining in the whole of that area now designated as the Great Barrier Reef region. It is fairly important at this stage to clarify for people the terms being used. The term the Great Barrier Reef refers only to the actual coral reef, coral cays or coral islands but does not include the waters around the reef which, as anyone understanding the complex interrelationship within an ecosystem will know, is an integral part of the reef. Their freedom from pollution and degradation is as vital to the survival of the reef as the reef itself. Let me quote that famous Australian poet, Judith Wright. She said:

To talk of the reef then, is to talk of many hundreds of thousands of reefs, yet it is also to speak of what is now being increasingly recognised as an ecological unity. The marine flora and fauna change in composition of species from north to south and also from east to west, and no one knows how their colonisation really takes place, or its sources, because of the complexity of the currents that carry the replenishing plankton from place to place.

Any plan for the preservation of the reef has to include protection of the waters around the reef. This is recognised in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act for it dennes the area to be protected as the Great Barrier Reef region and specifies the boundaries of the region.

Finally, I want to deal with the speech made by the Minister for Science and the Environment a few minutes ago. The Minister claimed that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act allows the Government to prevent any pollution from areas around the park. That is, to put it mildly’, bloody nonsense. If we read section 66 (2) E of the Great Barrier Reef Marine- Park Act, we can see that it is not a safeguard to prevent oil pollution fouling the marine park. The section can be used only after an oil blow-out has occurred; by that stage it is too late. If we permit drilling and there is a blow-out, what is this Government going to say to the Queensland Government? Is it going to say: ‘Stop polluting the park’? It will not be able to. The Prime Minister, Mr Bjelke-Petersen and the Queensland Government- particularly the Prime Minister- may think that they have supernatural powers. I suppose ‘that it is a measure of how close the Prime Minister believes he is to God when he, like King Canute, when an oil blow-out occurs, can say: ‘Stop! The oil must go no further’. That is where the nonsense, the deception and the deviousness by this Government has occurred in this debate. Once the oil wells are drilled and a blow-out has occurred, there is nothing anyone can do. If the Government allows one oil drill to be put into that area, it is placing the greatest ecological masterpiece in the world at risk. The Government will pay the price in the way history assesses its performance.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J. D. M. Dobie)- Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

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

– Having listened to the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), I am quite satisfied that the decision which I made this morning not to allow the motion of censure of the Minister for Science and Environment (Mr Thomson) to proceed was absolutely correct. The honourable member’s speech shows more clearly than ever before that the attempt to censure my colleague in the middle of Question Time this morning was a spurious action by the honourable member for Robertson. The refusal by this Government to accept the censure motion and to get on with the business of the House was absolutely correct.

The honourable gentleman tried to strengthen his condemnation of the Government and his attempt to attack the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Minister for Science and the Environment by the free use of words such as deception’ and ‘devious’. Let me tell him very simply that the use of those words in no way strengthens a weak argument. The Prime Minister, “the present Minister for Science and the Environment and his predecessor have made it abundantly clear on many occasions where this Government stands with regard to the protection of the Great Barrier Reef. It is not simply what has been said at this table and outside the House that marks the measure of our commitment. It is what we have done and what we know our powers to be. I do not think anybody will give the honourable member for Robertson, who is the shadow Minister for Science and the Environment, any credit for trying to promote the fears of the people about the Great Barrier Reef. The Prime Minister, in the clearest way, has given an undertaking that there will be no drilling on the reef, nor will there be any drilling which will damage the reef. The Minister for Science and the Environment has made that abundantly clear also.

This Government is committed, in cooperation with the Queensland Government, to re.search to ascertain the full extent of the need for action to protect the Barrier Reef. The Commonwealth recognises that, as in so many areas within the Australian Federation, it cannot and it ought not act alone. It must act through its own powers but also in co-operation with the States. That is why agreement has been reached with the Queensland Government through joint consultative arrangement as well as through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. That Act is not the only one through which the Commonwealth may act. The Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 applies to action by the Commonwealth, by a Commonwealth or Territory authority and other Commonwealth or Territory bodies. In addition, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 applies to certain areas acquired by the Commonwealth and proclaimed as parks or reserves which can prohibit drilling except with the approval of the Governor-General.

If the Commonwealth needs to use other legislative power or other Executive power available to it to ensure the absolute protection of the

Great Barrier Reef that legislation and those powers are available to it. One thing which is abundantly clear to this Government and which is not clear to the Opposition is that to achieve protection of the reef, as is the case with protection and conservation of other areas of Australia’s environment and natural heritage, the community ought not to look and does not look to the Commonwealth alone. It expects that the Commonwealth and States will act in the highest level of co-operation. It also expects that the Commonwealth will, in appropriate circumstances, exercise national leadership. If one goes back through the political history of events surrounding the Great Barrier Reef one can come to only one conclusion and that is that this Government, acting on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia, has given the national leadership required to ensure the protection of the reef. This legislation which we are debating and other legislation which is to be debated in this House this afternoon and tonight represent what is known as the off-shore package of Bills. It is, as the Prime Minister has described it, an historic package.

These Bills are introduced to give legislative effect to the off-shore settlement reached at the Premiers Conference in June last year. I mention, as did the Prime Minister, that the legislation is the result of an agreement reached at the Premiers Conference because it points out immediately the difference of opinion between State Premiers and the Opposition on the need for this legislation. Included amongst those State Premiers, of course, were the Labor Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran and the Premier of the Labor Government of Tasmania, Mr Lowe. Historically, the matter goes back further than the last Premiers Conference. It goes back to the time when Mr Dunstan was the Labor Premier of South Australia. It is not as though some Labor Party Premiers have stood out against Liberal and National Country Party Premiers, fighting to the bitter end the attempt by the Commonwealth to take complete control of this offshore area. It is an example of where political boundaries were crossed because of a necessity in the national interest to reach an agreement between all the States and the Commonwealth. That, I think, is a high point in co-operation within our Federation.

Let me tell the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) who, during the speech of the Prime Minister who introduced this legislation, interjected: Shame on those Labor Premiers. He said that because they had agreed with the Commonwealth, and Labor Premiers can be as interested in the future of their own States and as jealous of the power and authority of a State as any Liberal or National Country Party Premier. That is exactly what has happened in this case. Premier Dunstan, in his time, Premier Wran now and Premier Lowe now, acted in the interests of their own States irrespective of the decision of the Australian Labor Party organisation at its Adelaide Conference last year. That conference said to the Labor Party throughout Australia- both Federal and State branchesthat the Commonwealth ought to be given sole and complete authority and jurisdiction over all off-shore areas beyond the low water mark. Thankfully for this nation Premiers Wran and Lowe refused to abide by that Labor Party Conference decision.

The fact that this legislation now gives to all State governments and the Northern Territory power and authority over off-shore areas- the sea and the land beneath it- is very important in terms of the opportunity for a State to exercise control and direction over the development of the resources which lie off-shore. We know, in the energy hungry world and in energy hungry Australia, how dependent all citizens of Australia are upon the oil which is produced from the great Bass Strait oil fields off-shore from Victoria. Yet the decision of the Australian Labor Party Conference in Adelaide last year must throw into doubt the authority of the Victorian Government over those Bass Strait fields. Therefore the people of Victoria have to look to the future if ever, heaven forbid, a Labor government should get in control of the Commonwealth and also gain control over the Government of Victoria.

It would not need a Labor Government in Victoria to achieve the aims of that Labor Party Conference because if the Labor Party carried through its threat to fake complete power to the Commonwealth then this Parliament could pass the necessary laws to expropriate from Victoria the Bass Strait oil fields. In my State of Western Australia a most important decision has been made. When I was a member of the Opposition in this place during those fateful days between 1973 and 1975 I saw what the regime of the late Rex Connor and Prime Minister Whitlam did. They said in the most unequivocal terms to the States, and to Western Australia in particular, that they would not allow any development offshore to be controlled by Western Australia. It reached the point where all prospects of developing the great natural gas fields of the North West Shelf, and all exploration in the north west area and to the Exmouth Plateau were brought to a complete halt overnight because of the statements made in this House by the then Minister for Minerals and Energy, the late Rex Connor, who was backed up by his Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam.

I can remember vividly the late Mr Connor saying that he knew what the decision of the High Court of Australia would be in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act case; that it would come out in favour of the Commonwealth and, therefore, he would not co-operate with Western Australia to grant any more exploration licences in the off-shore areas of that State. He made it quite clear that when the High Court brought down the decision, which he expected to be in favour of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth would take over completely the control and administration of those off-shore areas. It does not take very much to understand that that brought a complete halt to any prospect of oil exploration in off-shore Western Australia.

Let us look at the energy crisis which Australia faces along with the rest of the world today. Five years ago, if the Labor Government of the day had allowed the Western Australian Government to get on with the job and offer exploration permits and titles to people and companies which were prepared to invest the large sums of money, perhaps greater reserves of natural gas or oil fields would have been found by now.

Mr Cotter:

– And at much less cost.

Mr VINER:

– As my colleague, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie points out, at much less cost than it is today. Let nobody be under an mistaken apprehension as to what happened under the regime of the late Mr Connor and Mr Whitlam when they were in government and what would happen under a regime of the honourable member for Blaxland, the Labor Party spokesman on minerals and energy. Let there be no misapprehension as to what would happen if the honourable member for Blaxland and the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) ever came into government and got control of this Parliament. Quite properly a legal doubt has emerged as to whether, given the way in which this package of legislation has been put together by the Commonwealth and the Statesthrough the States requesting the Commonwealth to legislate and the States actually passing through their parliaments enabling legislationthat even a Labor Commonwealth government could not act in the way in which the Labor Party has threatened to do. I hope that the law is as watertight as it is believed to be by some constitutional lawyers so that a Labor government -

Mr Jacobi:

– Not all constitutional lawyers.

Mr VINER:

– As the honourable member for Hawker, who is a Labor member, says: ‘Not all constitutional lawyers’. In other words, he is keeping his options open. As I said, if a Labor government got control in Canberra it would seek to legislate to take away from the States the power and authority given to them under this package of legislation. It has been quite plainly stated in the House that the Labor Party would seek to act on the decision of the Adelaide Conference. I remind the House and the honourable member for Hawker that the Labor controlled Parliament of New South Wales and the Labor controlled Parliament of Tasmania have both passed enabling legislation to authorise the Commonwealth to introduce this package of offshore Bills. Is the Labor Party Opposition really thumbing its nose at Mr Wran and Mr Lowe? What will it do to those Premiers at its next Labor Party Conference? Will it expel them for breaking the binding platform of the Labor Party? I do not know; let it try. I venture to suggest that it will not get very far because those two Labor Premiers know that what the Commonwealth is now doing is in the interests of the people of New South Wales and Tasmania.

Mr Scholes:

– Not for the people of Australia.

Mr VINER:

– The honourable member for Corio says: ‘Not for the people of Australia’. He is really saying that Mr Wran and Mr Lowe are wrong and so are the Premiers of all other States and the Leader of the Government of the Northern Territory in believing that it is in the interests of the citizens of those States and of the Northern Territory that the Commonwealth should voluntarily pass over to the States and the Northern Territory the authority and power to control what happens off-shore from their States.

This Bill is of historic significance in its own right. As the Prime Minister has said, it represents the use, for the first time since Federation, of the power conferred on this Parliament by section 51 (xxxviii) of the Constitution. The exercise of that power requires the request or concurrence of the parliaments of the States concerned. Is that not the best example we have had in the life of this Federation of the Commonwealth and the States getting together in the true spirit of the national interest, using the constitutional powers in the interests of the Commonwealth and the States.

Let me explain briefly to the House what this package of legislation actually does. The principal guidelines for the amendment of the offshore petroleum legislation, which is to be debated later tonight, were laid down by Premiers Conference decisions in 1978 and 1979. The legislation transfers power to the States within the 3-mile territorial sea. Commonwealth legislation applies only beyond that 3-mile territorial sea. Joint authorities have been established at ministerial level to administer off-shore mining beyond the territorial sea. Very importantly- I emphasise this- day-to-day administration is to be left with the States, and that is properly where it should be. Anybody who wants to prospect or exploit what lies off-shore. should not have to hurry and scurry only to Canberra. Authority for administration lies properly where it should becloser to the scene of action. Royalty sharing arrangements will continue both within the 3-mile zone and beyond. If course, trie implication of the Labor Party’s policy is that it would take away from the States- from Victoria and Wes-, tern Australia- the royalties they receive or the royalties that are in prospect from development that is going on there. A common mining code will apply both within the 3-rriile zone and outside it. The Commonwealth Minister will have the final say in case of disagreement in relation to all joint authority matters. But, with day-to-day administration and the power to issue permits and titles lying with the State authorities, that will cut back to a great extent the possibility of disagreement and the need for the Commonwealth to act in the national interest.

My colleague the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter) is to speak in this debate and I know that he will emphasise the particular agreement, the special agreement, that has been entered into by the Commonwealth with the State of Western Australia. That, in itself, is as historic as the legislation which gives authority to that agreement. The Commonwealth has recognised the special interests of Western Australia on the western seaboard of the continent and that, with the potential for great development off-shore, Western Australia should have its own special agreement under this legislation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J. D. M. Dobie)- Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I strongly oppose this package of Bills. The Bills clearly reflect the embodiment of the standard philosophy and approach of both State and Federal Liberal governments-that is, fragmentation and divisiveness-and that means that the national interest becomes a secondary factor. Equally, I condemn the clear complicity of the State Labor governments in this blatant abnegation of national responsibility. Seven years of persistent effort is being destroyed by each of these Bills. It was the Seas and Submerged Lands Bill 1973 which initiated a challenge by all States to the High .Court and which resulted in 1975 in the High Court vesting both sovereignty and jurisdiction beyond low water mark in the right of the Crown,- in the Commonwealth. That vesting of power in this national Government is being destroyed by these Bills.

I vividly recall that debate, which was initiated by a Liberal Federal Government and which divided that Government. But it was the Labor Government’s legislation which was upheld by the High Court. Let me quote what I said in a speech to the House on 17 May 1973. Nothing has happened since for me to resile from my stand. I said:

The territorial sea is a coastal belt extending from the low water mark and the exterior limit of internal waters out to a distance which Australian practice has fixed at 3 miles. International practice has not been able to reach a satisfactory consensus, but seems to be moving towards agreement of 12 miles . . . Federalism compounds the problem because a change in zones can mean the change from Commonwealth to State control and vice versa, and around the coast near State borders there is also the problem of change from State law to State law, and indeed .British law.

This means that within our municipal system of law, responsibilities are divided between 2 sorts of politics. On an international plane, Australia is recognised as an independent State and therefore has international obligations. The dilemma thrown up by a federal system is that sometimes the powers and responsibilies conferred on the 2 sons of politics by firstly the international system, and secondly the municipal system, do not coincide.

In my opinion, it is for instance, ludricous today that having overcome competition between the States for international loan funds, we still have the possibility of States competing against each other to attract capital to develop their resources, including off-shore resources, frequently to the detriment of Australia as a whole. The only way Australia as a nation can benefit is to present a united front. It is ludicrous that today when the energy crisis is a major global problem, possibly the global problem for the rest of the century, with the horrible spectre of trade wars before us once more, Australia has difficulty in rising above the level of federal-State bickering to develop a national policy.

It is probably quite desirable that the States have some power to regulate activities in the territorial sea which closely affect their territory. . . The crux of this Bill is to vest control over the tremendous resources in the continental shelf in the national Government. Of course, secure and confident action can only be taken once the extent of control over the other zones- that is, the territorial sea and internal water- has been resolved, because only then can leases be accurately and safely granted and located. But, once this is done, the Commonealth should have unimpeded control over the seabed resources.

I turn now to the Bills. I ask these pertinent questions: Is the Commonwealth, in retaining the power to pass overriding legislation, contradicting any legislation passed by the States within the territorial sea and, if so, does the Government envisage any areas in which it will be legislating within the territorial sea? If so, what areas? Does the Government intend to pass any uniform legislation regulating activities within the territorial sea or will it leave all activities to be regulated differently by the six States and the Northern Territory? To the extent that this Bill in fact gives title to the States over the seabed and the sub-soil resources, what implications will be created in relation to any future Commonwealth claim to sovereignty over such resources on or below the seabed? In the case of a conflict, will the Government be obliged as a result to acquire State property and, if so, what are the constitutional implications?

I specifically draw the attention of the Acting Attorney-General (Mr Viner) to the constitutional problem arising out of two matters: Firstly, the acquisition of State property and, secondly, taxation. Why has the Government found it necessary to place title in the States over seabed resources, recreating a situation that was generally agreed was unsatisfactory? The High Court was obliged to decide on the question of jurisdiction and sovereignty, admittedly in the areas of historic and legal parameters and not in terms of political and practical convenience. As one reads these Bills, some assurances are of critical importance to ensure that the overriding powers reside with the Commonwealth in its rights to pass laws binding on the States within the boundaries of the territorial sea.

I turn to the question of the resources of the sub-soil within the territorial sea. Clearly, the Bill gives the States the power to pass laws in relation to the exploitation of their resources- that is, insofar as they relate to the sub-soil resources. But the question remains: Does the Bill intend to vest total ownership and proprietorship .of these resources in the States- that is, full ownership? Could such vesting be fraught with constitutional problems? As subsoil minerals beyond low water mark belong to the Crown in the right of the Commonwealth as a consequence of the High Court decision of 1975 which placed its sovereignty and jurisdiction beyond question, do these Bills mean that the Commonwealth has now abrogated its sovereignty and jurisdiction? Do these Bills purport to give up that right to the States, or do they merely give to the States the right to pass laws relating to the exploitation of minerals which would otherwise remain in the ownership of the Commonwealth? If that power is to be given to the States, how far can it be used in a way which would infringe upon Commonwealth ownership, sovereignty and jurisdiction.

I acknowledge that a right exists for some areas of State regulation in order to provide a legal mechanism, if you like, that will enable States to extend their territorial powers- for example in police regulation or in the application of their respective criminal codes. However, why grant them plenary powers which will undoubtedly recreate and rehash old problems?

I turn now to the question of off-shore pollution. A number of shipping accidents have inflicted enormous economic and environmental damage by way of off-shore pollution. One need be reminded only of the tragic Torrey Canyon disaster. Again, in 1978 the Amoco Cadiz incident occurred a- few miles from the Brittany coast of France. On the stormy night of 16 March of that year the Amoco Cadiz lost its steering. The result was the worst oil spill in history. This is an age . of oil spills, as told by the stories of the Torrey Canyon, of the Argo Merchant and of the Amoco Cadiz. One could go on recounting such incidents.

With almost 4,000 ships carrying some 11 billion barrels of oil each year, such disasters will happen again and again on all the coasts of the world. That is a mathematical certainty. In the United States, at least, there is a national oil and hazardous substances pollution contingency plan. It has been in existence since 1960. The United States Coast Guard heads a national response team. After all, the best method of containing oil on water is to keep the stuff in tankers, so ship design, navigation equipment, personnel training, emergency procedures and similar factors for which higher standards might be set are now being debated. These involve complex international maritime relations.

The question of liability also is being argued nationally and internationally. Who should be physically responsible for cleaning up the spill? Who should pay for the damage? I wish to refer to an interesting article which appeared in the Australian in March 1 978. The article stated:

Reasons for Australian concern should be obvious. We have a coastline of 20,000 kilometres that is the longest of any maritime nation in the world, and at the same time, with minuscule naval resources and a small population.

Three major points stand out from the Amoco Cadiz catastrophe. First, the world ‘s maritime nations must insist that supertankers in particular are equipped with better alternative steering mechanisms . . .

Second, the traditional system of ships’ captains bargaining about the acceptance of a Lloyd ‘s salvage contract before aid operations begin must be ended . . .

