House of Representatives
14 May 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 2687

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Taxation

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

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

Employees and Self-Employed Contributions to approved Superannuation Fund.

Your petitioners humbly pray that:

  1. Contributions paid each year to Superannuation Funds should be removed from the Rebate System and made a separate deduction from Assessable Income.
  2. The amount allowed as a deduction to be at least that required to provide a retirement benefit of $ 155,400.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bungey, Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Cotter, Mr Fry, Mr Garland, Mr Haslem, Mr Jull, Mr Lusher, Sir William McMahon, Mr Martyr, Mr Moore, Mr Sainsbury and Mr Shack.

Petitions received.

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 pet- itioners urge that action be taken to:

  1. 1 ) Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the ‘ fixed ‘ 70s 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 Baume, Mr Burns, Mr FitzPatrick, Mr Graham, Mr Holding, Mr Howe, Mr Hunt, Mr Charles Jones, Mr Leo McLeay, Mr Les McMahon, Mr Morris and Mr Neil.

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 Haslem, Mr Roger Johnston, Mr Martyr, Mr Millar and Mr Street.

Petitions received.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

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

The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

That the right to work without discrimination on any ground including, inter alia, discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, pregnancy, marital status, sex and/or sexual preference, is a fundamental human right; and

That it is both the duty and the responsibility of society to fully support those denied work and therefore those who are unemployed as a result of society’s inability to provide full paid employment should be guaranteed an adequate income without discrimination on any ground, including inter alia discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, sex and/or sexual preference, or pregnancy.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray-

That appropriate and adequate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, in employment of individuals under federal awards, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to race, ethnic origin, marital status and/or sex.

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

Petition received.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

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

The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth-

That the right to work without discrimination on any ground including, inter alia, discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status and/or sex is a fundamental human right;

That it is both the duty and the responsibility of society to fully support those denied work and therefore those who are unemployed as a result of society’s inability to provide full paid employment should be guaranteed an adequate income without discrimination on any ground, including inter alia discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status and /or sex.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray-

That appropriate and adequate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, in employment of individuals under federal awards, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to race, ethnic origin, marital status and /or sex.

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

Petition received.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

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

The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth-

That currently discrimination in the provision of work, in appointment to jobs and in promotion exists in Australia on particular grounds including, inter alia, grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, pregnancy, sex and /or sexual preference; and

That currently discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits is exercised against particular groups of individuals- in particular, against married women.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of individuals under federal awards, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to sex and/or marital status.

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

Petition received.

Taxation

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

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

Taxpayers who incur child-care expenses in order to earn income should be able to have those expenses exempt from income taxation in the same way as other taxpayers can deduct business expenses from their assessable income.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Birney and Mr Lionel Bowen.

Petitions received.

Metric System

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country is causing and will cause widespread inconvenience, confusion, expense and distress.

That there is no certainty that any significant benefits or indeed any benefits at all will follow the use of the new weights and measures.

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

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

Petition received.

Metric System

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

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country does not have the support of the people.

That the change is causing and will continue to cause, widespread, serious and costly problems;

That the compulsory tactics being used to force the change are a violation of all democratic principles.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilise whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so desire;

That weather reporting be as it was prior to the passing of the Metric Conversion Act;

That the Australian Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional mile units to be restored to our highways;

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

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

Petition 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 1 970 to over 10 per cent by 1 990 and about 1 6 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 Bungey and Mr Shack.

Petitions received.

Metric System

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and requests the Government to restore the Imperial system.

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

Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

Their support for and endorsement of the National Women’s Advisory Council.

We call on the Government to continue to maintain the National Women’s Advisory Council and increase Federal Government support for its activities.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gillard and Sir William McMahon.

Petitions received.

Human Rights Legislation

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

That equal opportunity regarding Human Rights and fundamental freedoms is not enjoyed by all Australians irrespective of the race, colour, or ethnic origin of certain groups, particularly Aboriginal and Islander groups.

That the Human Rights Bill and the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill do not advance the causes of Australia’s oppressed Aboriginal and Islanders.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament affirms:

  1. 1 ) That all Australians regardless of race colour or ethnic origin are equal before God and man. The Human Rights Bill and the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill as at present proposed do not create public confidence that they will preserve human rights or extend those rights to Australia’s oppressed racial and ethnic groups.
  2. That Parliament rejects or withdraws for re-drafting those Bills until the Government secures the confidence of Aboriginal and Islander communities and all ethnic groups that those Bills enhance the international and national commitments that the Commonwealth has undertaken.

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

Petition 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.

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:

  1. Present income tax laws are unfair to single income families,
  2. All marriages should be recognized as partnerships by allowing partners to divide their joint income for tax purposes,
  3. The family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, should be an economic unit in tax laws,
  4. Children are Australia’s future and their individual care by a parent at home should not be discouraged by extra tax.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament will

Reform income tax laws to allow the joint income of husband and wife to be equally divided between them for taxation purposes.

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

Petition received.

Day Care Centres

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 urges that:

The Government use the Private Day Care Centres by subsidizing parents in need, giving them their democratic right to freedom of choice.

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

Petition received.

Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industries

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, being employees of the Australian Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industries, respectfully showeth:

  1. That Australian Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industries are vital to the livelihood and well being of many thousands of Australian workers and their families;
  2. That if imports of textiles, clothing and footwear products are allowed to flood the Australian market it will deprive 120,000 workers in these industries of their work opportunities;
  3. That the rights of textile, clothing and footwear workers in other developed countries have been recognised by their respective Governments and are protected by comprehensive restraints on imports from low-wage countries.

Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament recognise the rights of Australian workers in these industries and that tariff experiments of the kind proposed by the I.A.C. in 1977 and 1979 be rejected.

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

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 sheweth:

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, accommodation for 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 duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Les McMahon.

Petition received.

Commonwealth Land in Mort Bay

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

The petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That we are totally opposed to the siting of a Defence Base in Mort Bay, Balmain and call upon the Government to give all land in Mort Bay controlled by the Commonwealth to the people of New South Wales for use as regional open space as an extension to the Sydney Harbour National Park.

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

Petition received.

Hilton Hotel Bomb Disaster

To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that they want the victims of the Hilton bomb disaster to receive a fair and just compensation. They remind the Prime Minister and his Government that they found the sum of $190,000 to compensate the Hilton Arcade shopkeepers for their loss of business and we the undersigned regard the loss of life and permanent injury even more important than the loss of business. The police involved were guarding the Prime Minister’s life and one of them lost his life, because the Prime Minister and the other international heads of state were inside the hotel. Three other police were seriously and permanently injured as a result of the bombing. The undersigned petitioners call upon the Prime Minister and his Government to compensate these unfortunate victims.

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

Petition received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the 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 Macphee.

Petition received.

Religious Organisations

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 sheweth:

That the anti-social activities of certain organisations, in the main purporting to be religious and under foreign control, are causing increasing mental, physical and /or social distress to citizens throughout the Commonwealth of Australia.

Such adverse affects include drastic personality changes, alienation and severance from persons’ families and normal society, dispossession under undue influence of persons’ worldly assets, abandonment of socially useful occupations or career education, mental disorientation, and a common requirement to surrender their labour with little or no pay, working unduly long hours fund-raising for the exclusive benefit of the organisations ‘ leaderships.

Furthermore, a disturbing number of our country’s youth have died prematurely in unsatisfactorily explained circumstances or have become so mentally or physically debilitated as to require hospitalization or treatment following their involvement with the subject organisations commonly, but erroneously, described as ‘ religious cults ‘.