Third, it must be made compulsory for supertanker captains to notify national marine authorities the moment any unusual hazard is encountered.

Such incidents must be reported immediately. These critical issues can be dealt with and resolved between national governments only. The problems that accompanied the oil spill in Mexico provide a clear example of what happens when the countries concerned, for instance Mexico and the United States, do not have a bilateral agreement.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr JACOBI:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner, I was dealing with the question of off-shore pollution within the three-mile territorial limit and the States’ responsibilities within that limit. I was referring to the legal problems which are currently in issue in the United States following the disastrous oil blow-out in the Gulf of Mexico. I refer to an excellent article in the New York Times late last year. It states:

  1. . two million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, causing extensive pollution and environmental damage along the Texas coast and its ecologically fragile inlets.

The absence of a bilateral treaty between Mexico and the United States or an international convention defining state responsibility and liability for damages arising out of offshore oil drilling should not be construed as absolving Mexico of its responsibilities under international law. Treaties are not the sole source of international law . . .

The obligation of a state to see that no acts are committed under its sovereign jurisdiction which serve to pollute the air or waters of a neighbouring state has gained increasing support . . .

The contention that Mexico has no responsibility under international law . . . should be rejected by the United States Government and adequate compensation for damages arising out of the spill should be vigorously pursued through diplomatic channels. If these . . . fail, the United States should seriously consider submitting the dispute to the International Court of Justice or seek the good offices o.f the Inter-American System to secure an arbitration of the matter. Since only the Federal Government is competent to press claims on behalf of the State of Texas and private citizens . . .

I ask the Minister: Is responsibility for off-shore pollution control, regulation and mitigation, protection of both resources and environment, the question of legal action for the cost of cleaning up and the cost of adequate compensation- all issues which arise and which will continue to arise- to be vested by this legislation in the six States and the Northern Territory? Are we to witness six or rather seven separate and distinct sets of plans regulating protection procedures? Are we to witness six or seven separate sets of legal procedures, enforcements and penalties? Who will bear the cost if action is to be taken against either national governments or foreign corporations? Equally, who is to bear the cost in the absence of a bilateral agreement, as could well be the case between Mexico and the United States, if a case needs to be prosecuted through the International Court of Justice? We could be in that position, because ultimately we may be obliged to get oil from Mexico.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– Read it!

Mr JACOBI:

– I suggest the honourable member study the Bill. I turn to the question of strategic minerals within the subsoil. As these Bills will give title to seabed and subsoil resources within the territorial three-mile limit, we as a national Parliament have an obligation to evaluate their economic, strategic and national importance. I refer now to a recent publication from the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy entitled ‘Economic Geology of Australia’. What does it reveal? It reveals, firstly, delineated deposits of mineral sands off New South Wales and tin off north east Tasmania and Western Australia. Secondly, it reveals a fossil strand line of mineral sands, containing an estimated 375 million tonnes, 30 kilometres north of Newcastle and further strand lines of rutile and zircon containing an estimated 500 million tonnes. Thirdly, it reveals that further finds of rutile and ilmenite, including high chrome ilmenite, off New South Wales, Tasmania and the southern coast of Western Australia emphasise at least the need for further evaluation. Ilmenite and rutile are ores containing titanium. Every honourable member knows, or ought to be aware, that titanium is a highly strategic metal used in both aircraft and highly sophisticated military weaponry.

I ask the Minister the following questions: What procedures, legal and otherwise, will follow as a consequence of any conflict between a State and a national government on the need either to exploit or to conserve these strategic metals? How is this to be resolved? Firstly, the national Government may be obliged to take the State Government to the High Court if the State Government chooses to challenge the national Government on either criterion. Secondly, the High Court could take a limited view of what defence’ means. The national Government’s claim could be rejected. Thirdly, if the State’s appeal is rejected in a case where it wishes to exploit its mineral resources, the State will be prosecuted by corporations for adequate compensation. Fourthly, if the national Government is obliged in the national interest to conserve, thereby blocking such exploitation, and /or is obliged to use its acquisition powers, the States and the corporations will seek adequate and just compensation. Why should the taxpayers be forced to dig deep into their pay-packets to meet these avoidable and unnecessary costs? His Honour, Mr Justice Murphy, in a number of cases but in particular in the case, the Commonwealth v. Queensland, said:

The States are constitutionally incapable of conducting this nation’s foreign relations.

I venture to suggest that that view would be held by most justices of the High Court, if not by all of them. It seems to me to be an eminently sensible view and one which is held by all national governments. The Seas and Submerged Lands Act case gave the Commonwealth sovereignty, jurisdiction and legislative control over territorial waters, the seabed and the subsoil resources within the three-mile territorial limit and beyond. The Commonwealth may well be abrogating, in a very serious way, its responsibilities in relation to minerals mined in territorial waters. Can the Minister give the involved, an assurance that, where the national interest is involved, there is the possibility of the Commonwealth’s passing inconsistent legislation visavis the States? If this is not the case, it is demonstrably clear that this national Government has irresponsibly abdicated its national responsibilities.

I conclude on two points dealing with pollution and minerals. This Government has made a deliberate value judgment in favour of federalism and divided and fragmented control instead of realising that these critical issues and areas need to be dealt with by a national government acting in the national interest. These issues, these areas, cannot be left to six separate States and the Northern Territory or to the whim of a large number of corporations, either national or international. It needs a sense of strength. It needs uniformity. Surely our people have the right to place their trust in a national government which must exercise that trust as the jealous guardian of their national interest. I oppose this package of measures.

Mr COTTER:
Kalgoorlie

– I listened with some interest to the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) because I have always been of the opinion that his contributions in this House are most reasonable and reasoned. However, I believe tonight he has misunderstood at least some of the provisions in the package of Bills before us. I will enlarge on that a little later. Basically, the Bills before us will give each State the same powers with respect to adjacent territorial sea, including the seabed, as it would have if the waters were within the limits of the State. The territorial sea is limited to three miles in breadth and baselines will be drawn by international principles of straight lines across bays, inlets, gulfs and so on. These baselines are presently being prepared.

The legislation will also give each State powers outside the territorial sea in respect of port-type facilities, underground mining extending from land within the State and over fisheries. The power with respect to fisheries will apply to fisheries which, under an arrangement to which the Commonwealth is a party, are to be managed in accordance with the laws of the State concerned under the off-shore fisheries scheme outlined in the legislation. The status of the territorial sea under international law is to be expressly preserved. Consequently, some of the items raised by the honourable member for Hawker do not apply. Also savings provisions are to be included to safeguard existing State extra-territorial powers in the off-shore area and to ensure that laws of the Commonwealth that apply in the territorial sea prevail over any inconsistent State law in accordance with the dominance invested in Commonwealth laws under the Constitution. The legislation will reserve the Commonwealth’s right to use the seabed for such national purposes as defence, cables, navigational aids, quarantine and many other items. All State governments have already passed appropriate legislation requesting the passage by this Parliament of legislation to effect the Bills before this House.

I think it is probably appropriate at this stage to give a little background to the Bills that are presently before the House. It is interesting to note that rapid technological developments over the last 40 years or so have brought under man ‘s influence large areas of the sea and the seabed beneath, particularly in communications, methods of fishing, techniques for seabed mining and drilling, gas and oil exploration and other items. Along with this technological advance has come an increasing demand for the fruits of these developments both biological and mineral.

Australia has always had a particularly strong interest in developments in the law of the sea because of its large coastline which is relatively remote from other countries. I draw attention to the fact that my electorate probably has the longest coastline of any electorate in the world. In 1953 Australia declared by proclamation its sovereign rights over the continental shelf contiguous to its coast. This jurisdiction was confirmed by the first United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea held in 1958, which drew up the Convention on the Continental Shelf to which Australia is now a party. The second United Nations conference in 1960 failed to reach agreement on two major issues which were left unsettled, namely, the extent of fisheries jurisdiction and the related question of the breadth of the territorial sea. The third United Nations conference began a lengthy consideration of these issues. An informal text has been drawn up providing for fisheries jurisdiction in a zone extending up to 200 miles from our coastline. As from November 1979 Australia established its 200-mile fishing zone.

The problem has been to decide on the appropriate division of responsibility in this off-shore area. These issues crystallised first of all in the Commonwealth-State negotiation in the 1960s in relation to the legislative basis for off-shore petroleum mining. The course finally chosen was to seek to avoid raising the question concerning the respective constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and the States by agreeing in the 1967 off-shore petroleum agreement to the enactment by the Commonwealth and each State of a common petroleum mining code for the. adjacent area of each State to be administered by a designated authority which in practice was a State Minister. The Senate Select Committee on Off-Shore Petroleum Resources concluded in its 1971 report that despite the advantages which this legislation had produced it was not in the national interest to leave unresolved the question of the extent of State and Commonwealth authority in the territorial seabed and the continental shelf.

In 1970 the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill was introduced and although not proceeded with demonstrated the controversy surrounding the subject Subsequently the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 was passed and the constitutional issues were resolved by the High Court in 1975 when that court upheld the sovereign rights of the Commonwealth over the States in regard to the whole of the continental shelf as well as the territorial sea and its seabed. This left the Commonwealth with two options. The Commonwealth could have denied the States any share of off-shore resources or it could have adopted a course consistent with this Government’s notions of appropriate allocation of rights and responsibilities among governments in Australia. This was the course taken.

This Government has undertaken exhaustive consultations with the States and the Northern Territory in respect of giving them a proper role and appropriate rights in the off-shore area. Talks held at both ministerial and adviser level focused in a practical way and in a spirit of cooperative federalism-I repeat, in a spirit of cooperative federalism- on what matters were appropriate for Commonwealth and State administration and how the various agreed arrangements should be implemented. Appropriate Commonwealth-State consultative bodies have been fully involved, including the Australian Minerals and Energy Council, the Australian Fisheries Council, the Australian Environment Council and the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers. So these decisions have not been taken lightly nor without proper and due respect to consultation and research.

The resulting package of legislation that we now have before us represents a history-making set of agreements which take full account of international, national and State interests. These agreements were reached by negotiations which were conducted in a spirit of frankness and goodwill. They bear out the Government’s firm conviction that a key to successful government in our federal system lies in co-operation rather than confrontation. This approach differs markedly from the one that it seems the Australian Labor Party would adopt had it had the opportunity. At last year’s national conference of the Australian Labor Party a program was approved that appears to ‘give the States no role at all in the area of off-shore sovereignty. The States, under that program, would be completely excluded from the regulation and exploitation of all offshore resources within the 200-mile economic zone. Two or three Opposition speakers tonight mentioned that in the time of the late Rex Connor, the former- honourable member for Cunningham, steps were taken that would guarantee Commonwealth sovereignty over the entire seabed area. I would like to remind the House that during that time and immediately following that time exploration and development of off-shore resources in this country stopped completely. Exploration companies and development companies fled this country to other countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia and areas that they considered to be more politically stable than Australia. Under the late Rex Connor’s grand national plan, production from oil and gas would have been grabbed by the Commonwealth Government at well-head with no due regard to sovereignty or to the development of those resources. In contrast this Government has come up with a practical and co-operative solution.

The cornerstone of this package of Bills is the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Bill. This Bill, in conjunction with the State legislation mentioned earlier, will give each State power over the adjacent territorial sea and seabed, the territorial sea being limited to three-miles in breadth. This arrangement has been reached on the basis that the territorial sea is an area best left for local State jurisdiction, except on matters of overriding national or international importance. Thus, under this legislation off-shore petroleum mining within the three-mile limit will be regulated by State legislation alone administered by State authorities in recognition of the fact that local matters within the territorial sea are primarily matters for the State. However, the common mining code will be retained as far as practicable and existing permits and licences and appropriate arrangements will be made for transitioning existing permits to the extent that they fall within the outer limit of the territorial sea. Arrangements for the mining of off-shore minerals other than petroleum will be the same as for off-shore petroleum.

Commonwealth and State legislation embodying a common mining code will be needed to implement the arrangements. Arrangements will also be made for sharing of royalties. Off-shore petroleum arrangements outside the three-mile territorial sea will be controlled under the conditions of the Commonwealth’s Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act and off-shore petroleum mining and exploration will be regulated by Commonwealth legislation alone. Day to day administration will continue to be in the hands of the designated authority appointed for the adjacent area of each State- that is, the State Minister- and State officials. The existing mining code will be retained and existing permits and licences will not be affected. However, the legislation will establish for the first time a statutory joint authority for each adjacent area consisting of the Commonwealth Minister and State Ministers. These joint authorities will be concerned only with major matters arising under the legislation. In the event of disagreement within a joint authority, the view of the Commonwealth Minis1ter is to prevail. That is a very important point to remember. A lot of nonsense and hot air has been, spoken about giving away our sovereignty and our rights to the various State governments. One would have thought that in fact we were talking about foreign powers within the States. One would have thought that the people living in Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia were foreigners. But in fact these are the people who make up Australia, they are Australians, and we are not giving away to a foreign power our rights under this legislation.

I am pleased that under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill special arrangements have been made for Western Australia, in view of the special circumstances of that State. Basically, those arrangements are set out in Schedule 4 of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill. I do not want to bore the House with all the details, but some points should be made because they refer particularly to the way in which the legislation will operate in regard to Western Australia. One of the major parts of the legislation is the agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth and the Government of Western Australia relating to the legislation in respect of off-shore petroleum resources, which is signed by the Prime Minister of Australia and the Premier of Western Australia. Clause 2 of that agreement states:

If the members of the Joint Authority disagree with respect to the decision to be made on a matter within the functions of that Joint Authority, the Commonwealth Minister shall not exercise his power under the Act to decide the matter unless:

he is satisfied that the decision proposed by the State Minister would endanger or prejudice the national interest;

he has, within 30 days after he has been informed of the decision proposed by the State Minister, or within such longer period as is, before the expiration of that period, agreed on between the Commonwealth Minister and the State Minister, informed the State Minister:

of his intention to exercise that power;

of the decision which he proposes to make in the exercise of that power; and

in what respect he is satisfied that the national interest would be endangered or prejudiced by the decision proposed by the State Minister: and

no representations of the Premier in accordance with sub-clause (2) of this clause have been received by the Prime Minister or, if such representations have been so received, sub-clause (4) of this clause has become applicable.

Sub-clause (4) states:

Where representations have been made in accordance with sub-clause (2 ) of this clause, the Commonwealth Minister may exercise his power under the Act to decide the matter if, within 30 days after the representations were received by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister has informed the Premier that he is satisfied that the matter cannot be resolved by a decision of the Joint Authority in accordance with the Act and concurred in both by members of the Joint Authority and that the decision that was proposed by the State Minister would endanger or prejudice the national interest.

Further conditions are set out in that agreement between the State and Commonwealth governments. A lot has been said tonight about the Great Barrier Reef. For instance, great play has been made of the danger posed to the Great Barrier Reef by oil exploration companies, and the possible ability of the State Government to ignore other legislation which controls drilling and development on the reef. I am dismayed at claim’s by the Opposition that the Great Barrier Reef is endangered by this legislation, and I should like to point out the fallacies of that belief. The Commonwealth recognises its international responsibilities for the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 will continue to apply to the whole of the reef region as denned. In fact, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill includes a clause that ensures that the Marine Park Act still applies in espect of the whole of the Great Barrier Reef region, as denned in that Act. Joint consultative arrangements have been established between the Commonwealth and Queensland for the management and preservation of the reef region. These are a concrete example of the results that can be achieved through co-operation.

There is no question whatever that a watertight guarantee has been given that damage will not occur to the reef. Yet in today’s Press we see falacious statements by people such as the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) and the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), making all sorts of extravagant claims that have not been substantiated. For instance, the honourable member for Blaxland said;

The Federal Government is handing over vast areas of the Great Barrier Reef to the Queensland Government and giving it open slather to drill for oil.

That is not so. He continued:

The new offshore sovereignty legislation, now before Federal Parliament overrides a Federal Act which prohibits mining on the Great Barrier Reef . . .

According to the report, that statement was made by the honourable member for Blaxland, the shadow Minister for Minerals and Energy. That is a completely untrue statement. I believe that the honourable member for Blaxland has misunderstood’ the legislation presently before the Parliament, has not studied it properly, and is not fully aware of its ramifications. Yet we saw him today acting like a spoilt schoolboy, trying to make points on this aspect which were completely irrelevant. In a statement by the Prime Minister reported in the House of Representatives Hansard of 4 June 1 979, he said:

The Government’s attitude and position on these issues is clear. The Government has stated repeatedly that it will not permit any drilling on the Great Barrier Reef or any mining or drilling which would damage the reef.

The Prime Minister continued: if there is a doubt about an activity and its effect on the reef, that activity will not take place. Let there be no confusion on this point. No part of the reef is going to be damaged by an activity that takes place on the reef or off the reef.

So much for the misleading information given earlier today by the honourable member for Robertson. No part of the reef will .be damaged by an activity that takes place on the reef or off the reef. The Government has adopted the recommendation of the Chairman of the Royal Commission that petroleum drilling should be postponed pending the receipt of results of short and long term research into the reef.

There is no doubt whatsoever that this legislation will have immense benefit for States such as Western Australia, which has implemented joint fishing agreements and agreements for oil and gas exploration in Western Australia. I draw the attention of honourable members to the confusion that has arisen in the past. For instance, in the small area of the snapper and cray fishermen of Western Australia, there has been a great deal of confusion about whose jurisdiction they operate in when they are about three miles out from shore in the snapper breeding grounds.

This legislation will remove all of those anomalies and uncertainties. I believe that it is a much needed piece of legislation and a clear demonstration of our co-operative federalism policy. It is very significant that every State in Australia has agreed to its implementation, even the Labor governments in New South Wales and Tasmania, and much has been said about that tonight. However, the fact is that they have agreed to it. It is good legislation. It allows us to proceed into the 1980s and beyond with a sure knowledge of development. We will not see that aspect of development fleeing Australian waters.

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

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

- Mr Deputy Speaker, this package of Bills is consistent with the record of this Government’s crimes against the Constitution. It is a total rejection of constitutional reality, a charter of cowardice that prostitutes federalism and surrenders responsible national leadership. This legislation will create a bureaucratic maze of authorities and interlocking complexities that have all the hallmarks of big government. The burgeoning bureaucracy that accompanies this scheme is one- of the most massive extensions of public administration yet seen in Commonwealth-State relations. It is a perfect example of disjointed incrementalism. It will prevent and it will deny the possibility of a national policy on the use of scarce resources.

To give an example, let us consider the possibility of an oil field or a mineral deposit lying in the seabed through which an extended State boundary would run. Under this legislation, two joint authorities would have day-to-day management and control over the one oil field because these Bills propose a joint authority for each State and Territory for fisheries, minerals and petroleum. In this regard alone 14 authorities are to be created to supervise something which is better done by a unitary system. Any national energy policy involving off-shore oil would be impossible under this legislation. It would be impossible because it would require the co-operation of a whole host of Ministers, authorities and bureaucrats from the States and the Commonwealth.

The real essence of this proposal, however, is that it constitutes a political rejection of an important judicial adjudication. Once again it is a case of this Government abandoning the umpire’s decision. Six years ago all the States took the matter of who controls our coastal waters to the High Court. In 1975, by a majority decision, the High Court pronounced:

Upon the enactment of the Constitution, any rights or powers which the former colonies might have had in the territorial sea, sea bed and air space or in the Continental shelf and incline became vested in the Commonwealth. The emergence of Australia as an .independent State confirmed this situation.

The umpire’s ruling was clear and specific, leaving absolutely no legal doubt as to its meaning. This Government now proposes to leglislate to throw out the umpire’s ruling, merely to appease the likes of Sir Charles Court and Mr BjelkePetersen in an election year.