All evidence points to the fact that the subject organisations are commercial enterprises which, for the purpose of evading tax and other business obligations, have falsely assumed the status of ‘religions’ in order to take advantage of the blanket protection provided by Section 1 16 of the Australian Constitution.

It is your petitioners’ sincere belief that proliferation of such organisations unchecked with their personalitydisorientating and family-divisive practices and effects, represents a serious threat to the health, welfare, and peace of the whole community.

Notwithstanding the decision of the combined Australian Attorneys-General at their October 1979 meeting, that no special action should be taken by Government/s to curb undesirable activities of religious cults and that these should be dealt with under existing laws, such laws as would provide protection against the aforementioned malpractices do not appear to exist.

For this reason the Government should proceed with all haste to investigate the widely-alleged malpractices of the subject organisations which include Hare Krishnas, the Unification Church (Moonies) and such other groups as are subject of complaints, preparatory to introducing appropriate legislations to curtail the said malpractices to ensure citizens’ continuing enjoyment of peace and harmony.

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

Petition received.

Technology

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

The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-

That while the introduction and development of new technology has the ability of improving community living standards, Australia faces the prospect of large scale unemployment, industrial strife and social inequities unless there is proper national planning for such developments.

That the Commonwealth Government should establish a public inquiry into all aspects of the introduction of new technology. Such an inquiry should include representatives of community groups and trade unions.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that a broadly based public inquiry be established to inquire into all aspects of the introduction and development of new technology in Australia.

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

Petition received.

Commonwealth Employment Service

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

The humble Petition of undersigned citizens respectfully showeth-

That there exists extreme concern over the current illdeployment and scarcity of bilingual officers in the Commonwealth Employment Service in South Australia, notwithstanding the recommendations of both the Review of the Commonwealth Employment Service, by Mr J. D. Norgard, and the Review of Post Arrival Programs and Services to Migrants by Mr Frank Galbally.

Concern also exists over the transfer of the Italian speaking officer from the office of the Commonwealth Employment Service in Campbelltown, South” Australia, which has that State ‘s highest concentration of Italian speaking clients.

Bilingual officers speaking the relevant languages should be deployed in areas of high concentrations of migrants.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that independently assessed bilingual Commonwealth Employment Service officers be deployed in areas with high concentrations of migrants.

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

Petition received.

Australian Capital Territory: Property Values

To the Right Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned residents (and ratepayers) of the street known as Mawson Drive in the suburb of Mawson in the Australian Capital Territory.

The petitioners respectfully lodge protest against the proposed increases in the value of the unimproved capital value of our properties (land ) for the year 1981.

The petitioners consider the values, which have increased twenty times in the past 10-12 years, proposed by the Department of the Capital Territory on our individual lands are grossly overstated and are far in excess of the real land values.

After the recent construction of Melrose Drive with the changing of the name of the part of Melrose Drive from Athllon Drive to Yamba Drive to ‘Mawson Drive’, residents were informed by officers of the Department of the Capital Territory that the changes would lessen the flow of traffic along Mawson Drive. As is indicated below this improvement has not eventuated.

The consensus of opinion amongst all residents is that, far from the flow of traffic being decreased, the reconstruction of Melrose Drive has caused the traffic flow to increase and also the noise level. The noise level is constant from5.00 a.m. to 9.00 p.m. daily with a slight decrease from 9.00 p.m. to 1 1.00 p.m. However, from 11.00 p.m. to 1.00 a.m. the noise level again increases due to traffic from the Mawson Hotel and

Mawson clubs area. It had been anticipated also, with reconstruction of Melrose Drive, that the flow of heavy vehicular traffic would be greatly minimised. This has proved to be a fallacy as the flow of heavy vehicles through Mawson Drive continues to increase as does the emission of carbon monoxide.

The petitioners are indeed angry that the motorists, when entering Mawson Drive from Yamba Drive and approaching Ainsworth Street from Athllon Drive exceed the speed limit. This is evident from the acceleration of their vehicles.

The petitioners have suffered the consequence of the unhealthy problem of the presence of carbon monoxide caused by the traffic flow.

The following reasons significant in the lodgment of the protest:

  1. Increased insomnia due to incessant noise level of passing vehicles.
  2. Increased nausea among residents due to the high level of carbon monoxide.
  3. 3 ) Deteriorating health of the older residents due to the increased noise level throughout the day and night.
  4. Ill-informed reports by the officers of the Department of the Capital Territory that traffic flow would diminish due to reconstruction of Melrose Drive.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Government will forthwith take the steps necessary to prevent the increases in the value of the unimproved capital value of our land for the year 1981.

And also that consideration be rather given to decreasing the unimproved capital value of our land in view of the considerable increased problems with which we are confronted.

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

Petition received.

Television

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Electorate of Batman and members of St James Church of England, Ivanhoe, showeth:

We are displeased with the low moral standards whereby violence and sexual depravity are emphasised on television both orally and visually through movies, programmes, and advertisement including provocative trailer scenes.

We have noticed lately the increase in films categorised Adults Only’ that contain scenes that are not only sexually degrading but degrade the human being in many other ways.

We, as members of the Christian church, are concerned that the showing of these films will encourage the moral decline of our society, particularly the young who now have easy access to these influences through the medium of television.

Your petitioners therefore pray that you will curtail the trend to ‘Adults Only’ films and especially the practice of advertising these programmes at times when children are usually viewing.

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

Petition received.

Rosemount Repatriation Hospital

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned staff at Rosemount Repatriation Hospital showeth:

We, the undersigned members of the Staff of Rosemount Repatriation Hospital, Windsor request the Government to reverse the decision to close this Hospital.

We consider the decision to close Rosemount Repatriation Hospital, in the long term, not to be in the best interests of either the patients or the staff. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government reverses its decision to close the Hospital.

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

Petition 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 New South Wales respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

page 2692

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Mr SPEAKER:

– I inform the House that we have present in the Gallery members of the United Nations Council for Namibia, led by His Excellency Mr Orhan Eralp, Turkey’s Ambassador to the United Nations. Also present in the Gallery is the Honourable Dr G. P. Sicat, Minister responsible for the National Economic Planning and Development Authority of the Government of the Philippines. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome.

Honourable members- Hear, hear!

page 2692

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2692

QUESTION

HOUSING FINANCE: INTEREST RATES

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-My question is directed to the Treasurer. Have trading banks warned that unless they are allowed to increase interest rates they will cut back on home loans? Will home loans decline unless interest rates rise?

If interest rates rise, will fewer people be able to obtain home loans and afford the higher repayments? What action does the Government intend to take to ensure stability in the provision of housing loans so that people on low incomes can buy their own homes?

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

-The question asked by the honourable member for Newcastle is obviously derived from some reporting this morning of remarks made by Mr Cameron of the Research Directorate of the Australian Bankers Association. I have noted with interest what Mr Cameron has said. Perhaps the honourable member will note with interest the performance of the banks and the permanent building societies over the past year in providing, in my view and also in the view of the Government, very adequately for the needs of the housing sector in this country. For example, in the nine months to March, some 1 1 8,000 prospective home buyers were assisted by Australian banks, which was 2,381 more than in the corresponding period of 1978-79. Private dwelling commencements in the December quarter of 1979 were 13.5 per cent above the level of the previous year. When one couples this with the continued buoyancy exhibited by both private dwelling and finance approvals in the early months of 1980, it is quite clear that 1980 will see further growth in private housing activity.

I have never denied and nobody else on this side of the House has ever denied that ultimately the level of interest rates in this country, be it in the housing sector or in any other sector, will be determined by the forces of supply and demand applying to funds. The facts are that the banks, along with other financial institutions, are at present in the normal period of seasonal tightness so far as liquidity is concerned. Everybody knows that. Responsible management of the monetary conditions in this country makes it necessary, at a time when there is a large rundown for tax payment purposes, that liquidity is tighter than it is at other times of the year. I can assure the honourable gentleman that we will continue in very close collaboration with the Reserve Bank of Australia to ensure that monetary conditions are such as to achieve the two objectives of bearing down on inflation and at the same time providing adequate finance for proper expansion of activity and, in particular, providing adequate support for the provision of housing loans.

If anybody in this House objectively examines what has been done in the housing sector by the major financial institutions over the last year or 18 months, he will reach no conclusion other than that we have given, as I promised in the Budget Speech, a very high priority to housing. That will continue to be the policy of the Government.

35-HOUR WORKING WEEK

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can some union strikes and stoppages not only cause shameful chaos for the ‘Lucky Country’ but also cost jobs as a result of the destruction of small and not so small businesses struggling to survive in an unstable world economy? Has the Prime Minister noted the unity of view which exists in the national Parliament on the subject of the absolute undesirability of the 35-hour week? Will the Prime Minister give consideration to allocating an amount of money to be used in a nation-wide Why We Must Not’ education program to help equip concerned men and women to combat the sometimes reckless efforts of union leaders who choose to pursue the 35-hour week concept regardless of the destructive consequences for the people of Australia?

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

-Much of what the honourable gentleman implied in his question is, of course, true and much of what he suggested, I believe, reflects a view shared by the majority of members of this House. It is obviously true that industrial disruption can cause grievous harm and damage to industries. It can cause a loss of employment. Of course claims, especially claims for very substantial wage increases or substantial reductions in working hours, if they are successful, also have a very significant impact on employment. I think that that also is recognised on both sides of the House.

Whether government funds should be provided for a specific educative process in relation to this matter, I am not too sure, but that is an interesting suggestion and I am certainly prepared to consider it. But I believe in this instance that there is a role that not only the Government but all members of parliament can play. It is possible for us, within our own electorates and in our own speaking engagements, to point out the simple economic truths of this matter; namely, that wage increases that are too great cost jobs and that reductions in working hours that are illtimed will also cost jobs and cause great difficulty to industry. I also think that the Leader of the Opposition is to be commended for beginning this educative process.

page 2693

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY PRESS GALLERY

Mr YOUNG:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

- Mr Speaker, I direct my question to you. In view of the strike by journalists of the major metropolitan newspapers, have steps been taken to see that no unauthorised person is using the faculties of the Press Gallery? If those steps have not been taken, will you give us an assurance that they will be taken to ensure that no unauthorised person has access to non-public parts of this House?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have been informed of a resolution passed by the Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery. It is dated 14 May, 1.30 p.m. It states:

That this Committee declares that David Jensen and John Tidey are not members of the Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery and are not therefore entitled to work in the Press Gallery. This Committee asks for the passes which give these two people access to the Press Gallery area to be withdrawn forthwith, that they be removed from the Press Gallery area and that no access to that area be granted to non-Gallery members except Members of Parliament, Parliament House staff and officials of the Parliament.

This Committee further recommends to the Presiding Officers that no new members be admitted to the Press Gallery without the customary consultation between the Presiding Officers and the Press Gallery Committee, and certainly not for the duration of the present industrial dispute.

The first point that I wish to make is that the Presiding Officers retain, absolutely and solely, the right to determine who shall have admission to the Parliamentary Press Gallery. It is true that I have consulted the committee of the Press Gallery in the past and, in normal circumstances, I will do so in the future. I hold the view very strongly that the democratic process requires that this House be available for observation by all who can fit into the public galleries and by all who can come into the media gallery for the purpose of reporting its proceedings. Under no circumstances will I take action to prevent any media representative whom I judge to be qualified and competent to report the proceedings of this House from coming here to report them. Under those circumstances, if members of the Gallery are not present and others come in their place, unless this House directs me otherwise those who come here for the purpose of reporting the proceedings of this House shall have my authority to do so.

page 2694

QUESTION

STATE BOUNDARIES

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Administrative Services. Is Echuca in New South Wales? Is it or any other River Murray town, though south of the water course, north of ‘the top or upper edge of the slope or vertical face of the south bank? In the light of the recent decision of the High Court clarifying the location of the boundary between Victoria and New South Wales, will the Minister take steps to ensure that any persons who live north of the top of the south bank are enrolled in New South Wales divisions so that they can vote to elect members and senators to this Parliament in the State in which they actually reside and not, in contravention of the Constitution, in another State? Will he also ask the parliaments of New South Wales and Victoria to pass laws in concurrence with each other to define the boundary line between these two States?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Before I call the Minister, I should point out that he is not obliged to give a legal opinion on this matter.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

-Not only am I not obliged to give, I am also not capable of giving a legal opinion on the matter. I thank the honourable member for his question. I was not aware of the situation that he has described. I will discuss the matter with the Chief Electoral Officer and get in touch with the honourable member as soon as I have a response.

page 2694

QUESTION

HOUSING INDUSTRY

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister for Housing and Construction, by noting that the Treasurer, in replying to an earlier question by the honourable member for Newcastle, said that this year there had been 118,000 private housing commencements. Is it a fact that the Government’s Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry had estimated that the industry would be able to construct 135,000 houses this year and that it is 12 per cent under capacity at present? What programs does the Government intend to introduce in order to relieve the burdens on low income home seekers and home owners resulting from the increases in home loan interest rates?

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

– As the Treasurer indicated to the House in answering the question put to him earlier, in recent months there has been a very good flow of housing finance from the major lending institutions. In fact, in the calendar year 1979 the total volume of funds flowing from the banks and building societies increased by 16.1 per cent. Current estimates by my Department indicate that the number of commencements in the current financial year should approximate 130,000. That represents a substantial increase on the figures for the previous year. Commencements during the previous calendar year were up by 10.9 per cent. So, all in all, the housing industry is in a very stable situation. That is recognised by the leaders of that industry. They indicate a degree of satisfaction with the present policies of this Government which are certainly providing significant support for that important industry.

We have a number of effective programs to assist low income earners to get into housing. This financial year we have provided $2 60m under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement arrangements with the State governments. That is the major program under which we provide funds for low income families. As I have mentioned to the House on previous occasions, we have substantially increased the total amount provided by way of grant funds. That is a very important factor. It provides an opportunity for the States to attract private funds into welfare housing to assist low income earners. So, we are certainly ensuring that there is adequate support for low income earners. We are concerned, of course, about the situation; but access to housing by low income families has improved in the time of the present Government. That access is certainly much better than it was during the time of the previous Administration.

I mention briefly the Home Savings Grants Scheme. Again we have ensured that the funds available, which are greater this year than they have ever previously been, are going to families most in need, because we have introduced a value limit on the houses that qualify. This means that the money available- provided by the taxpayers- goes to those families who most need the money to get into housing to suit their needs. That is a fundamental principle which we have followed. So, we have certainly provided good support for low income earners to assist them to obtain adequate housing to suit the needs of themselves and their families.

page 2695

QUESTION

COCOS ISLAND ANIMAL QUARANTINE STATION

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Health aware that stud breeder and cattle producer organisations are alleging that, because of delays in the establishment of procedures relating to priority and type of livestock to be admitted to the soontobecompleted Cocos Island animal quarantine station, it will be impossible to utilise the station fully upon its completion? When will the Cocos Island facility be completed? What can the Minister tell the House about the establishment of admission priorities and procedures?