Within the ranks of the Liberal Party a bitter ideological dispute has raged on this issue since the late 1960s. Almost 12 years ago, when the Gorton Government introduced its Seas and Submerged Lands Act, the battle lines were drawn between those who wished the Commonwealth to assert control on one hand, and those who abrogated sovereignty to the States on the other. It brought the Gorton Government to the brink of internal revolt and finally was left to a national Labor Government to resolve.

There is much at stake in the passage of these Bills. In the historic Seas and Submerged Lands Act case, Mr Justice Murphy said:

The area of the Territorial Sea is tens of thousands of square kilometres. The area of the disputed Submarine Lands and Sub-soils is millions of square kilometres. Their resources are probably worth thousands of billions of dollars. They belong to the Nation, not the States. The rights over them are vested in, and exercisable by, the Government of Australia on behalf of all the people of Australia.

This, then, is the nub of what this legislation is all about. Because of this Government’s insane desire to lock future national Labor governments out of effective control of this area, it has also locked the Australian people as a nation out of control of the wealthy resources of the seabed. It has put national resources at the mercy of parochial pettiness- at the mercy of some State Premiers who, in their own self-delusion, behave like primitive colonial chieftains.

At the heart of this scheme is the blueprint for the sell out of our seabed resources to foreign multinationals. It is designed to prevent proper and responsible national supervision and national control of our resources. Under these Bills, the rich resources of the seabed around the Australian coast will be subject to the whimsical idiosyncrasies of the State Premiers and a myriad of scattered local administrators.

One of the worst sell-outs concerns the State of Western Australia. Clause 8D of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill makes it clear that the Commonwealth, from three miles out to whatever is declared to be the relevant economic zone, has a power of veto. However, clause 8D (9) makes special provision for Western Australia as provided in Schedule 4 of the Bill. It is so vague, complicated and unintelligible, clearly no veto can or will ever be exercised by the Commonwealth under these provisions.

This Government’s decision to abrogate its national responsibility in this matter was broadly determined two and a half years ago. In October 1977, the States and the Commonwealth at a Premiers Conference resolved:

  1. . with respect to off-shore mining and fisheries, the territorial sea should be the responsibility of the States and that for this purpose the limits or powers of each State should be extended to embrace the territorial sea adjacent to it. This would not affect the Commonwealth’s international responsibilities.

That Conference further resolved:

That, in the case of off-shore mining for petroleum and other minerals beyond present State limits, there should be a joint Commonwealth-State authority or authorities, with the essential day-to-day administration being in the hands of the State concerned and so as to preserve the present arrangement for the sharing of royalties in the case of petroleum.

What is now being witnessed in the national Parliament is the resolution of that disgraceful agreement and the complete and total abandonment of national responsibility. The Constitution, as affirmed by the High Court in this area in 1975, imposes on the Commonwealth not just jurisdiction in this area but a responsibility. The abandonment of this constitutional responsibility is an act of the utmost cowardice.

At the June 1978 Premiers Conference it was decided to reject the possibly politically unsuccessful use of a referendum and also the politically undesirable use of the United Kingdom

Parliament to effect these purposes but rather to use the obscure placitum (xxxviii) of section 5 1 of the Constitution. When we are confronted with Fraser federalism in its extreme- as we have here before us this evening and as we had last month with the companies and securities laws- one wonders why there is a Federal Government at all. It is relevant, therefore, to examine the preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. It begins:

Whereas the people-

I stress ‘ the people ‘ of the five named States- have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established . . .

Section 4 establishes the Commonwealth and gives rise to the existence of the Constitution. Section 5 says the enactments of this place:

  1. . shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State . . .

Section 109 of the Constitution enables them to prevail over the States. Thus derives our nationhood. The people of the Commonwealth are an indissoluble entity- a nation. Speaking of this principle our own Solicitor-General, Mr Byers, said:

  1. . the Court was set free to construe the Constitution along its line of primary thrust; the establishment of a national legislature. It was for that reason the Constitution was adopted. For that reason the Parliament was armed with legislative power. In a real sense nationalism permeates the Constitution and renders coherent both what it grants and what it denies.

It was the engineers case in 1920 which first established Commonwealth legislative power to bind a State. There it was said by the majority:

The nature of dominion self-government and the decisions just cited entirely preclude, in our opinion, an … a priori . . . contention that the grant of legislative power to the Commonwealth Parliament as presenting the will of the whole of the people of all the States of Australia should not bind within the geographical area of the Commonwealth and within the limits of the enumerated powers, ascertained by the ordinary process of construction, the States and their agencies as representing separate sections of the territory.

More recently, the payroll tax case of 1971 affirmed this reality. In the Australian Assistance Plan case of 1975, the Chief Justice said:

The extent of powers which are inherent in the fact of nationhood and of international personality has not been fully explored.

This scheme denies the national character and national reality of the Australian Constitution. It is a radical departure from accepted constitutional law, accepted notions of federalism, accepted principles of democracy and efficient administration. The Australian people were denied an opportunity pursuant to Section 128 of the Constitution- that is the referendum provision- of having a direct say in the wideranging constitutional effects of this scheme. They were deprived by conscious decision of the Government in collaboration with conservative State governments. The denial was established because there was no confidence on the part of any of those bodies that an appeal to the Australian community would result in the sell-out of the national responsibility, the national identity and the national aspiration of the Australian people which this Government and conservative State governments desperately sought. The constitutional validity of this scheme derives from section 5 1 (xxxviii) of the Constitution. The use of this obscure colonial relic- section 5 1 (xxxviii)- is a complete usurpation of democratic principle. Section 51 (xxxviii) states that the Parliament has power to make laws with respect to:

The exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the States directly concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia:

The constitutional invalidity of this proposal is summarised simply. Section 5 1 (xxxviii) uses the words ‘within the Commonwealth’. This raises the question of whether the application of laws made under this section can cover extraterritorial matters. The view which the High Court appears to have taken is that territorial sea is extra-territorial to Australia and therefore it is reasonably doubtful whether the territorial sea can be considered to be ‘within the Commonwealth’. Further doubt is thrown on the interpretation of section 5 1 (xxxviii) by the use of the words: any power which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom . . .

In 1975 in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act case the High Court proceeded on the basis that at Federation the Commonwealth, under the external affairs power, gained the power of the territorial sea. The minority view was that prior to this time it was the former colonies which had this power. Therefore, regardless of the exact point towards which the words ‘the establishment of this Constitution’ are directed, there was never any stage where power over the territorial sea could be exercised by only the Parliament of the United Kingdom or the Federal Council of Australasia. The great constitutional authority of Quick and Garran has said of this section:

It is difficult to see what power can be conferred on the Federal Parliament by these words.

Two constitutional law authorities, Ryan and Hewitt, have written of this section:

It is a matter of doubt just what power this confers. It has been suggested that ‘this section can be read, without straining the words as they stand, as enabling the Federal Parliament, with the consents of the Parliaments of all the States, to repeal the Constitution altogether and enact a new one ‘.

They continue:

With respect, whatever effect the provision has, it can not be given any such scope. Like all powers conferred under section 51 of the Constitution, it is conferred ‘subject to this Constitution ‘.

They add:

It seems a fanciful interpretation to suggest that it can be given an effect which would make it paramount over all other provisions in the Constitution, including section 128.

Of course section 128 is the referendum provision. The problems of section 5 1 (xxxviii) were recognised by our founding fathers at the Constitution conventions. About this section the great Sir Isaac Isaacs- I quote him rather extensively- said:

I must say that I am not very clear about this sub-section which has puzzled me very much. In the first place, the words exercise within the Commonwealth’ of certain legislative powers are puzzling. All our legislative powers are to be exercised within the Commonwealth, and I do not know what the words mean in this particular instance as distinct from any other legislative power. The effect of the whole matter may extend beyond, but the exercise of the power is to be within the Commonwealth, and it is to be exercised at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of the states concerned. Then the sub-section uses the words ‘any legislative powers which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia.’ Those last words will have to come out. Part of this Act will come into operation as soon as it is passed . . . and they repeal the Federal Council Act. So that there will be no powers remaining in that Act at the time of the establishment of the Constitution.

If the Government is prepared to base this scheme on section 5 1 (xxxviii) despite the obvious doubts about its constitutionality, then it must be prepared to accept the responsibility for the massive confusion that will arise when this legislation is struck down. Literally thousands of fishing permits, authorities to prospect and mining permits will be thrown into doubt and, at the worst, cancelled. I repeat that the Government must be prepared to accept the responsibility for and the consequences of its actions; that is, the massive confusion that will arise when this legislation is inevitably struck down.

Mr Hodgman:

– Have a go as soon as it is proclaimed.

Mr HAYDEN:

-That will be in the early New Year. The conservative Premiers have aimed at making this arrangement one that is binding on subsequent parliaments except that it could be altered at the request of the States. This mode of thinking is entrenched by providing that should the States have to go back to the Commonwealth in all the powers that they will receive in the package, they will be paid compensation. The perfidious effect of what has been negotiated when we talk of the use of section 5 1 (xxxviii) of the Constitution cannot be underestimated, nor can the deliberateness and full knowledge of the Government be underestimated. During the course of the June 1978 Premiers Conference Sir Charles Court said:

If the Commonwealth did this -

That is, if it devolved these powers to the States under section 51 (xxxviii)- could not the next Commonwealth Government reverse it? We are trying to avoid this.

Senator Durack ‘s reply was:

There is strong legal opinion that an action taken by the Commonwealth under (xxxviii) at the request of the States could not be repealed without the request of the States.

So the whole plot is exposed. Nobody should have any illusions about what is being striven for: namely, the irrevocable ceding of Federal Government power over this area in certain specific ways to the States. In every other respect, title and sovereignty of the seabed must be preserved as a national asset in accordance with the spirit and letter of our constitutional charter. We oppose this ludicrous scheme in its totality. Furthermore, if it is passed into law, then as a matter of public record, we put the Liberal and National Country parties on notice that this legislation shall be the first law that a Labor Government in 1981 will bring to the High Court to be struck down for what it is. It will be struck down as a constitutional violation, a treachery against the nationhood of Australia, a legal fraud and nullity.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 65

NOES: 30

Majority…… 35

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I want to raise a matter which I consider is important. It has not been canvassed yet. It relates to the extension of the legislative power of the States in relation to coastal waters under clause 3 ( 1 ) of the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Bill 1980. It deals with the continental shelf as it affects the Torres Strait Treaty. The new definition of ‘the continental shelf in the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 1980 is: the continental shelf means the continental shelf, within the meaning of the convention, adjacent to the coast of Australia (including the coast of any island forming part of a State or Territory) or of a Territory referred to in a heading in Schedule 2;

This definition includes continental shelves generated by islands. The Torres Strait Treaty delineates the seabed resources delimitation line south of Turu Cay, Deliverance Island and Turnagain Island, et cetera. Under the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf the boundary of the continental shelf between States with opposite coastlines is to be decided by agreement. The Treaty is not yet in force but when it is it will certainly operate as an agreement about the boundary of the continental shelf so that continental shelf within the meaning of the convention used in the definition should have to be read ‘subject to the agreement made’- that is, Australia has made an agreement with Papua New Guinea about the area generally. Under the convention, islands which would generate a continental shelf are to be treated as if they do not because of the agreement. Thus in the legislation, islands north of the seabed resources delimitation line would have to be treated as not generating a continental shelf.

However, the Treaty will not operate until legislation has been passed. It seems appropriate that in this legislation there should be some specific indication that the islands north of the line do not generate continental shelves for the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) legislation. As the treaty is not in force, the provisions of the Convention on the Continental Shelf, where no agreement is reached would technically still cover the situation. These require the use of the median line unless there are special circumstances. It is only speculation about how this would operate in practice.

I address this matter to the Minister seriously. As each island part of Queensland would generate a continental shelf it would seem that the median line would be very close to the Papua New Guinea mainland and the special circumstances provision would apply. If the Treaty is brought into operation soon, the problem, I suggest, will remain a technical one only. I ask the Minister and particularly his advisers: What difficulties does he see in the fact that the Torres Strait Treaty is not in force? When will it be brought into operation and given the force of law? What is the position of islands north of the seabed delimitation line under the legislation?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I wish to speak in support of what my colleague, the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) has said but on another basis in relation to the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Bill which we are dealing with in the Committee of the Whole. I ask the Committee to address its mind to the preamble which states that this Bill has been introduced pursuant to section 5 1 (xxxviii). If that is the method of introduction it must mean that that is the head of power1 on which the Government is relying. The Opposition’s submission is that that is no power ‘at all. We concede that if it were introduced under the external affairs power there would be the normal legal head of power which the High Court of Australia concedes. In the Seas and Submerged Lands case it is said- it is beyond dispute- that the States do not have any extra-territorial area. The proposal under this Bill is to give the powers of dealing with the extra-territorial area, namely the territorial sea of some three miles, to the States and the Northern Territory. This Bill talks about the States.

Coming back to the point: What does this placitum of the Constitution mean and is it right and reasonable to think that the Commonwealth can use this head of power now for the very first time? Let me remind honourable members of it.

It states:

The exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request . . of the Parliaments of all the States . . . of any power which can at the establishment … be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom . . .

It is pretty clear that at Federation there were certainly powers that could be exercised by the United Kingdom but at Federation those powers of the United. Kingdom came to the Commonwealth. The States did not get any extra powers. Is the Minister suggesting that we should be able to get extra powers over and above those we had at Federation by this method; that the States can ask the Commonwealth to pass some laws that are not even within the Constitution? In other words, can we extend the Constitution by this method? It cannot be done. That is the point I make. The Commonwealth either has the power which it says it has or it does not. Now the High Court has said that the Commonwealth has the power over the extra-territorial area so why is it that the Government has to use this placitum which states that the Commonwealth can only use it when there is no such operation of a power which exists?

It is thought that perhaps the High Court was talking about the State constitutions being able to be altered by the Commonwealth rather than by the United Kingdom because ‘within the Commonwealth’ is mentioned. We recognise that position. Dealing with this matter, which is clearly extra-territorial in relation to the States and is identified as such in the Bill, this head of power cannot be relied upon. The Commonwealth already has that power, so it is not a power that it does not have. If we use the alternative argument- if we never had the competence to have that power- we cannot have that power now. We cannot give ourselves competence by this method. It is quite a ridiculous situation and it comes back to the political concept of Sir Charles Court. He thinks that if we use this power the only way we will be able to rescind it is by getting all the States to agree. The Opposition wants to put on record that it cannot see- it invites the Minister to tell us- what power we are talking about. It is a power that could only be exercised by the United Kingdom Parliament. What is it and where is it? As far as the Opposition is concerned, the Commonwealth has the power to deal with it. It does not come under this placitum. The other factor which I wish to raise is that if one looks through this legislation one will see that we are giving to the States under these clauses in the Bill the power to deal with the territorial sea as though it is within their own limits of a State. That means complete and absolute power. My submission is how does that stand when one looks at clause 6 which states in part:

Nothing in this Act affects the status of the territorial sea of Australia under international law . . .

I want to make the point that if the States are given the powers, as the Government purports to do, to deal with the territorial sea as though it was within their land mass and if they want to do things with it, how can the Government leave the Commonwealth in this ridiculous situation of being responsible under international law for what is happening in the territorial sea? The proposition has been put to me: Supposing there is an oil spillage because of a State drilling on a reef and pollution occurs in a territorial sea. The Commonwealth is obliged, under the international law, to safeguard these matters. We would end up with the difficulty of trying to tell all the countries that it is not our responsibility; that we have sort of given it away. The governments of those countries would say to us: ‘You cannot do that because, as a nation, under the international covenant, you have said that you will abide by the terms and conditions of the covenant and one provision is that you will guarantee the marine environment’. We could find ourselves, in technical terms, defending ourselves in the International Court of Justice for an offence that has been committed by a negligent State administration. I submit that that can happen.

The Commonwealth is purporting to give away powers completely to the States and in the next breath we are saying that that does not interfere with our international status. I submit that perhaps it does interfere with international standards because States can do what they like. This is dealt with in another Bill which we will talk about later- the Coastal Waters (State Title) Bill. We would be placed in the position of saying: ‘It does not interfere with our international covenant’. Of course it does not. It puts us right in the hot seat of having to face up to the fact that we do have this responsibility. Further, this Bill talks about the extent of the power which is limited to the extent of the territorial sea and it will not apply if that sea is extended beyond the three-mile limit. I want to put on record the fact that there seems to have been a very strong indication already that Australia may well go to a 12-mile territorial sea. That means that to be consistent the Government will build up the hopes of the States that they could also extend their territorial rights out to 12 miles. In September 1978 I asked the Attorney-General (Senator Durack):

Does the Government intend to proclaim a 12 mile territorial sea under the Seas and Submerged Lands Act?

His answer was:

The Government will give consideration to the matter in the light of the outcome of the current United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. ‘

If I look at the nations that have already declared a 12-mile territorial sea I see many countries in which we have a lot of interest. They are Indonesia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Japan and many others. If one looks at the nations I would say that the greatest bulk have taken a 12-mile territorial sea. I would like to know from the Minister: What is the position of the Government? If it is the intention that we adopt, as we should, a 12-mile territorial sea, would we give away those rights as well? This is the reason I am supporting my colleague, the honourable member for Hawker, who wants an explanation as to the definition area. I would also like an explanation as to how, firstly, there can be an exercise of the power which, I submit, does not exist. Secondly, what is our position under the international covenant on the basis of responsibility, particularly from the point of view of the marine environment and our liability to be prosecuted under the international covenant? Thirdly, where do we stand on this legislation? It is very important, if the limit is to be extended to 12 miles, that we know what the Government’s intention is. It was indicated to me as far back as two years ago that the matter was under consideration. It was also indicated to me that most of the countries have adopted the 12-mile territorial sea limit. If that is the position, will this Government also adopt that limit? That would mean, of course, a further erosion of title and power.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Adoption of Report

Motion (by Mr Macphee) proposed:

That the report of the Committee be adopted.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Opposition opposes the motion but will not be calling for a division, because another debate has to take place. We want our objections to be noted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Third Reading

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

page 2556

COASTAL WATERS (NORTHERN TERRITORY POWERS) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 April, on motion by Mr Ellicott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– Mr Deputy Speaker, the Opposition opposes the Bill but will not seek a division.

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 Macphee) read a third time. ;

page 2556

COASTAL WATERS (STATE TITLE) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 April, on motion by Mr Ellicott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– Mr Deputy Speaker, the Opposition opposes the Bill but will not call for a division.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– We do not seem to be getting any answers but again we raise this matter on another basis. This Bill, for the benefit of honourable members, seeks to vest the title in the coastal areas in the States. It is similar to the Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Title) Bill. So one could say that any remarks I make in respect of the Coastal Waters (State Title) Bill also apply to that Bill. It is significant that on this occasion we are using the external affairs power to vest the power. I submit that we could have used , it in respect of the other Bill. I object strongly to the fact that we are giving away all our national interests in the area called the territorial sea. My colleague the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) has already asked questions as to the definition of what is meant in a number of areas, but he has received no answers.