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I am not aware of any allegations of that nature being received by my Department. I point out to the House that the Department has kept breeding societies, interested organisations and individual potential importers advised of progress in the construction of the station. The Department is using all avenues available to it to keep those interested organisations and individuals aware of the progress that is being made there. I point out to the House that the construction of the Cocos Island animal quarantine station is scheduled for completion in April 1981. It is expected that the station will be ready to accept the first shipment of livestock by July of next year and that this first shipment of cattle will come from western Europe. We are looking to a quarantine period of about five months in the quarantine station.

Detailed quarantine protocols for the importation of cattle from western European countries through Cocos Island are now under consideration by veterinary authorities in the several countries concerned, but I point out that the protocols follow extensive consultations between all Federal and State veterinary authorities. As soon as the protocols are completed they will be made generally available to interested parties. It is a bit more difficult to complete protocols in relation to North American countries because of the presence of bluetongue in the United States. The relevant protocols in relation to those countries are still under development. I will be establishing an expert committee to advise me on the question of admission priorities. I will make an announcement in relation to that expert committee as soon as it is finalised. I hope that will be in the very near future.

page 2695

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SAVINGS BONDS

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

-The Treasurer would have noted recent Government-sponsored advertisements promoting the sale of Australian savings bonds at an interest rate of 9.75 per cent with the claim that they ‘could be your best investment’. Does the Treasurer consider that the advertising campaign has been a success in view of the fact that net sale proceeds for the month of April were negative by an amount of $32. 5m? Further, how does the Treasurer justify the statement that these bonds ‘could be your best investment’ when the recent tap issue of Commonwealth bonds carried an interest rate a full two percentage points higher than that of the Australian savings bonds?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– I have two comments on the Leader of the Opposition’s question. Firstly, I do not think it is entirely appropriate to compare the type of security offered in the recent very successful tap issue of Commonwealth securities with the type of security represented by the Australian savings bond. I think the honourable gentleman should recall from earlier experiences that the Australian savings bond is essentially directed to the household sector, whereas the Commonwealth securities comprising the tap issue are directed to the non-household or professional sector. They are therefore quite different types of securities and it is not necessarily logical to compare them and to draw the inferences that the honourable gentleman has drawn. It is true, as the Leader of the Opposition says, that in recent weeks sales of Australian savings bonds have been meagre. In fact, the sales have been exceeded by redemptions. This is to be expected at a time when the household sector; along with other sectors of the economy, is involved in the payment of provisional taxation. It is to be expected during a period of tight liquidity that the sales of bonds should not be as robust as at other times of the year.

I can assure the honourable gentleman and the House that the Government intends to maintain a very close watch on the level of sales of Australian savings bonds, and naturally the interest rates on all government securities, be they directed to the household or other sectors, are kept under constant review. But I do not think that any of the gloom inherent in the honourable gentleman’s question can hide the fact that the launching of the new tap system for the sale of Commonwealth bonds has been extremely successful. I take the opportunity of saying that the Government is very pleased with the way in which the new system has got off to such a very effective start. It has made a major contribution to securing the Government’s monetary policy objectives for the financial year.

page 2696

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION HEADQUARTERS

Mr HODGMAN:
DENISON, TASMANIA

-Has the Prime Minister received a report on the highly successful visit to Hobart last weekend of international delegates attending the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources and on proposals that Hobart should be chosen as the site for the International Antarctic Commission headquarters and that Hobart should now be nominated as the permanent site for the International Law of the Sea Tribunal?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I have received a report of the visit. I understand that the visit, which was led by the Minister for Productivity, who also assists me in Federal affairs, was highly successful. It was well received in Tasmania by both the Premier of that State and my colleague who asked the question. I hope that it will be a significant event in helping to get a final decision to accept Australia and, in particular, Tasmania as the site for the headquarters of the International Antarctic Commission. The visit was jointly sponsored by the Commonwealth Government and the Tasmanian Government.

There was an inspection of all possible sites for the headquarters of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. An official dinner was hosted by Mr Newman and Mr Lowe, and the honourable members for Denison and Franklin were of great help in assisting to escort delegates throughout the visit. The Commonwealth is very hopeful of a positive response to its proposal to site the Commission in Hobart.

Obviously we have noted that the honourable members for Denison and Franklin have placed on the Notice Paper a Notice of Motion which also calls on the Government to propose Hobart as a permanent site for the International Law of the Sea Tribunal. This is a matter that the Government will comprehend and consider. The honourable gentleman is once again demonstrating the assiduous way in which he and other members of the Government parties in Tasmania support the interests of Tasmania and seek to get appropriate responses from the Federal Government. It is worth noting that the decision we have made in relation to this headquarters complements in a very real way the decisions the Government made earlier on the Australian Maritime College in Launceston, the transfer to Hobart of the Antarctic Division of the Department of Science and the Environment, which the honourable gentleman did so much to achieve and, most recently, the decision to establish a marine science centre in Hobart, including the transfer of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Division of Fisheries and Oceanography.

Mr Hurford:

– You will believe your own propaganda soon.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The honourable gentleman will note the result when the time comes, whenever that may be. It is quite clear that, as a result of the Government’s policies, centres for maritime training, marine research and science, and Antarctic matters are being developed in Tasmania. This obviously will be of great advantage to the State, and to Australia, and it will assist in many ways in achieving national objectives. I can only assume, from the comments made by the Opposition in the course of this relatively short answer, that it is opposed to these moves.

page 2696

QUESTION

KAMPUCHEA: POL POT REGIME

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Prime Minister and refer to his assurances to Chinese Vice-Premier Li last week that

Australia would persist in its policy of recognising the genocidal Pol Pot regime as the legitimate government of Kampuchea. When the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations are showing every sign of compromising with Vietnam in order to achieve a speedy settlement, and when the United States is taking a position at considerable variance with that of the Chinese, what purpose is served by Australia identifying itself with an extreme position? Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the genocidal Pol Pot regime must not be allowed to have any role whatsoever in Kampuchea in the future, and that any regime in Phnom Penh likely to produce stability should be acceptable to Vietnam as well as to China?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– If it were possible to achieve a regime in Kampuchea that would be well received in Vietnam and China, it would clearly be a notable advance. Such a regime does not appear to be in immediate prospect. I did note, as the honourable gentleman obviously did, some comment related to conversations I had had with the Vice-Premier. I make no comment whatsoever about that because it related to conversations that took place. The policy of this Government in relation to the Pol Pot regime has been stated clearly by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on a number of occasions. To this point at least, there has been no change in that policy. We, along with many others, including China, as I understand it, have been highly critical of the policies and the brutality the Pol Pot regime perpetrated. On the other hand, that does not indicate any reason to support a regime that is supported by 22 divisions of the Vietnamese Army. If that Army were prepared to withdraw it might then be possible to see which government, which regime, the people of Kampuchea want to support and sustain. The first matter there is to achieve a withdrawal of the Vietnamese Army, and I hope that the energies of the honourable gentleman will be directed to that end.

page 2697

QUESTION

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS SUBSIDY SCHEME

Mr BAUME:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs aware that the favourable impact on my electorate in particular of recently announced reductions in liquefied petroleum gas prices has been delayed to some extent beyond the stated commencement dates? Can the Minister inform the House of the latest position regarding the Government’s liquefied petroleum gas subsidy scheme?