It is pretty clear, when one looks at this vesting of title in the States, that they will have vested in them all the right, title and interest in .the area called the territorial sea. Having done that vesting, I fail to see how we have any control at all over that area. Honourable members will notice that that is the intention and the expression of the legislation. These areas are being vested in the State on the basis that they are deemed to be within the limits of the State. As you would know, Mr Deputy Chairman, States can do what they like with their territory, subject to the overall position of what would be called federal powers, but there are no powers in respect of land- land acquisition or land utilisation. In this regard the Bill refers to ‘save and except the area called the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park’. Of course the problem, as will be highlighted later, is that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act has not been declared. So the area of the park is not known. It is in segments. So, until such time as the area of the park is known, we will have State vesting of ownership. That is the position. That is the problem which this Bill creates. For example, Queensland can do what it likes with that area unless the area is declared a marine park. It is no good a Minister saying: ‘We will protect it. We will make a declaration’. If the drilling starts before the declaration, he is out of business, because under this section of the Bill it would be the same as if drilling were being carried out in Roma or in the main street of Brisbane; he could not stop it, just as he would not be able to stop the drilling on the reef.

Mr Graham:

– But you don’t do it in five minutes. You don’t have a drilling in five minutes.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The Government is passing this Bill in 60 minutes. It will be law within seven days and in seven days Queensland will own all that area. It will own the lot and the Parliament will be in recess. That will be the way it will be. What will happen then? The honourable member for North Sydney says: ‘You don’t do it in five minutes’. His Government has done it in about two minutes over the telephone. A deal was done. That is the position. Let us look at the provision in this regard.

It is the intention of the Parliament that, subject to minor sections which say that we can have quarantine rights and we can maintain structures, we will not be given any fee simple to the title. Subject to that, any right, title or interest vested in a State may be disposed of by the State or dealt with in accordance with State laws. That is absolute title. A State can do what it likes with the area. It is just legal fiction- it is just pulling the wool over everybody’s eyes- to say that the resources will not really be done away with. Quite frankly, looking at it from the point of view of the other aspect- that is, that we are likely to go for a 12-mile territorial sea- it will not be long before the States will have the right, title and interest, the fee simple, the ownership, for 12 miles off-shore. We will not be a nation at all. We will be a conglomerate- a confederation, not a federation- of seven little States all doing their own thing. The prize of the Great Barrier Reef.can be subject to attack from what might be called the greed, the avarice, of the politicans in control of Queensland. If they want to give a lease to permit drilling on the reef, the only thing the Government can say is: ‘We had better try to bring in a declaration’. If the Government is fair dinkum about this situation, why has it not declared the whole of the reef now? If it declares the whole of the reef now it can release the little bits it does not want to keep. But if it does not declare it at all, the right, title and interest- the whole vesting of this area-is in the States and, in this case, the State of Queensland. The same applies around the whole of the continent.

Is it fair and reasonable for the Government to put us in the position of vesting the title when it could easily be put on a leasehold basis if it liked? The vesting of the fee simple in it, creating the block it wants to have, means that if we want to get this area back- as a Labor Government would in the national interest- the States will be seeking full compensation on what is deemed to be just terms and acquisition on values. This Bill is just a sellout of responsibilities. It should not be proceeded with. I know that the Government wants to put this whole package of Bills through tonight. We have already indicated our objection to that.

Mr Bourchier:

– I reckon you will make it.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I will make it all right. The Government is losing it. That is the problem. It is very sad; it is not a jocular matter. This matter deals with Australia as a nation. We are dealing with an international covenant.

Mr Bourchier:

– Oh, come on!

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-How much harder can we come on?

Mr Bourchier:

– You do not really believe what you are saying.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I do. Why would we go to the High Court, get from it a decision that the Commonwealth owns the area in question and then say, ‘We do not want it.’ Even the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) sent a telex on a very famous day, 1 1 November -great things happen on 11 November- 1976 stating that the Commonwealth intended retaining its ownership. Why has it not done so?

Mr Hodges:

– Don’t you believe in the States?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-We do believe in the States. But does the honourable member believe in his nation, in Australia, in the national interest? Is he going to have the Japanese buying a couple of miles off-shore just outside Yeppoon? It can be done. Will he let that happen? He represents an electorate in Queensland. How would he stand if he went to Tokyo and said, ‘I want to buy a couple of miles off-shore’? I would like to see how long he would last.

Mr Hodges:

– You will never make it in Queensland if you keep talking like that.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I am not anxious to make it in Queensland. I want to make it for Australia; that is the important part. The Government is bringing down laws that it need not bring down. It could give the States some interest in development off-shore, but to give them right, title and interest represents a sell-out of the area involved. Even worse, to say that they can dispose of it as they think fit -

Mr Bourchier:

– You would not shout if you were fair dinkum.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I am not shouting. I am only trying to overcome the noise. My point is that this legislation represents a betrayal of what we are about as a nation. No other nation does it or has done it. The Opposition objects to this provision because it vests the fee simple -

Mr Bourchier:

– What about Wran?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I cannot hear the honourable member. I hope that he will let me finish. If Government supporters were really serious about State interests the Government could give the States an interest in the area without giving them ownership. They would also make it very clear that the States would not be able to deal with it as they thought fit, but only with the consent of the Commonwealth. That would be fair and reasonable, but to vest ownership in the States and say, moreover, that the States can do with the area what they like, really puts it beyond the power of the national government ever to get it back. What a joke it will be if, for some miles off-shore, whether it be three miles this year or 12 miles next year, the Australian nation will not own the natural resources. They could well be sold off to others.

Mr Bourchier:

– That is utter rubbish.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It is not.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– The Government has the veto.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The Government has no veto at all. I invite the honourable gentleman to stand up and indicate, from the Bill, in what respect the Government has the veto.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– You are talking for too long. I will never get on.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-If the honourable member wants to speak I will sit down as soon as I can. The objections of the Opposition are made on a valid basis, namely, that this Government is not interested in the nation; that this legislation represents a sell-out to the individual Premiers who, in the main, are noted for going overseas and talking to big private companies about how they might exploit Australia’s resources. It is for that fundamental reason that I say there is no need for this legislation. The same result could well have been obtained under another head of power, on the basis that a leasehold or other interest would be granted. But to give this area away, by vesting in the States freehold title, and then to say that the States may dispose of it as they wish, represents a selling out of our national responsibilities.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I just want to express my disgust-

Motion ( by Mr Bourchier ) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr J. L. Armitage)

AYES: 64

NOES: 29

Majority……. 35

AYES

NOES

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The honourable member for Bendigo takes personal exception to the remark of the honourable member for Blaxland. I ask the honourable member to withdraw it.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put:

That the Bill be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr J. L. Armitage)

AYES: 65

NOES: 30

Majority……. 35

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2560

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS (GRANTS) BILL 1980

Bill returned from the Senate with a request.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the purposes of an amendment to be moved upon request by the Senate in the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Bill announced.

In Committee

Consideration of Senate’s request.

Senate’s requested amendment.

Page 2, clause 3, line 20, leave out “45 “, insert “46”.

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this requested amendment is to build a tolerance into the definition of prescribed cylinder’ to cover those cylinders which marginally exceed 45 kilograms capacity. It is the Government’s intention that the subsidy be payable on all sales of gas to be supplied in this kind of cylinder.

Amendment agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 2560

COASTAL WATERS (NORTHERN TERRITORY TITLE) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 April, on motion by MrEllicott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-The Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Title) Bill is another Bill in the package to vest proprietary rights and titles in the Northern Territory in respect of the territorial sea. As I said during the debate on the second reading, I think this is a very sad day for the House of Representatives and for the Commonwealth Parliament. Who would think that a Commonwealth government would debauch the concept of nation and of internationalism by granting to the States proprietary rights and titles. Even clause 4(4) states:

It is the intention of the Parliament that, subject to subsection (2), any right or title vested in the territory by this section may be disposed of or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the laws of the Territory.

In other words, there can be the sale of the seabed of Australia as opposed to what should have been the clear intention of the High Court decision on the 1973 legislation, namely with title vested in the Crown in the name of the Commonwealth, one would have hoped, in perpetuity.

Again, one cannot understand the bloodymindedness of the Government in this whole debate, that is using the section 51 (xxxviii) device of the Constitution to grant powers to the States when in fact we have exercised powers under the external affairs power to grant proprietary rights and titles. This is obviously done with constitutional malice in mind, otherwise there would be no such resort. I think the thinking is on the basis that even if a challenge to section 51 (xxxviii) is successful and the package collapses the Commonwealth would have difficulties expropriating the proprietary rights and titles from the States without paying due compensation on what is deemed to be fair and just terms. Again there could be an argument about just terms on the basis that there has been no cost to the States; the States have had a political windfall and therefore the terms may not be of the magnitude one had previously thought.

The concept in this provision that the title in the seabed may be disposed of or otherwise dealt with is a savage blow to the people who believed that the whole concept of federalism was to develop a Commonwealth with a national parliament. But we now see the territorial sea split among seven parliaments and it can be sold off like another parcel of land. I think that confirms what I alleged at the beginning of my speech, that is that this is a very sad day for the national Parliament. If the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) had stuck to his commitment at the end of 1976 when confronted with requests from the States, after the High Court decision had finalised this matter once and for all, there would have been no need to proceed further. That has not happened. The Prime Minister caved into the sectional partisan interests of the Premiers, particularly Sir Charles Court and Mr BjelkePetersen, and the result has been this so-called constitutional settlement. It is a disgrace to the Fraser Government and in my estimation it is the worst single measure that the Government has undertaken in its years in office. It is hard to apportion these things. But I think the Government is attempting to do something which is irrevocable and against the interests of the Commonwealth and the nation as a whole.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-I thank the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) who is at the table for deferring. I want to respond to the last comments of the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating). The honourable member said that this was the worst legislation we had ever brought before the Parliament. I believe it is the best legislation to come before this Parliament since 1976. I make the point that when the honourable member for Blaxland- he now flees from the chamber- says that this is debauched legislation he is insulting every State parliament in Australia. He is insulting not just Mr Lowe, the Labor Premier of Tasmania, not just Mr Wran the Labor Premier of New South Wales, but every State Premier. This is a persistent and consistent attack by the honourable member for Blaxland and honourable members opposite who hate the States, who hate Tasmania in particular and who want to see the destruction of the federal system. Far from being bad legislation, this is good legislation because it is being put forward by this Government at the request of the six States. The sooner the honourable member for Blaxland realises that we do not have a centralist government in this country, that we have a federal system, that the Labor Party is completely out of step with public thinking, with constitutional opinion and with good judgment, the sooner Australia will grow and develop instead of being thwarted and hindered by the Labor Party ‘s centralist socialist policies.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for the Capital Territory and Acting Attorney-General · Wentworth · LP

– A great deal has been said by way of attack upon the Government in relation to this legislation. I feel I should take this opportunity to answer some of the statements that have been made. I regret I was not in the chamber a little earlier when the earlier Bills were being debated. I think it is important to realise that very early in our Federation the strong view was held by every State and the Commonwealth that the first three miles of the territorial sea from the low water mark did in fact belong, in terms of jurisdiction, to the States. For decades this century the off-shore waters were administered on that basis. To some degree there has been some sort of justification for that in section 5 1 (x) of the Constitution relating to fisheries. No doubt it came as something of a shock to the States- I can say this from my own experience, having witnessed the shock- that in the 1960s considerable doubt was cast on the issue of whether the States really had jurisdiction over the first three miles of the territorial sea.

Decisions were made in the United States in respect of Texas and California which operate under a similar sort of jurisdiction. The issue more or less hung around in Australia for some decades- I think for about 20 years. The issue was raised again in Canada, I think in 1967. A similar decision was made in that country, namely that the provinces, just as with the states of the United States, did not have jurisdiction over the territorial sea. As I have said the issue remained at that stage for some time. Although this principle had been accepted in Australia the States received something of a shock when they learnt that they may not have had jurisdiction over the first three miles. Everybody knows that, from that time onwards, this became a very significant issue among the Commonwealth and the States.

Having been involved in the drafting of the Seas and Submerged Lands Bill 1970 and also the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973, I understand something of the background to this issue. Having been involved in discussions between Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth and the States in relation to this issue, I have understood some of the heat that was generated in relation to it. All I can say is that it was an issue that could be settled only by agreement. The purpose of the Seas and Submerged Lands Act, as conceived by the previous coalition Government, was in a sense a means of settling the issue by way of a test case to find out what the real answer was.

Mr Jacobi:

– Like the earlier legislation?

Mr ELLICOTT:

– Yes, the Bill of 1 970 was designed to provide for a test case. It never passed through this Parliament. When the Labor Government came to power it passed the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973. Needless to say, it was inevitable that that would be challenged in the High Court by the States. It was challenged, and we know the result. The result, of course, was unacceptable to the States. The dispute could not be resolved, and was unlikely to be resolved except by agreement. When this Government came to power at the end of 1975 it set about the task of resolving that dispute. The dispute has been settled in a way which I can only suggest to honourable members is designed to give to the States what they thought they had. That is to say, they always believed, and indeed to a very large degree the Commonwealth operated on this basis, that they had rights and jurisdiction over the first three miles. These Bills are designed to put into the State jurisdiction and title -

Mr Keating:

– What they thought they had is not what they had. That is the point.

Mr ELLICOTT:

-I am trying to explain that this was a deep-seated issue which existed between the States and the Commonwealth. If I may say so, it is an issue which, if the Labor Party were in government, it would have to confront by settlement and not otherwise. It is not an issue which this Commonwealth of ours could happily resolve by the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973. There had to be a solution by agreement; the Seas and Submerged Lands Act threw up issues which could not be resolved except by agreement. I do not want to go into all the issues, but some of them related to States, including Labor States- we have some Labor States involved now and agreeing to this package of legislation- saying that they would not allow their territory to be used in relation to off-shore installations. It may be said that the Commonwealth could have overcome that by acquiring the land adjacent to the sea, but that example is only to show how vehement the States were in relation to this issue.

I say to honourable members on both sides of the House that this settlement is designed to create a proper relationship which, on the one hand, recognises the rights of the States as they have been considered since Federation but, on the other hand, gives them no more than they thought they had. Let me explain that. As honourable members know, it is quite possible that at some stage the Commonwealth will declare a territorial sea of 12 miles. If the Commonwealth did that, this legislation, as I read it, does not give the States the right to the additional nine miles; it confines the right to three miles. As I read the legislation, the only way in which it gives them more than they had at Federation is that, for the purposes of measuring the first three miles, the Commonwealth was prepared to adopt the base line measurements that were included in the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Law of the Sea. If we had taken the cannon shot rule that was in existence in 1900, those base lines would have been across the jaws of the land, as honourable members will recall. In other words, to that extent the inland waters of the States were increased and the base line of the territorial sea was further seawards than it was at the time of Federation. It is only in that respect that the States, in a sense, are getting more than they thought they had. If the fact turns out that the Commonwealth increases the limit to 12 miles, the States would not get rights in the seabed, nor in relation to powers over the additional nine miles. As I have said, that is only an indication of how far this is intended to resolve the dispute that inevitably existed once these decisions were made by the courts at the end of 1960.

Mr Keating:

– Why weren’t the powers given under the external affairs power instead of under 5 1 (xxxviii)?

Mr ELLICOTT:

– If I may explain it in this way, no consideration was given in the early 1970s- in the drawing up of the Seas and Submerged Lands Bill 1970, upon which the Act was based- to the use of section 51 (xxxviii). The Commonwealth was taking the view, in order to get a test case, that the rights of the Commonwealth in off-shore areas depended on the external affairs power. In other words, they depended not only on the Convention of 1958, but also on international law as it existed long before 1958. The territorial sea was a concept which was recognised at international law and, therefore, the rights in relation to it were an accretion to Commonwealth power as a result of the international arrangements and not because of the delimitation of the States as contained in the United Kingdom imperial statutes which set them up in the 19th century. It was because it was a matter that appertained to international law that the external affairs power was used as the basis of the Seas and Submerged Lands Act. There was no reason to rely on section 51 (xxxviii), nor at the moment do I see how it could have been used in relation to the Seas and Submerged Lands Act. The way it has been used now is to resolve the issue without for instance, having an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament, as some constitutional lawyers looking at it may have said.

We all know that both sides of this House are not at all keen on going back to Westminster to have an Act of Parliament to settle our issues. Consideration was given to this matter by the present Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth and by all the other law officers of the Commonwealth, and they came up with the solution that section 5 1 (xxxviii) could be used. That is a fairly broad exposition of the situation. I hope it assists honourable members.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I will be very brief. I appreciate the explanation that has been given. What we cannot understand, and I think that as a lawyer the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) would appreciate this, is the vesting of the title under the external affairs power. That is the most serious matter from our point of view. We can get the title back under that power, but we would be up for compensation. I want to put on record my understanding of what the Minister has just said. He felt that it would never work because the States would never accept it. Yet I have in front of me what are alleged to be his remarks in 1976 when he was talking to the States, and I thought they were quite commendable. He indicated that from the Commonwealth’s point of view the fact that the matter had been determined by the High Court in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act case, which clearly established that we had the title and the sovereignty, was the final determination and that the Commonwealth was quite firm about the matter. The Minister went on to say: ‘Do not take any encouragement because the Commonwealth’s attitude is quite firm’. I express the view that the Opposition wishes that that was still the attitude, because all the other things that he has said the Government wants to do certainly could have been done by arrangement, but it would not have meant the divesting of the title. I appreciate that we will not extend the title for a further nine miles, but those Premiers with which the Government is dealing will be anxious to do so as and when the Government declares that the territorial sea is for a further nine miles.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2563

SEAS AND SUBMERGED LANDS AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 23 April, on motion by Mr Anthony:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is it the wish of the House to proceed to the third reading forthwith?

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Yes. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Opposition wishes to have it noted that it objects to the Bill but does not intend to proceed to a division.

Leave granted.

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

page 2563

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Mr Speaker has received advice from the Leader of the Opposition that he has nominated Mr West to be a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in place of Dr Everingham.

page 2563

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Report

Mr GILLARD:
Macquarie

– I present the fifteenth report of the Publications Committee.

Report- by leave- is adopted.

page 2563

NEW BUSINESS AFTER 11 P.M

page 2563

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE

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

That Standing Order 48a (Adjournment of the House) and Standing Order 103 ( 1 1 o’clock rule) be suspended for this sitting.

page 2563

PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 April, on motion by Mr Anthony:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for the Capital Territory and Acting Attorney-General · Wentworth · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House has a general debate covering this Bill, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Royalty) Amendment Bill 1980, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Amendment Bill 1980, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Exploration Permit Fees) Amendment Bill 1980, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Pipeline Licence Fees) Amendment Bill 1980 and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Production Licence Fees) Amendment Bill 1980 as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

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

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-The Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 1980 and the related Bills form the second main component of the package of measures introduced by the Government to vary the offshore powers arrangements. The Opposition will be opposing these Bills and moving a second reading amendment to the main Bill, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill. Under trie High Court decision on the Seas and Submerged Lands Act case in 1975 the Commonwealth has exclusive sovereignty to regulate the off-shore areas of Australia.

Previously today I outlined the opposition of the Australian Labor Party to the Coastal Waters (State Title) Bill and the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Bill as to the granting of power to the States in respect of the territorial seas. Within the territorial seas the States will have exclusive power to regulate petroleum and mineral developments. In the areas adjacent to the territorial seas, power to regulate petroleum and mineral exploration and production is vested in the Crown in the name of the Commonwealth. Since the passage of the Commonwealth-State Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act mirror legislation of 1967, the power to regulate off-shore petroleum exploration and development has resided in the States, in the person of the State Minister for Mines as the designated authority under the legislation. The decision of the High Court nullifies the validity of the State Acts, though in the interim the State Minister has continued to operate as the designated authority. The principal Bill before us will take the place of the State mirror legislation, which now will be inoperative.

The Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 1980 will exercise control over petroleum exploration and mining in the international waters of Australia other than those of the territorial sea. Under this Bill, the Government will, by agreement with the States, establish joint authorities for each State consisting of the respective State Minister and the Commonwealth Minister. The joint authority will have responsibility for major matters, such as the granting of exploration permits and production licences, the conditions of such permits and licences and the determination of royalty rates. But administration will be conducted by the State Minister as the designated authority. All communications with companies and other concerned parties will be through the State Minister.