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

– I compliment the honourable member on the close interest he has taken in the development of policy in this area, and I know that other honourable members also have done so. The Government has formulated a policy on liquefied petroleum gas to encourage its use. It has set up a policy with a three-tier structure which provides cheaper liquefied petroleum gas for business and for use in motor vehicles and even cheaper liquefied petroleum gas for use by householders. That is all necessary in order to diminish Australia’s dependence on imported oil. The Government has a package of proposals, including taxation concessions and allowances, for the conversion and replacement of oil-fired equipment. A Bill providing a subsidy of $80 a tonne has passed both Houses of the Parliament and is awaiting royal assent. I understand that that will be given very soon. The subsidy will be payable retrospective to 28 March of this year.

A formal scheme is being prepared because payments have to be made through the States and the Northern Territory. I expect that that scheme will be ready for signature next week. That will enable the registration of distributors so that they can receive the payment of this subsidy. The Victorian Parliament has already passed its complementary legislation but discussions are proceeding with the other States and the Northern Territory to encourage them to make payments before they are able to enact complementary legislation. There is a precedent for that and they should be able to do it on this occasion so that the many distributors and gas utilities which have anticipated the paymentand rightly anticipated it- will be able to put that whole scheme in place so that payments can proceed.

page 2697

QUESTION

CLIFFS ROBE RIVER IRON ORE PELLET PLANT

Mr DAWKINS:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs: Is it a fact that on 30 April the Cliffs Robe River iron ore pellet plant was shut down? Was the high price of oil the major factor influencing the company’s decision to close the plant? Will the closure result in the loss of some 300 jobs? Does this mean, using a multiplier of ten-the figure most frequently used by the Minister when speaking of employment in mineral development- that a total of 3,000 jobs will be lost throughout Australia from the closure of the plant?

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

-I am not aware of the precise reasons why Cliffs Robe River closed down the pellet plant. I will obtain such information as is available to me and inform the honourable member. I can assure him that the services of the Commonwealth Employment Service will be available to any employees of the Cliffs Robe River plant who are displaced from their employment.

page 2698

QUESTION

EXPORT OF LIVE SHEEP

Mr LLOYD:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. In view of the conclusion of Mr Geoff Miller of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics that there was no connection between unemployment in Victorian meatworks and live sheep exports to the Middle East, what steps is the Federal Government taking to support the action of the Victorian Government to ensure that sheep are loaded at Portland and producers are given the continued benefit of this additional market for their livestock?

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

-The fact of the matter is that the sheep are being loaded, as a consequence of the support of both the Federal and State governments in ensuring that the sheep could be loaded. The loading of the sheep is expected to be finished tonight and the ship is due to sail tomorrow. Over the last few days I have made the point consistently on radio and to those reporters who are working and who have come to see me about this question that, as Mr Miller correctly said, no loss of job opportunities is created by live sheep exports. In fact Mr Miller proved that there is a creation of job opportunities by live sheep exports.

Mr Young:

– There is a loss of meat workers’ jobs.

Mr NIXON:

-Those people who work at the meatworks and who are being misled on this question by people such as the honourable member for Port Adelaide ought to listen to the truth. The reality is that the sheep that are being exported -

Mr Young:

– Members of the meat workers union do lose their jobs.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr NIXON:

– As an ex-shearer the honourable member ought to know something about this. The sheep now being exported are, in the main, four year old merino wethers. I suggest that not even the honourable member for Port Adelaide likes eating four year old cracker wethers of a merino breed. A market is available for them in the Middle East if they are sold live. There is no chill sale or frozen sale market for them. The meat workers need to know that. If live sheep export sales were to stop there would simply be a total contraction of the industry. I am delighted that there has been a successful loading of this ship. I expect that the next ship that comes in equally will be successfully loaded. That is, as the honourable member said in his question, because of the close co-operation between the two governments.

page 2698

QUESTION

ASIA DAIRY INDUSTRIES (HONG KONG) LTD

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I direct my question to the Minister for Primary Industry. Since his most recent reason for not tabling the AuditorGeneral’s report on Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd- that is, that the Auditor-General advised him not to do so- has been contradicted before a Senate Estimates committee by the Assistant Auditor-General, what is his current reason for not tabling the report? Further, I ask him to state what action he took to induce the Auditor-General to write in his report which was tabled on 29 April:

The Minister has since advised that remedial action has been taken in respect of many of the deficiencies in financial and managerial control.

Finally, has he made the people who apparently illegally received money or benefits make restitution?

Mr NIXON:
NCP/NP

-The first point to make is that I understand that the Deputy Secretary- I think that is his correct title- of the Auditor-General’s Office appeared before a Senate committee and in fact said pretty much what the honourable member has stated, that is, that he knew of no advice from the Auditor-General to the Minister in such terms. I regret that I do not have the letter with me, but I understand that since that date the Deputy Secretary has written to the Leader of the Government in the Senate informing him that the Auditor-General had advised the Minister for Primary Industry that a precedent would be created, or words to that effect, and that there was therefore an obligation on me as Minister not to table the correspondence and the reports that had flowed between the Auditor-General’s Office and me and my Department. I have been totally consistent and, as usual, totally accurate and truthful on this matter right throughout. In respect of the outcome of this matter, I hope to receive a report and hope to be in a position to make a statement before the Parliament rises.

page 2698

QUESTION

AIR CARGO

Mr GOODLUCK:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

-Has the attention of the Minister for Transport been drawn to an advertisement in the Australian Financial Review and also, I believe, the Melbourne Age announcing a new and unique air cargo service to operate throughout Australia? Is the Minister aware that this Australian company intends to operate Hercules aircraft on charter from Alaska International Air, one of the world’s largest commercial operators, and that the matter has been under consideration by the Department of Transport for a number of months? As the service will not compete with Trans-Australia Airlines or Ansett Airlines of Australia, will the Minister, in the interests of Australia’s development, please indicate when approval will be given to proceed with the Australian certification of the Hercules aircraft to allow this innovative and much-needed service, particularly for Western Australia and Tasmania, to commence?

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

-The first thing I would like to do is wish the honourable member happy birthday and good luck. The answer to his question is that Cargomasters of Australia, in association with Alaska International Air, has applied to import Hercules aircraft. It is true to say that the application has been under consideration. There is a good reason why the Department has not moved on the application at this stage. We are in the process of negotiating a new two-airline agreement with the two domestic airlines, namely, TAA and Ansett. One of the objectives of the renegotiation of the two-airline agreement is the removal of freight from the matters which are covered by the agreement. Once that agreement is achieved, of course, the Department can give more concrete consideration to the application. However if approval were given there would still be a requirement in regard to certification relating to the . Australian standards before the licences would be granted to operate on our domestic routes and elsewhere. Certification will require the co-operation of the manufacturer in providing additional substantiating data and testing to establish whether the aircraft will comply with our standards.

Another aspect that would also need to be taken into account, as I understand it, is that as the consortium would involve foreign investment the joint venture would also be subject to approval by the Government after review by the Foreign Investment Review Board. I can assure the honourable gentleman that when the negotiations for the new two-airline agreement have been completed we can then get on with the job of giving serious consideration to this type of proposal.

Mr Armitage:

-Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I submit that when the Minister for Health referred to the birthday of the honourable member for Franklin he displayed prejudice because he did not mention the fact that today is the sixtieth birthday of the honourable member for Banks.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am sure that the House would want the Minister for Health to wish a happy birthday to both honourable members. It happens that it was the Minister for Transport who noted that it was the birthday of the honourable member for Franklin. If honourable gentlemen will resume their seats for a moment I intend to embarrass a young lady by indicating to the House that the new wife of the honourable member for Fadden is in the chamber.