For those areas of responsibility of the joint authority, in the case of disagreement between the State Minister and the Commonwealth Minister, the Commonwealth Minister’s views will prevail. This is applicable to all States but special provisions will apply in the case of Western Australia. In this case, an agreement has been reached between the Commonwealth and the Western Australian Government. This is contained in the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill and is particularly objectionable in that it severely limits the role of the Commonwealth Minister.

Clause 9, sub-clause 8d(9), gives the special agreement between the Commonwealth and Western Australia the force of law. Under these provisions the Commonwealth Minister cannot exercise his power to decide a matter when the members of the joint authority disagree unless the State Minister’s decision would endanger or prejudice the national interest. The procedures that have to be followed are set out in Schedule 4 of the Bill.

When the Commonwealth Minister wishes to override a decision of the State Minister he must inform the Western Australian Minister that he is satisfied that this decision would endanger or prejudice the national interest and in which way this would happen. The Premier of the State can then make representations to the Prime Minister, who can then take whatever action he deems necessary with a view to resolution. This resolution must be acceptable to both members of the joint authority. If this concurrence cannot be reached, then the Commonwealth Minister’s views will prevail only if the Prime Minister informs the Premier within 30 days that he is satisfied that the decision of the State Minister is against the national interest. However, the State Minister’s view will prevail if no action is taken by the Commonwealth Minister or the Prime Minister within 40 days of representation being made by the Premier.

The agreement is a piece of impertinence against the international prerogatives of the Commonwealth Government. The Opposition is trenchantly opposed to these Joint Authority arrangements. They represent a sell-out of the Commonwealth’s responsibilities in the area of off-shore mineral management, with the State Ministers acting in some dubious role as officers of the Commonwealth. The arrangements smell of the parochial interest of the State coalition parties, particularly the State Premiers of Western Australia and Queensland, aided and abetted by the political complicity of the Fraser Government.

The whole matter of Commonwealth sovereignty off-shore was resolved by the High Court decision in 1975. It is the Fraser Government that now re-opens the matter. It will carry responsibility for the uncertainty which this legislation will now create. If the Government had sought bipartisanship with the Opposition on this matter, it would have achieved this by the Commonwealth exercising exclusive power off-shore and talking with us about mutually acceptable solutions for the granting of powers to the States for State type functions in the territorial seas. Instead the Opposition was ignored. The deals were cooked up at the Premiers Conferences.

When the Prime Minister introduced this package last week he responded to my interjection by criticising the Opposition for not exercising bipartisanship. We were never consulted. In the Prime Minister’s view the Opposition should accept his arrangements, his deals, his edicts, in the interest of bipartisanship. That is bipartisanship Fraser style- one way traffic. The Government could have had an all-parties conference on these matters, but it chose not to do so. The Opposition is now opposed to the arrangements, including the provisions of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill.

The situation in Bass Strait in recent years has shown what can happen when we have off-shore petroleum developments administered by State governments. For at least four years several federal departments and the Commonwealth Auditor-General have been complaining about the procedures adopted by the Victorian Government in discharging its responsibilities. The Victorian Department of Mines and Energy has repeatedly been asked to improve its performance. The Victorians have been unable to determine accurately the amount of oil being produced from Bass Strait. Therefore their calculations of revenue payable to both the Commonwealth and Victorian governments have been questionable. This has amounted to millions of dollars. The Victorians also have not been able to reach an agreement with Esso-BHP on a formula for determining the amount of royalties payable.

Under the legislation which is now before the House, in off-shore areas, excluding the territorial sea, these responsibilities will fall to the joint authority- the Commonwealth and State Ministers- but administration will virtually remain with the State Minister. The veto rights of the Commonwealth Minister are not an appropriate measure of management. For petroleum developments within the territorial sea, the situation will be even more ludicrous. Responsibility will rest solely in the hands of the State Minister, and only State legislation will be applicable. There will be seven different governments with seven different mining codes regulating off-shore petroleum in these waters. State legislation will apply to one side of the border of the territorial sea and Commonwealth legislation to the other. At the moment permit areas straddle the territorial line. When this legislation becomes operative these permits will be split in two.

Off-shore Australia should be subject to a uniform mining code. It should be administered for the nation by the national government. Many of the changes in the mining code which are contained in the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill are acceptable to the Opposition. Many parts of the original Act, such as the timing of permit renewals and the situation concerning adjacent licence areas, needed to be clarified. We support the requirement for titleholders to take out insurance to cover blowouts, pollution and other environmentally harmful incidents. We also support the increase in fees and penalties to compensate for inflation.

But there are changes in the mining code that the Opposition does not support, such as the removal of the requirement that specific work and expenditure proposals for each exploration block be specified. This legislation will require that such proposals should be made only for an entire licence area. Although the changes to the mining code are significant, they pale when related to the principal thrust of the legislation. This is to give the States complete responsibility for petroleum in the territorial sea and a considerable responsibility in the adjacent off-shore areas. Later, in the Committee stage of the debate, I shall move an amendment which would delete the preamble of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill inasmuch as it would replace provisions which relate to Commonwealth control in the territorial sea.

This package of legislation is not acceptable to the Opposition. The passage of these Bills does not rely upon the section 51 (xxxviii) head of power under which the request Bill arrangement was made in respect of the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Bill. The passage of an amending Bill through both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament can alter the joint authority arrangements. A future Labor Government would embark upon this course of action. It would provide for all the functions proposed to be exercised by the joint authorities and the designated authorities to be exercised exclusively by the Commonwealth Minister. This would obviate the need to remove the provision for the Western Australian agreement relating to the proposed joint authority. In conclusion, I move:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Humphreys:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak at a later hour this day.

Mr ROGER JOHNSTON:
Hotham

– There is a history to this package, which has been talked about previously. The High Court decision of 1975 could have been the end of the whole matter. If that had been so the States would have been left unhappy and the central Commonwealth Government would have been left to exercise control over all offshore activities. Thus we come to the reason for these Bills. This Liberal Government did not see why the States should be denied the resources of their off-shore areas, or even any part of them. It did not see why the States should have no rights or responsibilities beyond the low water mark. One could almost envisage a situation in which a State allowed nude bathing on a beach down to the low water mark, with the Commonwealth Police insisting that people put on their bathers to go into the sea.

The Labor Party wanted all these resources and all these responsibilities to be right here in Canberra. It wanted more great bureaucracies here, meaning more expense and more taxes from the people. However, this Liberal Government does not see things in that way. It wants the States to have their share of the resources and the responsibilities in the true spirit of federalism. Federalism is one of the greatest planks of a Liberal philosophy. We are continually working to bring responsibility nearer to the people. We have continually given the States more responsibility and the money to go with it. This package of Bills is a wonderful example of federalism, of co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States for the benefit of the people of Australia. After all, Australia was formed as a federation of the States for the ultimate benefit of all the people. I am always amazed that the Labor Party seems concerned only about power in Canberra, with its obvious detriment to the people of Australia.

One of the other many differences between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party is what happens to the proposals of respective party councils or conferences. The Liberal Party proposals are recommendations to the parliamentary party and thus give the Liberal parliamentarians an opportunity to hear what the public wants, to react to debate and to change in line with changing conditions or situations. In contrast, the Labor Party conference binds all Labor politicans, State and Federal. They will not listen to the public, they will not listen to debate in the Parliament. Changing conditions cannot affect the Labor Party. Surely the public must be concerned about such behaviour, especially when it knows that the Labor Federal conference is made up of such people as Bill Hartley.

It was quite a surprise to find that all States had agreed to the solutions embodied in the Bills. Solutions decided upon between all States and the Commonwealth after years of discussion were agreed upon at the Premiers’ Conference by all Premiers last year. It was a surprise because last year’s Labor conference laid down for its parliamentarians that off-shore powers should be under Commonwealth control. There are two Labor controlled States- three when most decisions were made- which should have abided by the decisions of that Labor conference. It was a pity that the Labor spokesman for Minerals and Energy and President of the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Labor Party again lost his temper and accused the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and his own Party colleagues when he realised the real worth of this historic milestone of co-operative federalism. But State Labor politicians, although paying lip service to federal policy, naturally enjoy their own power positions. This move by Commonwealth and States acting in unison under section 5 1 (xxxviii) of the Constitution has stymied any future Federal Labor government’s chances. It would have to change a lot to get into government. The move has stopped a Labor government’s chances of regaining exclusive power over off-shore areas because it would need all States to reverse the decision.

The basic arrangement of these Bills is that Commonwealth legislation applies beyond the three-mile territorial sea- that is, three nautical miles. State legislation applies within the threemile territorial sea. All mining operations beyond the three-mile limit will be under the control of joint authorities consisting of the relevant Commonwealth and State Ministers. In the case of a disagreement, the Commonwealth will prevail. These joint authorities will be responsible for major matters relating to titles such as granting and refusals, renewals, transfers and farmins, et cetera. The joint authorities will determine conditions of titles including work and expenditure and will make directions of a permanent nature. On the other hand, State Ministers will continue their active role as all contacts would continue to be through the State Ministers. State departments would continue to handle day to day administration and supervision of operations.

The basic arrangement is for all ofT-shore mining to be conducted in accordance with a common mining code or codes and for the sharing of petroleum royalties to be continued under the present arrangements. It is important to see how control is exercised. Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the original Act of 1967 called for designated authorities who were the responsible Ministers of the separate States. While the original clauses are completely replaced, the designated authorities are still the State Ministers. This Bill makes it very clear that the designated authority acts in all ways on behalf of the joint authority as indicated in clause 8f. Clauses 8d (4) and (5) ensure that the designated authority carries out the wishes of the joint authority with a Commonwealth veto. One certainly needs the explanatory memorandum to be sure that clauses 8d, e and f do not give the designated authority the full control without reference to the Commonwealth but that is the situation.

The States must be very happy with this settlement because they have had returned to them the powers that the Labor Government took from them. I am sure that the Labor socialist Opposition will continue to scream rape. But since two Labor Premiers, and a third until he was bundled out by the electorate, agreed to this most equitable arrangement, it is hard to see how their socialist arguments can stand up. They had better get their own houses in order first before they start putting some of these arguments. Perhaps they should ask Mr Hawke what he has decided on the issue before any of them talk again. It is noticed that the socialist Labor Party, as usual, opposes everything. But the substance of its opposition in this case rests entirely on the appeal to emotions concerning mining on the reef. The Opposition, as usual, refuses to listen to the facts or even to read the facts. Let me reiterate the main point of a statement of June 1979 which is binding on Queensland and the Commonwealth. It was said that the Government will not permit mining on the reef. The Commonwealth has power under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 and other Acts to cover all aspects of the Reef and to protect the Reef and none of this protection is diminished by this package of Bills.

This off-shore constitutional settlement is an historic and significant achievement for the good of all Australians. It is a further adjustment of powers between the Commonwealth and the States in line with our Liberal philosophy of federalism. It again brings power and responsibility closer to the people and thus gives them better government. People understand this shift. They will wonder why the socialist Opposition makes such wild claims in the hope of putting all power in Canberra. We know our way is better. So, I commend this whole package of Bills to the House with their historic significance working within the best ideals of the Constitution to produce responsible, practical and comprehensive solutions for all Australians.

Mr HUMPHREYS:
Griffith

-At the outset I must say that I am very disappointed that the debating time has been restricted to speakers on this very important legislation. I must also point out that I am disgusted to think that this Government is putting these Bills - through the House in this way. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has said that the Bills before the House represented a milestone in Commonwealth-State relations.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is more like a millstone.

Mr HUMPHREYS:

-As the honourable member for Parramatta has said, the Prime Minister would have been more correct to say they represented a millstone around the neck of the Commonwealth Government. The question of who controls what in our off-shore areas has been an issue that stretches as far back as the constitutional conventions of the last century. Despite the 70 years of dispute that followed the enactment of the Australian Constitution, the issue of territorial authority had not been resolved satisfactorily until the decade of the 1970s.

In 1970 the then Minister for National Development presented the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill. It looked as though we were, at last, to settle this matter, belatedly but realistically. What happened to that legislation? The Liberal-National Country Party Government became weak-kneed and stalled the legislation for two years. Consequentially an election brought the Government down and then came the late Rex Connor. He had the courage to see the task through. With the coming of the Seas and Submerged Lands Bill there was no doubt as to the sovereignty of the Commonwealth Government- the national Government- in respect of the nations off-shore waters. I want to take this opportunity to quote from the late Rex

Connor’s second reading -speech on that legislation. He said:

The objective of the Bill is to remove any doubt about the exclusive right of the Commonwealth for control over the resources of the seabed in the case of Australia and its territories, from low water -mark to the outer limits of the continental shelf. The Bill’s introduction provides the legislative framework to govern the exploration and exploitation of the mineral resources, other than petroleum, of these submerged lands.

Petroleum was covered in other legislation. Rex Connor continued:

By the introduction of the Bill, the Government demonstrates its determination to adhere to its policies as announced before the last election and to which the Australian people gave their stamp of approval on 2 December last.

This is a very important point which distinguishes between the late Rex Connor’s legislation and the legislation before the House tonight.

The Labor Government had a mandate for such legislation. Where is this Government’s stamp of approval from the Australian people for its so-called historic package? That is what the Prime Minister called it- an historic package. The Prime Minister’s historic package is a legislative time bomb. It is bound to blow up in the Government’s face. The late Rex Connor had something further to say about his legislation that bears repeating. He said:

If there are parties- individuals or governments- who would dispute our right to take the course I now propose, let them challenge this legislation in the Australian courts.

He threw down the gauntlet. In fact, the legislation was tested in the courts by certain States and their objections were tossed out. The Labor Government’s legislation was vindicated in this instance just as it was in every other case where such legislation was challenged. This fact was acknowledged by the Prime Minister. There was no question about either the clarity or the constitutional legality of the legislation. This tainted legislation before the House tonight is therefore based on none of these considerations. In retrospect, we see that the High Court of Australia is not in fact the last court of appeal. The history of this legislation points out clearly to us and to successive governments that even if the Government gets the stamp of legal approval from the High Court for its legislation, and wins fairly and squarely, that is still no guarantee that a subsequent government will not turn around and tip the legislation on its head.

This is a government of contortionists. It bends over backwards to please certain States. It rolls over and plays dead when the Premiers of Western Australia and Queensland tell it to do so. It would prefer to placate an irrational old man who, in his declining years, has sold freehold land to the Japanese millionaires, who wants to mine out greatest national asset, the Great Barrier Reef, and who now wants to exempt his land from the provisions of the State Mines Act for personal pecuniary interest. In dismantling what is the last legacy of the Labor Government and of the late Rex Connor, this Government has abdicated its responsibility in favour of the ‘ mine at any price’ government of Premier Court and the ‘like it or leave it’ regime of Premier Petersen. Where is the national Government’s backbone? I am glad to see that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) is at the table. I regret to see that Queensland members and Ministers are prepared to stand by this legislation.

The Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) has as much faith as I have in the ability and integrity of the present Queensland Premier in exercising control over Queensland waters. How the Minister can take part in setting such an enormous responsibility into such untrustworthy hands is beyond me. Similarly, the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson) must be wrestling with his conscience. How can he maintain his environmental portfolio and purport to represent the people of north Queensland yet at the same time hand over the Great Barrier Reef lock, stock and oil barrel to the Queensland Premier? It is no good the Minister’s saying that the Federal Government will be able to control Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Mr Deputy Speaker, you know that is quite untrue. Malcolm Fraser cannot handle Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member will refer to the Prime Minister by his correct title.

Mr HUMPHREYS:

– I apologise. The Prime Minister cannot handle Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the Premier of Queensland. Mr Deputy Speaker, you know that very well yourself. I implore those members of the Government who sit in this House and claim to be Queenslanders to speak up in defence of responsible national management of Queensland’s off-shore waters and especially the Great Barrier Reef. I remind them that this legislation is unique. It is irrevocable. Because of the Government’s manipulation of section 5 1 (xxxviii) of the Constitution, we are going down a one-way, dead-end street. As I said before, I am very disappointed that we have to finish this debate shortly. I wanted to talk all night about this. I would argue all night for the protection of the Barrier Reef. Honourable members know as well as I do that we are selling out the rights of the Barrier Reef. Honourable members know what Joh Bjelke-Petersen intends to do to our Barrier Reef.

Once the ink has dried on the GovernorGeneral’s signature to these Bills, that will be it. It is a snide backroom deal which was cooked up by the Prime Minister and the Premiers of Queensland and Western Australia, none of whom have proved to be deserving of any confidence or trust. I ask the Prime Minister: What was his cut from this deal? We know what the Premiers got. What did the Federal Government get in return? I hope we get more out of this than just a few months peace and quiet from the Premiers so that the Prime Minister can conduct his election campaign without his worrying about them sniping at his heels. If that is all there is to show for this extravagant sell-out, then I ask: Has it been worth mortgaging our economic future and our environmental heritage? True to form, the Prime Minister has made a number of absurd assertions which need to be challenged. He said that joint consultative arrangements that have been established between the Commonwealth and Queensland for the management and preservation of the region are a concrete example of the result that can be achieved through co-operation. If one did not know about the machinations, the numbers rigging, the Government pressuring and procrastination which have occurred in relation to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, one might go along with this statement.

I have much more to say but I find I have to close. In closing I refer again to the second reading speech of the late Rex Connor when he introduced his legislation in September 1973. He referred to those who were so petty, parochial, backward and foolish and opposed national government authority over the nation’s waters as our little Australians’. It is an appropriate description for people of such narrow vision as the Premiers of Queensland and Western Australia. I would have hoped, however, that there would be at least some genuine Australian nationalists on the other side of this House- some old friends of Sir John Gorton, perhaps- who would have thought and acted like Australians and stood up for Australian authority over Australian waters. But sadly this Government is full of little Australians.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

-The purpose of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill is to amend the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1 967 so that it no longer operates in the three-mile territorial sea; to create joint authorities for each adjacent area beyond the territorial sea, and to define their powers and to revise certain aspects of the mining code. To understand the necessity for this Act it is essential that the background be studied to give reasons for the changes that are taking place. The Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 of the Commonwealth applies uniformly to the territorial sea and continental shelf areas. It was passed as part of a co-operative venture whereby the Commonwealth and States both passed mirror legislation so that in the event of either Act being found invalid the other would continue. This left unresolved the constitutional question of the respective powers of the Commonwealth and States in the off-shore area. Administration under the Commonwealth and State Acts was by a designated authority, in practice, the State Minister for Mines.

The Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 declared the sovereignty of the Commonwealth in the territorial sea and its sovereign rights in the continental shelf area. This Act was upheld by the High Court of Australia in 1975. Following this, the Commonwealth Act of 1967 has continued to operate with administration by State authorities. A series of Premiers Conferences held in 1967, 1968 and 1969 arrived at a complete readjustment of constitutional arrangements for the off-shore area in line with the Government’s policy of co-operative federalism. This involves the use of section 5 1 of the Constitution for Commonwealth legislation to confer legislative powers on the States over the threemile territorial sea and also legislation to confer on the States title to the property in the seabed below the territorial sea and rights to the space above the seabed as if the seabed were within the limits of the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Bill 1980 and the Coastal Waters (State Title) Bill 1980. The Northern Territory is also to have legislative powers and title in the territorial sea. Separate Bills make provision to this effect.

This Bill provides for off-shore petroleum State legislation within the three-mile territorial sea and Commonwealth legislation beyond with joint authorities, consisting of relevant Commonwealth and State Ministers, with the Commonwealth view to prevail if there is disagreement. The Commonwealth is responsible for granting and refusing titles and the terms of conditions. State Ministers and their departments are to continue to administer day-to-day operations and to conduct the dealings with the public. A special arrangement was negotiated with the Western Australian Government for the exercise of the Commonwealth Minister’s powers. This was agreed to by all the States. The Government has a firm policy of co-operative federalism. Premiers conferences were held in 1977, 1978 and 1979 when agreement was reached on a wide range of issues, many including amendments to the petroleum legislation.

The basic agreement on off-shore petroleum can be traced back to the Premiers Conferences of 1977 and 1978 when the following agreements were reached: Off-shore mining would be conducted in accordance with a common mining code or codes; Commonwealth legislation would apply beyond the three-mile territorial sea and State legislation within the three-mile territorial sea; the present arrangements for the sharing of royalties for petroleum would be preserved; there would be joint authorities in respect of all mining operations beyond the three-mile territorial sea consisting of the relevant Commonwealth and State Ministers; the view of the Commonwealth Minister would prevail in cases where there was any disagreement; the joint authorities would be responsible for major matters relating to titles such as the granting, the transfer and the refusal, et cetera; the determination of conditions of titles including work and expenditure; directions of a permanent or standing nature; State Ministers would continue their active role; all contacts to continue to be through State Ministers, and State departments would continue to handle the day-to-day administration and supervision of operations. All State governments, including the two State Labor governments of Tasmania and New South Wales, have passed enabling legislation requesting the Commonwealth to proceed.

Prior to the introduction of these Bills, the Opposition announced that it would challenge the new legislation and seek to strip the States of the new powers granted to them by this Government. This conforms with Labor’s motives in relation to controlling Australia’s off-shore resources when it introduced its 1973 legislation declaring the sovereign rights of the Commonwealth over the continental shelf and Commonwealth rights over the territorial seas. The Federal Labor Government wanted all revenue from these resources and was not prepared to share it with the States. The Federal Labor Government wanted central control of these resources. The national conference of the Labor Party last year re-affirmed these goals when it hardened Labor’s platform to read:

Commonwealth legislation to be passed for regulation and exploitation of all off-shore resources within the 200-mile economic zone.

Federal Labor can expect the support of the left wing of the Labor Party in any future attempts to overthrow the Federal Government’s moves and to strip the States of any say in off-shore development and administration. A leader of the socialist left, Mr Bill Hartley, left little doubt about this when the national conference of the Australian Labor Party last year hardened up its determination that only Canberra would control offshore resources under a Federal Labor administration. When the amendment was proposed, Mr Hartley said:

Senator Button has put forward a proposal which is radical and pervasive and very useful and I very happily withdraw my amendment in favour of his.

Labor’s opposition to this Government’s move to give the States a role in off-shore development and its determination to strip the States of that role if Labor ever regains power in Canberra is based on the belief that all ALP members should work for and support a common objective- that as much political and economic power as possible is controlled and exercised by the central national government and that the influence of the States should be reduced drastically. In July 1979, at the Federal Conference of the ALP in Adelaide, it was decided that a Federal Labor government would retain exclusive control by the Australian Government over all off-shore resources, denying the States any power in this area, and provide the Commonwealth Parliament with such powers as were necessary for national planning and. the achievement of the party’s economic and social objectives.

Anyone listening to Opposition members in this House during the cognate debate on these Bills would think that the Australian States were foreign powers and, indeed, were enemies of the national Parliament and of the people of Australia. Federalism must survive and this legislation will see that it does and that it increases the confidence the States must have in federalism. The Federal Parliamentary Labor Party has been embarrassed by the two State Labor governments which have recognised the gross stupidity of the ALP’s platform as adopted at the Adelaide Conference and the fairness and correctness of this Government’s approach. This Government does not believe it is right, when the Commonwealth and the States are each concerned with a matter, that the States should not be involved. It is quite apparent that the Opposition would deny the States any rights at all. We on this side of the House support this legislation wholeheartedly.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 64

NOES: 27

Majority……. 37

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question put.

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 64

NOES: 29

Majority…… 35

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

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

Clause 3 (Preamble).

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-The Opposition opposes clause 3. This is the preamble to the Bill to amend the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967. The preamble states, in part:

AND WHEREAS it has been agreed between the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory that, in lieu of the scheme provided for by an agreement between the Commonwealth and the States dated 16 October, 1967:

legislation of the Parliament of the Commonwealth in respect of the exploration for and the exploitation of the petroleum resources of submerged lands should be limited -

I emphasise word ‘limited ‘- to the resources of lands beneath waters that are beyond the outer limits of the territorial sea adjacent to the States and the Northern Territory (being outer limits based, unless and until otherwise agreed, on the breadth of that sea being three nautical miles), and that the States and the Northern Territory should share, in the manner provided in this Act, in the administration of that legislation;

  1. legislation of the Parliament of each State should apply in respect of the exploration for and the exploitation of the petroleum resources of such part of the submerged lands in an area adjacent to the State . . .

That provision is to take the place of the following provision in the original Act:

AND WHEREAS the exploration for and the exploitation of the petroleum resources of submerged lands adjacent to the Australian coast would be encouraged by the adoption of legislative measures applying uniformly to the continental shelf and to the sea-bed and subsoil beneath territorial waters:

Under this arrangement the Government is legislating to grant rights over mining, both in exploration and exploitation, to the States instead of to the Commonwealth. In the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 those rights were exercisable by the designated authorities under the Commonwealth legislation. We do not believe that the Commonwealth ought to be turning those powers over to the States to regulate exploration and development in respect of petroleum and mineral mining within the territorial seas of the States and the Northern Territory. It is contrary to the concept outlined in the High Court decision and the declaration made in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1 973. It flies in the face of the concept of a nation and in the face of Sir Garfield Barwick’s expression that when the low water mark is passed international domain is reached. Therefore, because it is international water it ought to be governed by the Commonwealth Parliament on behalf of the nation. In that respect mining for petroleum and minerals in the territorial sea should remain the preserve of the nation and the Commonwealth Parliament even if it is agreed that the Commonwealth Parliament should enact legislation so that the States may enjoy State-type powers within the territorial sea. We vehemently oppose the ceding of powers over mining in the territorial sea by the Commonwealth to the States. Therefore, I move:

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Mr Keating:

– The Opposition opposed the clause, but, by agreement, did not take the matter to a division.

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

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

– by leave- I move the following amendments together:

  1. 1 ) Clause 6, page 3, lines14and15,omit”referredtoina heading in Schedule 2 “.

In his submission to the Senate Select Committee on Off-Shore Petroleum Resources Professor Richardson, who was then Dean of the Law School at the Australian National University, made some rather cogent criticisms of the emasculation of the Federal ministerial responsibility in the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1 967. Under this Act the administration is in the hands of the States. Applications to drill are made to and granted by the States- in particular the designated authority, namely the Minister for Mines- subject to approval by the Commonwealth in the exercise of its responsibilities for external affairs, defence, Customs and navigation. Professor Richardson said that by not legislating to retain Executive authority in the Governor-General, as provided for by section 6 1 of the Constitution, and his Ministers, Parliament attenuated the area of ministerial responsibility. Richardson was joined by other eminent constitutional lawyers such as Professor Sawer, Professor Cowen and Dr Lumb in decrying this development. Indeed, Sawer expressed it more succinctly when he stated:

The nature of the responsibilities created and divided between Ministers produces a situation where you do not get satisfactory ministerial responsibility in a critically important aspect of national activity in either the Commonwealth or the State Parliaments.

Richardson’s criticisms were directed to the concept of ministerial responsibility more in the legal or constitutional sense than in the political sense. He recounted the fact that section 6 1 of the Constitution did not provide for the executive power of the Commonwealth to be exercisable by anyone but the Governor-General and his Ministers. Indeed, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 is a law of the Commonwealth and its administration is an exercise of executive power which is declared to be fully valid by the High Court in its judgment in 1975. Richardson found support for his argument in Isaacs judgment in the Wool Tops case in which His Honour said:

Executive action in relation to a Commonwealth law is clearly outside State jurisdiction and clearly within the field of Commonwealth jurisdiction. If done at all, it is assumed that the Commonwealth Government should do it.

Richardson then explained his belief that section 6 1 was not being observed when he stated:

The Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act deals with mining petroleum. Its purpose is to provide for the exploration for, and exploitation of, the petroleum resources of submerged lands off the entire Australian coastline by a scheme of permits and licences called a Common Mining Code. It entrusts administration of the Code almost completely to Designated Authorities. So far as the Act provides for the Minister of State for Territories, a member of the Federal Executive Council advising the Governor-General, to be a Designated Authority for off-shore areas adjacent to the Territories of the Commonwealth the Act calls for little comment. But for areas adjacent to the States it is a quite different matter.

The Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) claimed in his second reading speech that the alleged lack of adequate safeguards for ministerial responsibility had been overcome in this Bill. In respect of territorial waters the Commonwealth is granting both legislative jurisdiction and title to the States. The question of federal ministerial responsibility in the legal sense, therefore, becomes moribund in this area as the Commonwealth as a result of policy decisions will no longer exercise its executive powers over territorial waters. It will no longer do so.

However, in relation to the continental shelf, the Bill establishes a joint authority for each State and the Northern Territory to administer the Act in the continental shelf adjacent to the State or Territory. The procedures of the joint authority provide that where there is disagreement the decision of the Commonwealth will prevail, subject to exceptional provisions relating to Western Australia. That reminds me of the companies legislation under which stock exchanges can be delisted. That legislation does not apply to Western Australia. Certainly in respect of the decisions to be taken by the respective authority, final responsibility will consequently lie in Commonwealth hands yet the Bill provides that in a number of areas concerning the day-to-day administration of the Act, the designated authority of the State concernedthat is the State Minister- will retain exclusive control, regardless of Commonwealth views. Every Government speaker, including the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, has reaffirmed that. In this latter respect, the Minister’s comment that the Bill alleviates the problem of Federal ministerial responsibility would seem to be, to put it mildly, misleading.

I would like an answer to something which I think is a fact and something which has to be admitted. Is it a fact that the day to day administration of the continental shelf resides exclusively and totally within the jurisdiction of the State government- the State Minister, that is- the designated authority?

Amendments agreed to.

Remainder of Bill, as amended, agreed to.

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

Third Reading

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

page 2574

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill reported from legislation committee with amendments.

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

page 2574

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

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

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Orders of the Day Nos 7, 8, 9, 10 and 1 1 for the resumption of the debate on the second readings of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Royalty) Amendment Bill 1980, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Amendment Bill 1980, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Exploration Permit Fees) Amendment Bill 1980, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Pipeline Licence Fees) Amendment Bill 1980 and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Production Licence Fees) Amendment Bill 1980 being called on together and a motion being moved that the Bills be now passed.

page 2574

PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) (ROYALTY) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Debate resumed from 23 April 1980.

Motion (by Mr Adermann) proposed:

That the Bills be now passed.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-The Opposition opposes the motion but we will not divide the House on the matter.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills passed.

page 2575

FISHERIES AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 April, on motion by Mr Nixon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, the Navigation Amendment Bill 1980 and the Historic Shipwrecks Amendment Bill 1980, as they are associated measures? Of course, separate questions will be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering those measures? I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-The first of these Bills, the Fisheries Amendment Bill 1980, seeks to implement the fisheries component of the off-shore constitutional settlement adopted by the Premiers Conference in November 1979. It provides for the establishment of four joint authorities to regulate fishing in Australian waters. They are the South Eastern Fisheries Joint Authority, comprising the Commonwealth Minister and appropriate Ministers from New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania; the Northern Australian Fisheries Joint Authority, comprising the Commonwealth Minister and appropriate Ministers from Queensland and the Northern Territory; the Northern Territory Fisheries Joint Authority, comprising the Commonwealth Minister and the appropriate Minister from the Northern Territory; and the Western Australian Fisheries Joint Authority, comprising the Commonwealth Minister and the appropriate Minister from Western Australia. Paragraph (4) of proposed new section 12f contained in the Bill will give the Commonwealth Minister power to veto and to dictate to the joint authorities.

The States may, not must, join a joint authority in the first place, and a State can withdraw from an authority on six months’ notice. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the States would not be administering the territorial sea and the Commonwealth controlling the 3-mile to 200-mile area. Clearly, this would be an intolerable situation. If and when a joint authority is established it will control fishing over the entire sea. If more than one State is involved, Commonwealth law will operate. If only one State is involved, then State or Commonwealth law may be applied. The Opposition rejects the abdication of federal powers enshrined in this Bill, as in the previous Bills in this off-shore legislation package. We regard it as a blow against the progress of our Federation, an act of national treachery which the Opposition and all responsible Australians should and will reject. Accordingly, we will oppose the Bill.

The second Bill, the Historic Shipwrecks Amendment Bill 1980, constitutes a further abandonment of Commonwealth powers over Australian waters, in this case the Commonwealth’s specific powers relating to control over shipwrecks. It constitutes a further act of treachery against the Federation of Australia. We oppose the Bill, and my colleague the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins), will detail our opposition later in the debate.

The third Bill in the package, the Navigation Amendment Bill 1980, has provisions which entitle it to be named the Tasmania-Betrayed Bill. I will come to that later in the evening.

Mr Hodgman:

– What a lot of rot that is.

Mr MORRIS:

-I beg your pardon?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-The honourable member will ignore interjections. The honourable member for Denison will remain silent.

Mr MORRIS:

– This Bill is also part of the package of Bills before the Parliament redefining Commonwealth and State responsibilities over off-shore waters and activities carried out in those waters. The Bill, whilst similar in many respects to the provisions of the Labor Government’s 1975 Navigation Amendment Bill, which lapsed following the infamous sacking in November 1975, differs in one major respect. This Bill surrenders Commonwealth control of off-shore industry vessels, such as oil rig supply, seismic and hydrographic survey vessels, to the States and the Northern Territory, except where the operations of the vessels are not confined to one State or the Northern Territory, and then only when the Federal Minister for Transport makes such a declaration in respect of a vessel following procedures which can be initiated only by its owner. This provision represents a further abdication of federal responsibility by this

Government, a capitulation to the colonial policies of the arch-conservative Premiers of Western Australia and Queensland. It is a step backwards for Australia, the Federation, and an abandonment of national responsibility which the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) attempted to mask when he said:

We have given the States a role where constitutionally they could have been completely excluded.

The Opposition opposes this surrender of federal responsibility for off-shore industry vessels, and at a later stage I will move an amendment designed to preserve Commonwealth responsibility for off-shore industry vessels. It is a stinging condemnation of earlier successive conservative governments that, almost 80 years after Federation, control of marine movements in the waters surrounding our continent has not yet been clearly defined. This problem is to be overcome by replacing the existing co-mingling of waters, or common waters, concept for delineation of State and Federal marine responsibilities by definitions related to a nature of voyage concept.

The Bill excludes from the operation of the Commonwealth Navigation Act 19.12 the following craft: Trading ships, except those on interstate or overseas voyages; commercial fishing vessels, except those on overseas voyages. However, Queensland-based fishing vessels which operate to Papua New Guinea incidental to their normal operations will remain under the control of the Queensland Government. It excludes inland waterways vessels, pleasure craft, and offshore industry vessels confined to one State or to the Northern Territory. In other words, Commonwealth powers under the Navigation Act will extend only to trading ships engaged in interstate or overseas journeys; commercial fishing vessels on overseas voyages, with the exception of Queensland fishing vessels operating incidentally to Papua New Guinea, to which I have already referred; off-shore industry vessels in respect of which the Federal Minister for Transport has exercised his declaration powers; the navigation and marine aspects of off-shore industry mobile units, which are mainly drilling ships, but not to the extent that they are inconsistent with the Commonwealth or State Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. The Bill includes the safety standards of foreign fishing vessels in Australian waters except those operating locally on joint venture operations.

Under the Bill the Commonwealth will retain the power to issue survey certificates in respect of any ship at the request of the ship owner, including the ship operating solely on intrastate journeys at the time to facilitate a subsequent interstate or overseas voyage on short notice. Provision is made in the Bill for transitional Federal responsibility or requirements under international maritime conventions in light of the terms of proposed new section 2 and pending the passage of appropriate legislation by the States and the Northern Territory. The Schedule of International Maritime Conventions underpins the safe and orderly conduct of marine operations across the globe. For the information of honourable members I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of the conventions and Australia’s position in respect of each. The list is taken from a 1978-79 annual report of the Department of Transport.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Mr MORRIS:

– The legislation before us also makes provision for the Northern Territory in its progressive acquisition of State-like powers to have similar rights and responsibilities under the Navigation Act as each of the constituent States. An important clause of the Bill, clause 18, updates the employee-employer relationship in the maritime industry. The traditional and relatively rigid system of articles of agreement governing service at sea confines signatories to an agreement to a seaman and the master of his ship and service on a specific ship. Clause 18 provides much needed flexibility in off-shore industry employment by inserting a proposed new section 47a which will enable the optional use by seamen of a contract of sea service system.

The new term ‘contracts of agreement’ will enable a master or seaman to enter into a contract with the owner of a number of ships to serve on any or all of the ships. This means that when a seaman for any reason, including leave, is not serving on a ship he does not have to be discharged and re-engaged later should lie return to the same ship or another ship of the same owner.

I understand that the contract of sea service system has been utilised satisfactorily in the offshore industry for some time. Clause 18 of the Bill now writes it into the Navigation Act. Initially, the new system will apply only to offshore industry vessels, but with only a small change in the Act being required it could readily be extended to all ships. The Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) in his second reading speech said that the Bill also provides for the Minister for Transport to have power in respect of ships imported into Australia either for trading purposes or engagement in the off-shore industry under Commonwealth control. Such vessels will remain registered overseas but engage Australian crews. They will be subject to the same survey, manning and other safety standards as ships registered in Australia and engaged in the same kinds of operations. This will ensure the desirable uniformity of conditions for Australian crews, survey requirements and safety standards.

Service at sea is an honourable, demanding and, to most seafarers, a satisfying occupation. Our land was discovered by brave and adventurous seafarers. It could not have developed without seafarers. It depends for its very existence on their efforts. Yet, as a nation, we have failed to recognise the vital role our maritime industry has played in the growth of our nation or the defence of our country. Off the coast of New South Wales alone in World War II 34 merchant ships were either sunk or damaged with considerable loss of life. Until recent years conditions of service and accommodation on board ships were deplorable. To a seaman at sea his ship is his home. Danger is his ever present companion. There is an old nautical saying: ‘If you respect the sea then it will respect you’. This means, in effect, that there must be appropriate standards of ship construction, communication, crew competency, navigational systems and search and rescue procedures. The Navigation Act and its associated legislation are designed to ensure that those appropriate standards are set and met.

The development of the off-shore industry has brought new hazards to shipping and the need for world-wide standards of construction in the off-shore equipment and facilities to which I will refer again shortly. A worsening hazard is the growing use of flags of convenience ships in Australian waters with their cut-rate freight charges, their slave labour and their unqualified crews. This situation is being exacerbated by this conservative Government’s laissez-faire policy in respect of international ships or international shipping operating to Australia. Clause 76 of the Bill, in proposed section 283E ( 1 ), provides power to the Federal Minister to make regulations with respect to off-shore industry mobile units. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a copy of that section because the regulations are of considerable importance.

Leave granted.