Honourable members:

– Hear, hear!

page 2699

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Mr Keith Johnson proceeding to address a question to the Prime Minister-

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I am not prepared to allow the question to continue. I have no doubt that if I permitted it to continue there would be the likelihood of a breach of the Standing Orders and that is, that any reflection upon a member of the judiciary can only be made by a positive motion. If the honourable gentleman wishes to show me the text of his question I will look at it to see whether it is out of order.

page 2699

QUESTION

TELEVISION ADVERTISING OF FOODS FOR CHILDREN

Mr FRY:

– I direct my question to the Minister for Health. Is it true that the National Health and Medical Research Council has established a working party to inquire into television advertising of foods directed to children? If so, would the Minister indicate how this inquiry relates to the statement of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to the Senate on 18 May? In that statement he said:

  1. . additional regulations of programs or advertising in commercial and public broadcasting sectors are matters for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.

Will the Minister make it clear as to who has the final responsibility for television advertising for foods directed to children? Will the views of the working party of the National Health and Medical Research Council be given due recognition?

Mr MacKELLAR:
LP

– It is a fact that the National Health and Medical Research Council has established a working party to look into television advertising of foods, particularly at times during which children would be likely to be viewing television programs. Public advertisements have been placed and submissions have been brought forward to that working party. At this stage I have not received a report in relation to the work of the working party, but obviously due notice will be taken of any recommendations that may be made by it. I would only add to my answer by saying that voluntary codes which have been drawn up in relation to advertising, particularly in respect of pharmaceutical products and things of that nature have worked, I believe, extremely successfully. I look forward to receiving the report from the working party. Due weight will be given to its recommendations.

page 2700

QUESTION

JUDICIAL CONDUCT

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer to his statement made in this House on 29 April concerning the Chief Justice of Australia. Is the Prime Minister aware of correspondence tabled in this Parliament in September 1958 concerning a directorship in the Goodyear tyre company held by Sir Percy Spender, a former Liberal Party Minister and at that time a judge of the International Court of Justice? Did that correspondence include a letter from the then Prime Minister, Mr Menzies, to Mr Justice Spender in which Mr Menzies condemned the judge’s action? Have standards of judicial conduct insisted upon and imposed by Mr Menzies and the national government then been substantially lowered by this Government?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I have nothing to add to what has been said before in relation to this matter. It is quite plain that standards of judicial conduct have been maintained at a very high level in Australia over the years. I suggest that if the Opposition wishes to say something substantive it should say it in a substantive way.

page 2700

STUDENT ASSISTANCE ACT

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Education · Farrer · LP

Pursuant to section 35 of the Student Assistance Act 1973 I present a report on the operation of the Student Assistance Act in 1 979.

page 2700

ALBURY-WODONGA DEVELOPMENT ACT

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Education · Farrer · LP

-On behalf of my colleague, the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) and pursuant to section 32 of the Albury-Wodonga Development Act 1973 I present the sixth annual report of the AlburyWodonga Development Corporation 1979. Honourable members will recall that an interim version of the report was tabled on 14 November 1979.

page 2700

NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) ACT

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Education · Farrer · LP

-On behalf of my colleague, the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) and pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978 I table an agreement in relation to the provision of financial assistance to Western Australia in respect of projects in connection with the development and management of water resources in 1980.

page 2700

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr HURFORD:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr HURFORD:

-During Question Time the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) responded to an interjection from me during his answer to a question about developments in Hobart and then suggested at the end of his answer that I and other members of the Opposition were against such developments. This is totally misleading and misrepresents me and my colleagues. I was seeking, by my interjection, to expose the Government’s propaganda for what I consider it is- mere propaganda.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is now debating the issue. In which way was he misrepresented?

Mr HURFORD:

-I was misrepresented because it was suggested that I was against developments in Hobart. It was suggested that my colleagues also were against such developments. That, I believe, is wrong and I point to the record of the Labor Government between 1972 and 1 975. 1 point to actions that I have taken and that my colleague, the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), has taken today in regard to a conference on Antarctica. I point in particular to the developments relating to the headquarters of the Antarctic Division which we hope will be in Hobart. This was promoted by the Labor Government. I resent the Prime Minister’s statement.

page 2700

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Bounty (Refined Tin) Bill 1980. Bounty (Penicillin) Bill 1980.

Australian National Railways Amendment Bill 1 980.

Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill 1 980.

Bounty (Ships) Bill 1980.

Ship Construction Bounty Amendment Bill 1 980.

page 2701

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS (GRANTS) BILL 1980

Message received from the Senate agreeing to the amendment made by the House of Representatives at the request of the Senate to the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Bill 1980.

page 2701

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Message received from the Senate agreeing to the amendment made by the House of Representatives to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1 980.

page 2701

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received advice from the Government Whip that he has nominated Mr I. L. Robinson to be a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in place of Mr Thomson, the Minister for Science and the Environment.

page 2701

RESEARCH LABORATORY COMPLEXES

Report of Public Works Committee

Mr BUNGEY:
Canning

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969,I present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Research laboratory complexes for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Divisions of Applied Organic Chemistry and Materials Science at Clayton, Victoria.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2701

PROPOSED 35-HOUR WORKING WEEK

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received letters from both the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) and the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by Standing Order 107, I have selected the matter which in my opinion is the most urgent and important, that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Wilmot, namely:

The massive disruption to the Australian economy and the disastrous effect on future employment prospects which would flow from the introduction of the proposed 35-hour working week.

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

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

Mr BURR:
Wilmot

– It is noticeable that when this matter of public importance was proposed for discussion not one member of the Opposition rose to support discussion of what is without doubt the most important issue facing this country at the moment. The proposition of a 35-hour week is being promoted by a small group of politically motivated communist trade union officials who are endeavouring to cause maximum economic and social disruption in this country. Such a move would cause economic and social disruption and it should be identified as such.

It is well noted that the campaign is being promoted by that well-known Australian, Mr John Halfpenny. I do not think any of us need reminding of what are his political motivations.

Mr Neil:

– He is a communist.

Mr BURR:

– As my colleague, the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) has said, Mr Halfpenny is a well-known communist. There is no doubt that his activities are designed to promote the communist ambitions of creating social and economic disruption in this country. In promoting the campaign Mr Halfpenny made, very simplistically, the point that if we reduce the number of hours worked in Australia by five it would create more jobs for other people. That sounds very simplistic. What Mr Halfpenny did not say was who was going to bear the cost. What he claimed was that while the hours worked by workers in the country should be reduced to 35, they should still receive the pay they are currently receiving for 40 hours ‘ work.

Let me explain what that would cost this country and the effect it would have on employment because I am quite sure that honourable members on the opposite side have not taken account of the effect by way of cost and economic and social disruption in this country.

The cost per hour to the employer of an average metal worker who currently earns $180 a week is $4.50. That is a simple mathematical calculation. But if that worker were to reduce his hours of work to 35 but still receive $180 a week the hourly cost would increase to $5.14. However, it could be expected that he would still be required to produce the same amount of work. In other words, it would be necessary for him to work the additional five hours as overtime. If we take that into account his average wage, instead of being $180 a week, would be $218.52 or, in other words, a 2 1 . 4 per cent increase.

Mr Hodgman:

– A 2 1 .4 per cent increase?