The section read as follows-

Regulations with respect to off-shore industry mobile units “283e. ( 1) The regulations may make provision-

for or in relation to giving effect to resolutions of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization with respect to off-shore industry mobile units or classes of off-shore industry mobile units;

in relation to off-shore industry mobile units with respect to any matter with respect to which provision is made by this Act or may be made by regulations made otherwise than by virtue of this section; and

for or in relation to any of the following matters, namely-

the inspection and survey of off-shore industry mobile units, and the issue of survey certificates in respect of such units;

the construction, hull, equipment and machinery of off-shore industry mobile units;

the stability of off-shore industry mobile units;

accommodation on off-shore industry mobile units;

safety in relation to off-shore industry mobile units, including life-saving equipment and appliances to be carried on such units;

the prevention, detection and extinction of fire on off-shore industry mobile units;

vii) the prevention of collisions involving off-shore industry mobile units;

the navigation (including towing) of off-shore industry mobile units;

the equipping of off-shore industry mobile units with radio installations and the operation, maintenance and use on off-shore industry mobile units of radio installations;

the manning of off-shore industry mobile units;

the securing to the seabed of off-shore industry mobile units engaged in drilling, laying pipelines or other operations;

the providing of off-shore industry vessels for use in association with off-shore industry mobile units;

the transfer of persons and goods to or from off-shore industry mobile units, including the provision, maintenance and use of cranes and other lifting devices and equipment and helicopter landing facilities;

the prevention of pollution, or other damage to the environment, by off-shore industry mobile units;

the carrying of an operating manual by offshore industry mobile units;

the carriage of dangerous goods on off-shore industry mobile units; and

the granting of exemptions, whether conditionally or unconditionally, to off-shore industry mobile units from any requirement of this Act. “(2) The regulations may provide that a specified provision of this Act does not apply, or applies with prescribed modifications, in relation to off-shore industry mobile units or a class of off-shore industry mobile units. “(3) Without limiting the generality of sub-section (1), regulations made for the purposes of that sub-section may enpower the Minister to make orders with respect to any matter for or in relation to which provision may be made by the regulations by virtue of this section. “(4) Section 426 applies to orders made in pursuance of regulations made by virtue of sub-section ( 1 ) of this section. “(5) Section 2 does not have effect in relation to regulations made by virtue of this section, or in relation to orders made by virtue of such regulations, that make provision for or in relation to the providing of off-shore industry vessels for use in association with off-shore industry mobile units.

Mr MORRIS:

-I thank the House. Australia, with its Bass Strait oil field lying on the direct Melbourne to Sydney shipping route, poses a considerable hazard to those vessels that do not operate with a proper degree of competency in navigational activities. In the case of a collision between a ship and a rig or associated equipment many lives would be lost and oil would pollute Ninety Mile Beach. Seven platforms, two of which are owned by the Esso and BHP companies, work the Bass Strait field. In 1 976, in order to improve the safety of both ships and rigs, the Australian Government proclaimed an eight-mile restricted zone around the platforms. This is a recommended area only and cannot be enforced.

A zone which can be enforced is a 500-metre prohibited zone around each individual structure, which is set by international convention. The zone is virtually useless given the distance a large ship under full cruising speed needs to manoeuvre and needs to halt. The Minister for Transport, in a statement issued a couple of days ago, admitted that recently there had been an increase in the frequency of reported intrusions into restricted areas, but claimed that this was the result of ‘increased interest in reporting’. The Minister should know that all infringements of the restricted zone must be reported- it is not an option of those concerned- both to his Department and to the Victorian Department of Minerals and Energy. Ships have been known to malfunction and lose steering control in the Bass Strait. Under such circumstances, vessels could not pull up within the 500-metre prohibited zone.

On the night of 25 March this year a container vessel passed within 1,000 metres of the Halibut rig. Although it was 20 kilometres inside the restricted zone the ship did not answer calls from the Halibut rig’s radio operator. According to one Halibut crew member it was not a case of the ship’s skirting the perimeter of the field; it just ploughed straight through between the rigs. The ship was reported to be travelling at about 18 knots towards Melbourne. According to the Australian Workers Union, the incident was the eighteenth zone violation in less than 12 months. On another occasion a Panamanian tanker, the Howard Star, passed within 60 metres of a submerged pipeline junction near the Esso-BHP Mackerel oil rig, passing between the Halibut and Mackerel platforms. The master of the ship was prosecuted under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967. 1 ask the House to note that the vessel was registered under a flag of convenience. The cheaper the rates the higher the risks and the risks that are being taken by the increased use of flags of convenience vessels are enormous. The Minister’s statement, to which I referred earlier, reads:

I am glad to say that this voluntary system has met with a high level of co-operation from the shipping industry.

Unfortunately, it needs only one violation for a disaster to strike, resulting in the pollution of miles of coastline, the loss of lives and the loss of over half of our domestic crude oil production. The Minister’s release lists four measures aimed at. increasing oil installations safety in Bass Strait, only two of which are the responsibility of the Department of Transport. The restricted zone, which I emphasise is a voluntary one only, is to be extended to the coastline. Education by the Department aimed at the shipping industry is to be stepped up. In addition, the Esso-BHP group is installing a 21 -nautical-mile range light on the Tuna platform and new radar tracking facilities on the Mackerel platform. The Kingfish B platform is to be declared a navigational lighthouse. Whilst all ships are required to have the international emergency radio turned on, oil rig workers have claimed that ships fail to answer calls from their radio operators. The incidents to which I have referred highlight the risks of using the cheap flag of convenience shipping, which is increasing in usage in this country.

I move to another area of accident and risk. I refer to the great tragedy in the North Sea recently when the oil rig Alexander Keilland, which had been converted to a flotel or an accommodation unit capsized in the North Sea’s biggest oil field, Ekofisk, killing over 120 crew members. It seems it broke a major span in its substructure, one theory being that a weld snapped. I referred to the regulations when I had them incorporated in Hansard. That incident highlights the absolute importance of those regulations. It is a welcome move within the Parliament to see their introduction; it is to be hoped that now there will be a proper and responsible application of them to the industry.

There have been a number of other disasters around the world’s oil rig fleet. On 16 April 1976, the Ocean Express sank off the Gulf of Mexico, and 13 were killed. On 22 April 1977, 15,000 to 20,000 tonnes of oil spilled into the North Sea when a safety valve changed on the Bravo rig in the Ekofisk field, leading to the evacuation of 1 12 crew members. In 1979 there were six accidents, mainly off Louisiana. The most serious was the explosion of the Ixtoc 1 oil well in the Gulf of Mexico on 3 June. There were no casualties, but oil spilled for eight months. Just one week after the Alexander Keilland disaster, its sister rig, the Heinrik Ibsen, developed a heavy list whilst at anchor outside Stavanger in Norway. That led to the evacuation of 57 crew and survey experts. This rig was due to replace the Alexander Keilland.

North sea oil is vital to the economies of the United Kingdom and Norway, but an accident of the dimensions of that which occurred with the Alexander Keilland would be a disaster to the Australian economy, without taking into account the disaster for humans who could be injured or who could lose their lives in such an accident.

In relation to navigation powers, last night on the television program Nationwide there was an item concerning an incident involving the Ampol Sarel. The reporter, Gary Neat, stated: . . three months ago the Ampol Sard suffered a steering failure and lost an anchor only a few hours sailing time west of where the Oceanic Grandeur surrendered some of its oil to the treacherous waters off our northern coastline. Ampol is understandably sensitive about the incident.

He reported that the statement from Ampol strenuously denied that there had been a steering failure. He continued: . . we know that the Ampol Sard suffered what is known in maritime circles as a blackout, that is its power systems failed. And according to the coastal surveillance centre in Canberra without any power the vessel lost its steering. At the time the tanker was in the Gannet Passage, an area noted for its shifting sandy bottom and strong currents. The coastal surveillance centre says there was probably no less than three feet between the ship’s hull and the ocean bed. Three feet that is, and some steel, between ninety eight thousand tons of crude oil and the swirling currents of the Gannet Passage.

If we recall the earlier comments made in very strenuous debate today in respect of the Government’s failure to declare the Great Barrier Reef a marine park, and its obvious obfuscation in respect of the Great Barrier Reef, we can get some idea of the dangers that are involved if a flag of convenience vessel carrying oil strikes a reef, or runs ashore on the Great Barrier Reef.

If we go back to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation and the evidence given to it by Torres Strait pilots of the appalling lack of competency of crew on board flag of convenience vessels, we can envisage something of the damage that could be caused to one of the world’s greatest assets, the Great Barrier Reef. We have some understanding of what I can only see as a very shabby record on the part of the Government in respect of supervision of tanker safety. We must not fool ourselves into believing that vessels operating in Australian waters, passing through oil producing areas and entering ports, which are for the most part sited close to populated areas, are of a satisfactory standard.

Following the explosion of the tanker Betel Geuse at Bantry Bay, the Minister’s predecessor issued a Press statement designed to quiet public concern, and designed in the view of the Opposition to mislead the Australian community deliberately as to the dangers associated with the use of a number of overseas flag of convenience tankers. The release was a result of inspections of 176 tankers. The Minister for Transport said that a number of deficiencies had been discovered. Later, we found that the number of deficiencies was 480, and that they occurred over a range of 122 tankers entering Australian ports. They ranged from faulty fire appliances, gas indicators and navigation equipment to a lack of flame screens and cargo valves. It was an indicationvery clear evidence- that the Department of Transport, under the administration of the then Minister for Transport, had a very lackadaisical and cavalier attitude to the very serious problem of tanker safety and the dangers that it invol ved.

As I said at the outset, this conservative Government has taken our Federation a step backwards in abdicating its responsibility for full Commonwealth control of off-shore industry vessels. Rather than progressing the nation towards co-operative federalism, which those opposite claim and assert is the case, what this Government practices in effect is a further step in its anti-federalism policies. It is a strike at the true concept of the Australian federation as foreseen by the founding fathers of our Constitution.

Mr GILES:
Wakefield

– I will not keep the House for long. I just make a comment on the Fisheries Amendment Bill. I am very surprised at the attitude of the Opposition. I would have thought that it was patently obvious that in view of. the difficulties of State and Commonwealth administration at the three-mile limit and other such areas, the obvious way out would be to have an authority composed of both parties to seek a rational approach to the total problem. I rise because the Australian Fishing Industry Council and the committee that I chair have had long and involved discussions, as of course has AFIC had with the Government, about whether this Government can insist on the setting up of advisory committees on which, it is to be hoped, the fishing industry can be represented. I give a great deal of praise to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) for being able to announce, as he has, after a period of consultation with the States:

While the Bill is essentially desiged to resolve jurisdictional conflict between the Commonwealth and the States, the Government believes it consolidates the basis for achieving both of these objectives . . . This in turn, especially given industry input through advisory mechanisms already developing and to be further developed, will facilitate implementing management regimes to achieve the second.

Further, he says:

Nevertheless, in view of the importance the Government places on the future relationship between joint authorities and industry, I -

That is, the Federal Minister- propose to recommend that joint authorities establish advisory committees comprising not only senior officials of the Commonwealth and the State government or governments concerned but also appropriate representatives of industry. In most cases I envisage the Australian Fishing Industry Council, and where appropriate, representatives of any other industry organisation with particular interest in the area of an authority’s responsibilities.

This is exactly what the industry requires. The Minister is now prepared to recommend that course of action to the authorities which are composed of State and Federal officials. I think it is only proper.that I mention the work done by the honourable member for Eden Monaro (Mr Sainsbury) as chairman of the fishing subcommittee of my rural committee in relation to this matter.

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

-What a night out the constitutional vandals have had tonight. The package of proposals which is described by the Government as a ‘milestone in cooperative federalism’ might just as well be called the graveyard of nationhood. What an appalling spectacle it is to see this national Parliament bowing to the relentless obsessions of a frantic, besotted old man in the form of the Premier of Western Australia. This man, who is intoxicated by the excitement of the mineral boom of the 1960s, wants to try it all again. However, this time he wants to do it under water. He is a sort of aging submarine mogul. The pity of it all is that this yesterday’s man has learnt nothing from the last 20 years.

The Western Australian Premier is totally uninterested in local ownership of our resources just as he is totally uninterested in making the best use of those resources to provide jobs for young Australians. He seems to be interested only in dealing with foreign investors and as well appears to be enjoying being played like a fish by Japanese buying cartels. He does not even realise that when he goes to Japan on his desperate missions to rescue the iron ore industry he in fact undermines the position of Australian companies and belittles Australians. He is in fact the joke of Tokyo. The Japanese look on with amazement as this Premier, like some babe in the international woods, plays directly into the hands of the Japanese steel giants. This disgraceful package of proposals intends to enhance the power of this man. This will be done at the expense not only of the national interest but also of all Western Australians.

I will briefly refer to one minor aspect of this package. The amendments proposed into the Historic Shipwrecks Amendment Bill are quite unnecessary and are introduced only to ensure uniformity with the rest of the legal lunacy represented by the other Bills. Not only is the Government mad; it is consistently mad. The Bill intends that responsibility for protecting historic shipwrecks and any relics and treasure found with them will pass to the States whenever they require it. The absurdity of this proposal is revealed in that part dealing with Dutch wrecks, which are dealt with subject to an agreement between the Australian Government and the Netherlands Government. The Government has had to acknowledge that its responsibility in this area is not easy to abrogate. Indeed, it is clear from the second reading speech of the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) that it is likely that the present Act will continue to operate with respect to those wrecks. There is some vague suggestion that discussions are under way with the Western Australian Government, but absolutely no suggestion is made that those discussions will be effectively concluded.

How crazy it would be if a Commonwealth law related to an old Dutch shipwreck while some new State law passed pursuant to the new powers of the States was to apply to all other shipwrecks. Yet this could conceivably occur. What about an unidentified wreck? The State and Federal governments would be fiddling around powerless to protect any unidentified wreck until such time as its origins were established. Accordingly, this measure represents a great threat to the important study of marine archaeology in Western Australia. It will undermine the very great work that has been done by the Western Australian Museum through its Maritime Museum.

It is all very well for the Minister to say, as he does in his second reading speech, that Western Australia’s State authorities have a fine record in taking steps to protect these shipwrecks and the relics from them notwithstanding the legal difficulties illustrated by the case of Robinson v. the Western Australian Museum. Successive Western Australian governments have a fine record in the protection and preservation of historic shipwrecks. But I draw attention to the glib throw-away line which completely ignores that it was just those legal difficulties arising from the Robinson case which gave rise to the need for the Historic Shipwrecks Act in the first place. The legal difficulties are immense. The six members of the Full Bench of the High Court of Australia which sat on this case relied on a wide array of reasons to support their judgments. I would like to quote from an article which appeared in the Australian Law Journal. It reads:

It can bc seen that there was a distinct division of opinion among the Justices on the principles and rules which were under scrutiny. On a number of the issues no one ground received universal support nor indeed commanded the support of a majority of the six Judges. On a number of issues the Court split equally among those members who considered those particular issues.

We can see that it is not a question that can be discharged with some glib reference to ‘notwithstanding the legal difficulties’ and so on. The point is that the Government seems to have ignored the reasons which lay behind the introduction of the Historic Shipwrecks Act. At the time it was introduced, the Labor Party supported it. It recognised, as did the Government at the time, that the Act was necessary to overcome the probable and in fact proven deficiencies of the State Marine Archaeology Act. It was found as a result of the Robinson case that it was beyond the power of the Western Australian Parliament to legislate in respect of the wreck which Robinson found. In fact the Western Australian Act provided that any relic or treasure found in wrecks on the sea bed adjacent to Western Australia were claimed by the Western Australian Government. In return for this, the discoverer was paid a reward which was, essentially, in two elements. The first element was a reward for notifying the Government of the discovery. The second element was in respect of the value of the treasure that was found. In Robinson’s case he claimed that by discovering the wreck he was entitled to the contents of the wreck. He proceeded to plunder the treasure and later blew up the wreck.

The result of the High Court ruling in 1977 meant that if the Historic Shipwrecks Act was not passed there would be no laws, State or Federal, to protect other wrecks off the Western Australian coast. As a result of the Bill which is before us tonight, the whole question of the protection of shipwrecks is put back into the legal and constitutional minefield from which it was saved as a result of the passage of the Historic Shipwrecks Act in 1976. Whatever the State Government does in relation to the new powers which it will have, nobody will know what the situation is until those new State laws are tested in the High Court. So potential, probable discoverers of wrecks off the coast of Western Australia will be back in the state of limbo they were in as a result of the Robinson challenge. They will not know whether it is in their interest to notify the Government or whether it is in their interest simply to plunder the treasure and relics in any wrecks they find. As a result, I think it is a great set back for Western Australia. It is a tragedy for the Western Australian Maritime Museum.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 57

NOES: 27

Majority……. 30

AYES

NOES

Question so 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 Ellicott) read a third t ime.

Friday, 2 May 1980

page 2585

NAVIGATION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 April, on motion by Mr Hunt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-I move:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Is the intendment seconded?

Mr Dawkins:

– I second the amendment.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Morris’s a mendment) stand part of the question.

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

AYES: 56

NOES: 27

Majority…… 29

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 4- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 5 (Interpretation).

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-In a few moments I will move an amendment to clause 5, but at this stage I would like to say that throughout the debate tonight the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) has not been at the table. This Parliament is being treated with the same contempt as the Government and the Prime

Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) have treated the State of Tasmania in respect of the subject of my amendment. Before moving the amendment, let me refer to a telex sent by the office of Premier Lowe to the Prime Minister on 23 April, a telex to which at this stage no reply has been received.

Throughout the debate on the package of Bills today the point has been made over and over again by the Prime Minister, by Ministers and by Government members that the introduction of the legislation before the House- the package of Bills- was with the agreement of the State Premiers. In respect of the Navigation Amendment Bill 1980, the Premier of Tasmania telexed the Prime Minister on 23 April expressing his Government’s objection to provisions of the Bill. No response to that telex has been received. I shall read into Hansard a section of the telex:

You will know that Commonwealth and State marine and legal officers met in Melbourne on 14 April to consider the provisions of the draft Navigation Amendment Bill 1980 purporting to give effect to the ageement of the Marine and Ports Council of Australia to outstanding issues relating to the control and administration of shipping and navigation matters (commonly referred to as the MPCA package).

I am disturbed to learn, in spite of State officials advising Commonwealth officers the draft Bill did not properly reflect the wishes of MPCA Ministers and their pointing out the deficiencies of the draft Bill in this regard, that the second draft does not comply with the MPCA package.

Further on, the Premier says:

Another matter causing me some concern is the manner in which the draft Bill treats ‘pleasure craft’ differently to that agreed in the MPCA package. The latter -

That is, the MPCA package- makes it quite clear that the States and the Territory will control all pleasure craft and hire and drive vessels, yet the draft Bill -

The Bill before the Committee at the moment is identical with the draft Bill referred to in this telex- provides in the proposed amendment of section 2 for the Act to apply in certain cases. This is completely unacceptable to Tasmania.

This is the legislation that five members of the Government from Tasmania have supported all the way through on the votes that have been made. The Premier continues:

I understand State officials at the meeting of 14 April specifically suggested that the provisions of the proposed amendment to section 2 should spell out quite clearly the simple fact that the Act does not apply to pleasure craft. The explanation given by Commonwealth officers when pressed on this point, I am advised, is that they felt compelled to follow the wording of the current Act.

As the current Act makes no reference whatsoever to pleasure craft, nor has it ever been the intention of the Commonwealth, I am advised, to apply the Navigation Act, or any parts of it, to pleasure craft I urgently request you to have the proposed amendment to section 2 reworded to specifically exclude pleasure craft. Alternatively, I would accept a savings clause providing for the Act only to apply to pleasure craft in the absence of State legislation.

If we turn to the explanatory notes in respect of the clause referred to in the Premier’s telex, we will see on page 3 under the heading ‘pleasure craft’ the following:

The States and the Northern Territory will generally be responsible for pleasure craft and the Navigation Act will not apply to them except in the very limited areas mentioned above where section 2 is set aside.