Mr BURR:

– I assure my colleague the honourable member for Denison that it represents 21.4 per cent in wages. That is what this campaign is all about. The unions know, as do honourable members opposite, that this country cannot afford an increase of 21.4 per cent in wage costs. What would be the effect of such an increase? I wonder whether the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) has considered the effect of increasing wages by 21.4 per cent. It is claimed that if fewer hours are worked more employment will be created, but if the effect is also to increase wages by 2 1.4 per cent, the only logical thing that employers could do would be to put in more machines and technology and dismiss more workers. Those who currently have jobs would be in the dole queues. How can the unions, or honourable members opposite, explain to the wives and families of metal workers who currently have jobs that they should support the unions in this campaign when these workers are the ones who next year will be unemployed? How can one explain that? Yet that would be the effect of this campaign. It would not reduce present unemployment levels. It would simply cast thousands more onto the dole queues.

Let us face the fact that Australia is an exporting country. We rely on exports to keep our national economy moving. The claim has been made to the Industries Assistance Commission that our industries need protection from the output of low-cost industries in South East Asia. It is true that Australian industries do face quite severe competition from those countries, but if the unions are determined to increase the cost of production in Australia that must present a decided advantage to South East Asian producers and put Australian producers further and further behind the eight ball. That too must cause more unemployment in this country. I cannot understand how any logical person could try to persuade the people of Australia that this campaign would create employment. It can only have the sole effect of putting more and more people onto the dole queues and of sending more and more industries broke.

Let us face the fact that this campaign is being promoted by the communist-led trade union officials of the metal industry unions. Metal industry employees themselves should give very serious consideration to the fact that the only possible result of this campaign would be to put their jobs in jeopardy, to put more and more of them out of work, and bear that in mind later this year when the National Secretary of the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union,

Mr Carmichael, comes up for reelection. That will be their opportunity to show their disapproval of what their union leaders are trying to do- lead them by the nose into unemployment. They will then have the opportunity, through the ballot box, to put Mr Carmichael in the dole queue where I think that most Australians believe that he should be. That will be their opportunity and I believe that metal workers throughout Australia will take it and will show Mr Carmichael what they really think of him.

Mr Neil:

– They should give him a one-way ticket on a Russian cruise ship.

Mr BURR:

– I am sure that a one-way ticket on a Russian cruise vessel would be available to Mr Carmichael. I ask the honourable member for Port Adelaide, as I have on other occasions: What has happened to the old Australian Labor Party slogan of a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay? Where has that slogan gone? It is the thing that created the Australian Labor Party, that the unions fought for. I repeat, where has it gone? All that the unions seek now is more and more money for doing less and less work. Is this the Australian nation that we know? Is that part of our heritage? Do honourable members opposite want this country to develop into a country of bludgers? The only way in which this country will survive and prosper is by the hard work of its people. What we must promote for the sake of national prosperity is harder work- not less work but harder work. Only then will the country prosper. But that message is not coming from people on the other side of this chamber or, unfortunately, from the trade unions.

I wonder what the position of honourable gentlemen opposite really is on this matter. We have heard some conflicting statements from that side of the chamber. Last week the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) made a responsible statement in which he dissociated himself from the trade union movement when he made the claim- I believe he was putting one foot on each side of the fence- that the time was not ripe for the introduction of a 35-hour week. Can the time ever be ripe to do less work? Nevertheless, that is what the Leader of the Opposition said. He dissociated himself from the move for a 35-hour week.

However, last night we heard in this chamber the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) defending the unions. He told Parliament that it was ‘a creative and socially responsible campaign’. Is it creative and socially responsible to put more and more people in the dole queues? Is that what Australia fought the war for? How could that be socially responsible and creative? Yet that is what the honourable member for Reid would have this House believe. He went on to say:

There will be a major struggle in the industrial arena and eventually this will involve the process of arbitration.

Mr Hodgman:

– Revolution.

Mr BURR:

– Revolution, as my colleague from Denison says. The honourable member for Reid went on to say:

  1. . but the solidarity of the union movement in the 35-hour campaign shows that the workers will not be intimidated; that in the end it will be they themselves who will determine whether a 35-hour week is to be achieved.

That is quite true. I wish to inform the honourable member for Reid that it will be the workers who will come to the conclusion that a 35-hour week is irresponsible and ill-timed, that the country cannot support it and that they will not support their union leaders in the campaign for it. I believe also that Mr Carmichael will find that that will be expressed in clear terms when he stands for re-election.

I am still at a loss to know what the policy of the Australian Labor Party is on this matter. We have had conflicting statements from the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Reid. We have even had conflicting statements from the trade union movement. I believe that all honourable members, and people throughout Australia generally, have a right to know what the policy of the ALP is on this matter. I note that the honourable member for Port Adelaide is to follow me in this debate. I challenge him to make a clear and unequivocal statement concerning the policy of the ALP on the 35-hour week. If the honourable member has not the courage to make that clear and unequivocal statement, I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to come into this chamber and make it. The House has an obligation to know what is the policy of the Opposition, and the Australian people demand to know what it is. We want to know that because only then will the Australian people and the trade union rank and file members themselves be able to make a clear assessment as to who is putting forward the most responsible policies for this country. I challenge the honourable member for Port Adelaide and all members of his party to tell us what their policy is. We on this side of the House recognise that any policy which will reduce working hours and output from industry and which will increase the cost of production of goods must have the sole effect of putting more and more people out of work. We will not condone that. We will not advocate such a policy in any forum in this country. We will vigorously defend the right of people in this country to have and to hold a job. We will not put forward policies which will put people out of work. We intend to expose to everybody in Australia members of any group or organisation in this country who advocate such policies for the hypocrites that they are.

A radical ratbag of union officials, who at this stage do not have the support of their rank and file members, are trying to lead those members by the nose into what can only be disaster for those workers. The hypocrisy which those officials advocate must be exposed. Their campaign must be stopped because it can only have the effect of causing enormous social and economic disruption in this country. We have been given fair warning by the union movement that it intends to pursue this campaign vigorously. It is now the responsibility of all people throughout Australia to combine to tell the union movement that it does not lead this country. Now is the time for responsible Australian citizens, whether they be blue collar workers or workers at any level in society, whatever task they are engaged in, to defend themselves against this radical ratbag of union officials.

We accept that there must be a responsible union movement in this country, but it must be responsible to the point that it works in conjunction with Government and industry for the betterment of this country as a whole so that we can pass it on as a proud heritage to our children. We will not stand by and allow this radical ratbag to tear this country to pieces. This program for a 35-hour week which it has embarked on is grossly disruptive. It cannot be tolerated by any clear-minded and fair-thinking person in this country and it must be stopped. Before I conclude my contribution, I challenge the honourable member for Port Adelaide when he speaks to give us a clear and unequivocal statement of Australian Labor Party policy in this respect.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-Mr Deputy Speaker, like you, I had to sit through those painful 15 minutes of rhetoric which said absolutely nothing and which showed, as the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) said, that the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) has a vacuum between his ears and knows absolutely nothing.

Mr Garland:

– I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask that that be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-I ask the honourable member for Port Adelaide to withdraw the remark.

Mr YOUNG:

-I withdraw. The fact is that the debate about a shorter working week has been taking place in Australia for 100 years. It is not new and it will not go away. When the 35-hour week is achieved, there will be a claim for a 30-hour week. When the 30-hour week is achieved, there will be a claim for a 25-hour week. That is the history of what has occurred in Australia in the past, and with the introduction of technology at the pace at which it is being established in Australia, there can be no doubt that such claims will continue to come before the courts of this country.

Almost 28 years ago I had the very proud distinction of joining a union, the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia, for the first time. A few months later I became a member of the Australian Workers Union and a very active unionist, for six years as a rank and file member and for six years as an organiser in the union. I cannot recall ever having been to a union meeting, a conference of the unions, a meeting of delegates, a meeting of shop stewards, a meeting of officials of my union or a collective meeting of many other unions where we have not supported the concept of a shorter working week. It may be that all wisdom resides with the conservative forces in this country in that they say: ‘You can never have it’. The conservatives believe that we should still be working a 48-hour week, that we should never have shifted in the 1920s from a 48-hour week to a 44-hour week, that we should never have shifted in the 1940s from a 44-hour week to a 40-hour week and that in Australia between 1948 and 1980 we should have never have shifted conditions in that wide variety of industries in which workers now work less than 40 hours a week.

How much rot people speak about, this issue when they say that a 35-hour week would be for all the six million working people in Australia. Let me remind people listening to this debate that almost 40 per cent of our work force already works less than a 40-hour week. When the messenger comes round to deliver honourable members’ letters in their offices at Parliament House, honourable members should ask him how many hours a week he works. When honourable members get off a plane they should ask the people working at the airport what their hours are under their award. When they go to the docks they should ask anybody concerned with the stevedoring industry how many hours they work under their award. If they go to the power houses of Australia they should ask the workers in those establishments how many hours they work under their award. Who gave it to them?

That is a very important aspect, because the last time a shorter working week was granted in Australia, from 40 hours to 37 W hours, it was granted to the power house workers in Queensland by Joh Bjelke-Petersen. So, how much rot honourable members opposite speak when they talk about a 35-hour week.

It is the height of lunacy to try to debase the debate on this important issue by saying: ‘It would not happen except for the communists’. When I look at the seven names attached to the document of the metal unions- not just of metal workers but of the metal unions- I cannot see the name of one who is a communist. Those seven are Dick Scott, Laurie Short, Terry Addison, George Butcher, Cliff Dolan, Bob Cram and Eric Chamberlain who are all national officials of the unions. But, of course, honourable members opposite bring up the red herring of John Halfpenny and Laurie Carmichael. They can think of two names out of 500,000 people. As almost 40 per cent of workers in Australia already work less than a 40-hour week, the debate which is raging in Australia at the moment is: Should the metal unions, covering an additional 500,000 workers or perhaps roughly 9 per cent or 10 per cent of our work force, join the other 40 per cent in working less than 40 hours a week?

Mr Burr:

– What is your policy?

Mr YOUNG:

– I will give the honourable member my policy in a moment, because he is too dumb to read it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide will contain himself and withdraw the remark.

Mr YOUNG:

– I withdraw. It is a wonder that honourable members opposite do not listen to some of the company representatives. It is interesting to note what an official of IBM Australia Ltd, the company which is more responsible than any other for the introduction of new technology throughout the Western world, said in a speech recently in Western Australia. He stated:

Our working week would drop well below 30 hours by the year 2000. Old ideas like the S-day working week were fast becoming irrelevant. The question was not whether we have more leisure time but how. Computers were becoming so cheap, so smart and so popular that the employers’ buying spree had created a 2V4 year backlog of orders. Unemployment would hit Australian families even harder, no matter how fast we increased our national output of goods and services.

Where have the unions gone to talk about the matters which must be debated concerning a 3 5 -hour week? The unions involved on behalf of all people who work in the metal industry of Australia have gone to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to lodge their claim. They said: ‘We want to establish a 35-hour week and we are prepared to establish a claim before the court’. Does anybody in this chamber deny the right of the unions to go to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission with a claim of that nature? Of course they do not. The employers said: ‘When you go to the court to present your claim, we will go to the court to present our argument as to why your claim should be dismissed ‘, in very much the same way they have done in respect of almost every case that has been presented. Let me quote the words of the court itself when in 1948 it granted a general reduction in working hours to all workers in Australia. I hope honourable members opposite keep them in mind. It said:

History has invariably proved the forebodings of employers to be unfounded.

History has shown that employers’ forebodings have generally proved to be incorrect. All the doom and gloom that was predicted in 1948 about the 40-hour working week did not eventuate. All the doom and gloom predicted about what would happen to our economy if we reduced the working hours for all the people for whom working hours have now been reduced did not occur. The other important fact we have to remember is that we have half a million people out of work. There are a lot of genuine workers in Australia who believe that work ought to be shared, that everybody might get an opportunity to work if the six million people who are working worked less hours. This is a genuine feeling held among working people in this country. But this may be a long process.

We on this side of the House recognise the dispute over the 35-hour, 37^-hour or 38-hour working week. I will go through the arguments in a minute. The honourable member for Wilmot has been yelling out for 15 minutes: ‘Tell us your policy, tell us your policy, tell us your policy’. Let me just tell him our policy in very simple terms. I will quote from page 95 of the Australian Labor Party Platform Constitution and Rules which is available in every well-known bookshop in Australia. The document states:

Changes in the length, organisation and pattern of working life provide scope for increases in living standards as well as increased efficiency in industry through changed work practices. Examination of the potential for increased leisure tor wage and salary earners or changed life styles based on reduced hours of work and changed work practices should be encouraged at the industry level.

Further on, we state:

Labor believes that collective bargaining along these lines can yield increases in productivity which are not at the expense of normal national productivity gains and as such, asserts the right of employees to share in increases in national productivity whether by increased real wages, reductions in national standard working hours, increased annual leave or long-service leave or improved standards of superannuation.

Honourable members opposite recognise that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in making a decision will have to sum up such considerations as whether there will be any additional burden on industry. All it has done at the moment has been to ask the parties to this dispute to confer. The parties at the moment- the employers and employees- are conferring while this Parliament tries to bestow its influence on what it thinks should happen. So both the parties to the case are going before the Commission. Unless the Labor Party does something the little baby in the gallery who is now crying will not get a job. So honourable members opposite need not worry. That little baby will be crying a lot more when it is 18 years old unless we do something because honourable members opposite are going to sit on their backsides for the next 20 years and do nothing.

We are told that the campaign for a shorter working week was peculiar to Australia, that only the communists in Australia are pushing for a 35-hour week. It may interest honourable members to know that the decision to go for a reduced working week throughout the Western world was taken at the international level of the metal unions. Every metal union in western Europe now has a campaign under way for reduced working hours. They are putting up with the same sort of bargaining with the employers. They have already broken through in some countries and are working less than 40 hours a week. I suspect it is said in those countries: ‘Unless we stay at 40 hours we will not be able to compete with Australia. ‘ In Australia it is said: Unless we stay at 40 hours we will not be able to compete with France’. It may be that as the debate progresses all the countries will reduce their working hours at the same time because this is an international campaign. The Labor Party has not tried to make up the mind of the Commission in giving its decision. The 40-hour working week decision was given after a two-year inquiry. Some of the people in the trade union movement who have made a 35-hour working week claim have compromised to the extent of going to 38 hours or 37Vi hours. It may interest the dummies opposite to know -

Mr Hodgman:

-Oh, Golliwog!

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member for Port Adelaide is exceeding the limit of parliamentary language.

Mr YOUNG:

-What about telling Martha Mitchell, the mouth from the south, to sit at the back of the chamber?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Denison is certainly not entitled to interject from the front bench any more than he would normally be entitled to do so from his proper place in the chamber. I call the honourable member for Port Adelaide.

Mr YOUNG:

– I seek leave of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) to incorporate in Hansard a list of awards prepared by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. This 15 page document contains a list of awards under which employees throughout Australia work less than 40 hours a week. I seek leave to have this document incorporated in Hansard so that everyone reading Hansard can look at how many people are involved already in working less than 40 hours a week.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Garland:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr YOUNG:

-The Minister will not grant leave because he is not interested in having a debate on this subject. Honourable members opposite just want to rant and rave. But let us have a look at