The Premier of Tasmania, on behalf of the people of Tasmania, made clear to the Prime Minister and to this Government on repeated occasions Tasmania’s opposition to this provision of the Bill before us. Yet the Government has not the courtesy to respond; nor has the Minister for Transport paid the House or the people of Tasmania the courtesy of being present during the debate. The Minister is not in the chamber now to respond to the comments I have made on behalf of the people of Tasmania. I think he can only be described as treating the Parliament with the contempt with which he has treated the people of Tasmania. I move:

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

Without wishing to detain the House unduly, I wish to place on the record two remarks in response to the contemptible speech made by the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris). First and foremost I say that he appears to have quoted from a private and confidential document which has never before tonight been made public. Secondly, if he were genuinely concerned about Tasmania- the people in Tasmania know how contemptuously he views our island State- he would have brought the document to the attention of the five members of this House from Tasmania.

Mr Morris:

-Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I find that remark personally offensive and I ask that the honourable member withdraw it.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! A point of order has been raised. The honourable member for Shortland objects to the remark the honourable member for Denison used and requires the honourable member for Denison to withdraw it.

Mr HODGMAN:

– I withdraw. With respect, I do not need to make the point because everybody in Tasmania knows all about the honourable member. The point I simply want to make is -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! I take that as a qualification of the honourable member’s withdrawal. I suggest that he get on with the substance of his speech.

Mr HODGMAN:

– If the honourable member for Shortland is genuinely interested in Tasmania, why did not he make this document available to the five members of the House of Representatives from Tasmania? Is it the fact that like the honourable member’s colleague, the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), he has used this debate to denigrate the smallest State in Australia and to belt Tasmania in order to prove once again how much the Australian Labor Party hates Tasmania? Let me tell the honourable member that Tasmania hates the Labor Party just as much as it hates Tasmania.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 6 and 7- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 8.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-I move:

The telex from which I have quoted has been available to the Government, and to all members of the Government, if there is any communication at all within the Government, since 14 April. The telex has not been responded to. It pays little courtesy to the people of Tasmania to try to lambast other people in the Parliament, as the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) did in his remarks earlier tonight. The responsibility lies with the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to respond to official communications. This telex has been sent to me so that it could be used in the Parliament, because the five members of the Government who come from Tasmania have not seen fit to read the Navigation Amendment Bill to see how it affects Tasmania and to be aware of the damage that it will do to Tasmania if it is adopted in the way in which it is set out now.

It is a little late in the night for the honourable members from Tasmania to try to say something about the Bill. In referring to clause 8 the telex states:

In particular, the provisions of clause 8 of the draft Bill (section 8a) dealing with the role of a State Marine Minister apropos declarations are obnoxious. I have no wish for a State Minister to be placed in a situation in which he could be seen to be in conflict with an owner of an off-shore industry vessel who has made an application to the Minister regarding the period and location of operations of his vessel.

Yet this is precisely the position which could result from the wording of sub-clauses (2 ) and ( 5 ) of the draft Bill.

That is referring to the Bill before us which is identical to the second draft Bill. The Premier continued:

Tasmania’s view has always been that the three-year period referred in section 8a is only acceptable in cases where owners of this class of vessel provide evidence of contract for the period during which the operations of their vessel(s) will not be confined to one State in order to satisfy the Minister. There is too much scope for problems to arise, which I fear could discredit a State Minister, if such evidence is not forthcoming. It is simply not good enough for any applications to be accepted by the Minister without the support of contractual evidence.

My concern is highlighted by the regulation making provisions of clause 76 (section 283d), sub-section (2) which had the potential to undermine the MPCA package at any time.

I sincerely trust -

He is saying this to the Prime Minister- you will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the draft Bill is suitably amended in its reference to a State Minister to provide for the Minister to only declare a vessel to be an offshore industry vessel to which the Act applies when the State Minister has no objections to the application forwarded to him as required by sub-section (4). In the event the State Minister does object to the application, and thus takes the view the vessel in question should be under State control, then I suggest the Minister should only make a declaration when the owner has provided evidence of contract with respect to the vessel’s operations.

The concern of the Tasmanian Government is clear and specific.

Mr Hodgman:

– You are a hypocrite.

Mr MORRIS:

-I ask that the honourable member be required to withdraw that remark. I know that it is early in the morning for him.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)-I did not hear the remark.

Mr Hodgman:

– I called the honourable member a hypocrite and I withdraw.

Mr MORRIS:

– The telex, the message that I have read to the Parliament, is clear and specific. It sets out the concern and objection of the Tasmanian Government and its Premier about the impact of clause 8, and specifically, proposed new section 8A, upon the responsibilities of the Tasmanian Minister in the performance of his normal duties. As the Premier has pointed out, it leaves the responsible Minister in an invidious position. It is important to note that still the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt), the Minister responsible for this legislation, is not here to answer the points -

Mr Hodgman:

– That has nothing to do with this amendment.

Mr MORRIS:

– That have been made on behalf of the Tasmanian Government.

Mr Hodgman:

– I rise on what I consider to be a valid point of order. The comments being made by the honourable member now have nothing to do with the amendment. It is the second time that he has made an attack on the Minister for Transport, whose presence or absence has nothing at all to do with the merit of the amendment.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- No particular point of order is involved. The honourable member is not saying anything that is news to the Committee. I do not regard it as improper in any way.

Mr MORRIS:

– The fact is that the Minister for Transport is not here to respond, nor has any Minister of the Government responded to any of the debate this evening on this legislation, which is important.

Mr Ellicott:

– I rise on a point of order. I wish to correct what the honourable member has just said. I answered at some length on a number of important constitutional matters relating to this group of Bills. The honourable member may not have been here when that happened.

Mr MORRIS:

– If honourable members read Hansard they will note that my remarks were directed to the legislation that is now before the Committee.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I would be glad if the honourable member would return to it.

Mr MORRIS:

– I seek a response from the Government on specific points made in the debate this evening, not on the general debate on the other Bills in the package which took place this afternoon. I heard the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) when he spoke earlier in the evening. We seek a response from the Government to the request by the Tasmanian Premier on behalf of the Tasmanian people. Government supporters from Tasmania may interrupt as much as they like, but that is what we want from the Minister of the Government. Why has not the telex been answered? Why has not clause 8 been amended?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The debate is straying far from the substance of the amendment. When the honourable member for Shortland has concluded his remarks- and I am not assuming that he has- it will be difficult to confine the debate to the amendment but I intend to try to do that.

Mr MORRIS:

- Mr Deputy Chairman, you have heard my remarks on the amendment that I am leading up to. They have been directly related to it. Unfortunately, I have also had to respond to interjections from the other side which, as you have pointed out, have been irrelevant. We seek from the Government, not one of the back benchers, an answer in respect of proposed new section 8A.

Mr Hodgman:

– Why do you hate Tasmania? All of the time you attack Tasmania.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The honourable member for Shortland will address his remarks through the Chair. If there are any more interjections I will have to take action. They are not helping the debate at all.

Mr MORRIS:

– What we want is a response from a Minister of the Government to the points that I have raised on behalf of the Opposition and the Tasmanian people in respect of clause 8 of the Bill. Will someone on the Government side, if there is anyone still awake over there, please respond?

Government members interjecting-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! Would honourable members please resume their seats. If the honourable member for Shortland insists on repeating the same question for the fifth time I will have to ask him to resume his seat for tedious repetition. Now, is there a point of order?

Mr Bourchier:

– Yes, there is a point of order. I ask the honourable member for Shortland to withdraw that remark. He has been notably absent all day. It is only after dinner, when he has had a big dinner, that he comes into this place and starts to make speeches.

Mr MORRIS:

– You have had a liquid dinner again.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! I see no point of order. I warn the honourable member for Shortland that he will not imply that sort of thing in this Committee while I am in the Chair, or he will be out. Is the honourable member for Shortland continuing with his amendment?

Mr MORRIS:

– I will take up your remark at a later stage when we are together rather than in the chamber at this time of the morning. There is such little time. I want to move the amendment.

Mr McVeigh:

– I raise a point of order. From where you are sitting, Mr Deputy Chairman, can you ascertain whether the honourable member for Shortland is mentally fit to continue with the debate?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! There is no point of order. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment.

Mr McVeigh:

– He repeated himself five times.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member for Darling Downs will withdraw that comment.

Mr McVeigh:

– I was just seeking information.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Well, I hope he has his guidance. Has he withdrawn?

Mr McVeigh:

– Yes.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Thank you. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr MORRIS:

-I move.

Clause 8, page 9, line 3, at the end of proposed sub-section 8a (5), add ‘, provided however that this provision shall not apply where the State Marine Minister does not consent to the declaration’.

Mr GOODLUCK:
Franklin

-Addressing myself to the amendment, I find that some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) were most unusual in the respect that the Premier -

Mr Cotter:

– He kept on repeating himself.

Mr GOODLUCK:

– Yes, he continued to repeat certain accusations against Tasmanians. I bring forward the point that the Premier of Tasmania, a man who usually publicises anything that he would like to say against this Government, has kept this telex very quiet. We were completely unaware of it. We thought that the Premier of Tasmania supported the legislation. I believe that it is a sinister plot to embarrass the Government and it has come at a time when it can be defended. Usually Mr Lowe does not send a telex; he attacks the Government and then sends a telex. This time it seems to be working in reverse. I think that it is well known in Tasmania what Mr Lowe is like. He is a fencesitter and this time he has gone just a bit -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! That is as far as the honourable member will go away from the substance of the amendment. I advise him to return to the amendment or to resume his seat.

Mr GOODLUCK:

-With the greatest of respect, the honourable member for Shortland continuously made the same remark. He said that we, the Tasmanians, should defend this proposed sub-section 8a. Mr Lowe supported this legislation. The honourable member for Shortland has produced a telex tonight in a sinister way -

Mr Hodgman:

– He has stolen property.

Mr GOODLUCK:

-I would not like to say that it is stolen property, but I am a little tired of the honourable member for Shortland continually attacking the Tasmanian members -

Mr Hodgman:

– That telex is stolen property.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Deputy Chairman, the remarks being made are offensive. I ask that the remarks of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and the remarks of the honourable member of Franklin (Mr Goodluck) be withdrawn. They are grossly and personally offensive.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Let me try to take control of the matter. I think that the honourable member for Franklin has made his point. I have not heard him mention the amendment yet or discuss it yet. He will resume his seat. The honourable member for Denison is guilty of making constant remarks that are offensive and I ask him to get to his feet and withdraw properly.

Mr Hodgman:

– I do withdraw.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Thank you. I do not ask the honourable member for Franklin to withdraw. Frankly I did not hear what was allegedly said.

Mr Hodgman:

– He responded.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

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

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-The honourable member’s remarks are noted.

page 2589

HISTORIC SHIPWRECKS AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 23 April, on motion by Mr Ellicott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. Honourable members seem to be under the mistaken notion that the period allocated for divisions can be regarded as a playtime. That is far -

Mr Bourchier:

– I ask that he withdraw -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Bendigo will not interrupt while the Chair is addressing the House. I caution all honourable members on their behaviour during the division period. I now call on the honourable member for Grayndler to withdraw the remark.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I withdraw it. I also ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to ask the honourable member for Bendigo to withdraw.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Bendigo will withdraw the remark.

Mr Bourchier:

– What did I say, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Bendigo will withdraw.

Mr Bourchier:

– I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Question put:

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

AYES: 54

NOES: 24

Majority…… 30

AYES

NOES

Question so 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 Ellicott) read a third time.

House adjourned at 12.38 a.m. (Friday) until Tuesday, 13 May next, at 2.15 p.m., unless an alternative day or hour of meeting be notified by telegram or letter addressed to each member of the House.

page 2590

NOTICES

The following notices were given:

Mr Street to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904.

Mr Anthony to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Trade Practices Act 1974.

Mr Thomson to move after the second reading of the Whale Protection Bill 1 980:

That the Bill be referred to a legislation committee for report by 20 May 1980.

Mr Thomson to move after the second reading of the Fisheries Amendment (Whale Protection) Bill 1980:

That the Bill be referred to a legislation committee for report by 20 May 1980.

Mr Thomson to move after the second reading of the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Amendment Bill 1980:

That the Bill be referred to a legislation committee for report by 20 May 1980.

page 2591

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Postal and Telecommunications Department: Media Advertisements (Question No. 5264)

Mr Kerin:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. 1 ) Have advertisements been placed in the media stating the Government’s or his Department’s position on any industrial dispute; if so, on what occasions, with which media and what was the cost.
  2. Was the mony spent from a budgetary, special or permanent appropriation; if so, from which appropriation.
Mr Staley:
Minister for Post and Telecommunications · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) My Department has not placed any advertisements in the media stating its or the Government ‘s position on any industrial dispute. Two statutory authorities within my portfolio did place advertisements in newspapers relating to industrial disputes during 1979. In July 1979 the Australian Postal Commission placed advertisements in selected daily newspapers, at a cost of approximately $38,000 and the Australian Telecommunications Commission similarly placed advertisements in daily and weekend newspapers during June and July 1 979 at a cost of approximately $69,000.
  2. In the case of the Australian Postal Commission, the cost was charged to normal operating expenditure. The Australian Telecommunications Commission’s costs were charged against its Information and Publicity Budget.

Mail Redirection Orders (Question No. 5291)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. Is it a fact that Australia Post considers the costs associated with advising addressees of the imminent expiry of their mail redirection orders could not be justified.
  2. What are the costs, averaged on a per redirection order basis, associated with advising addressees of an imminent expiry.
  3. Specifically, what are the costs associated with (a) printing, (b) distribution to post offices, (c) postage and delivery, (d) clerical and administrative necessities and (e) other requirements of advising addressees of imminent expiry of redirection orders, averaged on a per redirection or redirection-renewal basis.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. The overall cost to Australia Post of maintaining the mail redirection service is already high and a reminder system to all customers who use the service would add significantly to costs.

Australia Post considers that arrangements for the redirection of mail are primarily the responsibility of the addressee concerned.

In those cases, however, where a redirection order has been in force and, at the time the order is about to expire, a significant amount of mail is still regularly being received for redirection, addressees concerned are sent a written reminder, one week prior to the expiry of their order, of the need to ensure future redirection of their mail. Addressees may then decide whether to use the redirection service or whether to make private arrangements for the redirection of mail.

  1. and (3) No statistics are kept on the number of reminders issued or on the cost of this element of the postal service.

Australian Broadcasting Commission’s FM Radio Program (Question No. 5376)

Mr Dawkins:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. ) Which capital cities receive the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s FM radio program originating in Adelaide, and when did transmission to each commence.
  2. What method is used to relay the program from Adelaide to each of these capital cities.
  3. Will the program be available in Perth; if so, what steps have been taken to bring this about and when will transmission commence.
  4. What have been the reasons for the delay in the introduction of FM radio broadcasting by the ABC in Perth.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra commenced transmission in January 1976. Newcastle commenced service on 1 March 1980.
  2. Relayed by Australian Telecommunications Commission’s microwave bearer.
  3. Yes; a national FM broadcasting service is included in the current three-year capital works program. If no unforeseen delays occur, test transmission will commence at the end of June 1980 and regular service four to six weeks later.
  4. The timetable for the introduction of ABC-FM services has been dependent on budgetary and planning considerations. The original estimated date of completion was February 1980 but this has been deferred to May/June because of the late delivery of the antenna.

Alcohol Levels for Drivers (Question No. 5626)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 6 March 1980:

Will he consider (a) requiring a low or nil blood alcohol level for drivers in the Australian Capital Territory (i) with a learning permit and (ii) in charge of paying passenger or heavy commercial vehicles and (b) having printed on licences and permits warnings of likely critical blood alcohol levels for average adults after the intake of specified amounts of various alcoholic drinks over specified periods.

Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I am informed by my Department as follows:

(i)(ii) There is no evidence that drivers in the categories mentioned have an accident record which would suggest that permissible blood alcohol levels should be less for them than for other motorists;

the printing of messages on licences and permits will be considered in any redesign of these documents. However it is considered that the use of pamphlets and media advertising is likely to be more effective in warning people about blood alcohol levels and the intake of alcohol.

Canberra Air Services (Question No. 5702)

Mr Roger Johnston:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 25 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has there been an increase in the number of public servants travelling to and from Canberra by air; if so, is this due to the recent transfer of public servants to Canberra.
  2. Is it expected that the current volume of public servant air traffic will continue.
  3. Do arrangements exist to ensure that Members and Senators can travel to and from Canberra to meet their commitments without having to make multiple advance bookings (which would be to the detriment of the travelling public); if so, what are the arrangements.
Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. and (2) The information which the honourable member seeks is not available in my Department, whose responsibilities do not include travel undertaken by public servants employed in other departments. The information relating to my Department is not readily available and to obtain it would involve an extensive search of records throughout Australia. In view of the resources that would be needed to gather together the necessary details, I am not prepared to ask my Department to carry out this work.
  2. No. I do not believe it would be appropriate to seek preferential treatment in respect of airline travel for Senators and Members.

Hilton Hotel Bombing Incident (Question No. 5779)

Mr Kerin:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 April 1980:

  1. Did he make any commitment to the provision of financial assistance to any persons affected by the Hilton Hotel bombing; if so (a) what form did this commitment take and (b) was it carried out.
  2. Have compensation arrangements for the persons affected been made; if so (a) what are they and (b) have they been carried out.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Undertakings were given that the Government would:

    1. Contribute to a Trust fund for the children of two Sydney City Council employees killed in the explosion.
    2. Compensate shopkeepers for loss of profits as a result of closure of their business premises on security grounds.

A sum of $45,000 was paid into the Trust fund.

Payments totalling some $209,000 were made to shopkeepers and persons for losses of profits and earnings as a result of the closure of business premises on security grounds.

Workers’ compensation arrangements in relation to State Government and City Council employees killed or injured by the explosion are matters for the appropriate State authorities. Any information required by the honourable member should therefore be sought from the New South Wales Government.

Computing Equipment: Offset Arrangements (Question No. 5853)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

  1. How much offset, under the scheme administered by his Department, has been debited by the Department against supplies of computing equipment to (a) Telecom Australia and ( b ) Australia Post.
  2. ) Who were the suppliers in each case.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. (a)$0.57m;(b)$0.45m.
  2. Honeywell Pty Ltd and Data General Australia Pty Ltd respectively.

Overseas Air Services

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), in a question without notice today, asked:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that it would require a 1 00 per cent seat factor to allow Ansett Airlines of Australia to offer a Darwin to Singapore return air fare of $353?
  2. Is it a fact that Ansett suggested an indicative lowest fare of $303?
  3. Is it also a fact that one B747 weekly service between Darwin and Singapore would carry the same passenger load as three B727 weekly services on that route?
  4. Furthermore, is it a fact that the cost of three B727 weekly services would be 50 per cent more than one B747 service?
  5. On the basis of the simple economics of the airline industry, does the Minister not agree that there is room for the gravest suspicion about the economics of Ansett ‘s proposals and perhaps even- perish the thought- the motives behind those proposals?

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

  1. 1 ) My Department has received some data relating to the proposals that have been put forward. However, it has not yet had an opportunity to assess fully the information, the variables that would influence such a proposed operation, or what further information would be required. I would have difficulty in responding factually in the absence of the full data being assessed.
  2. Yes.
  3. This would depend on the configuration of the respective aircraft; however, the comparison appears valid.
  4. Available information does not allow such a specific comparison to be made.
  5. In the absence of all the relevant data, and a study thereof, I would not wish to comment on the economics of the proposals that have been made.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 1 May 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1980/19800501_reps_31_hor118/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant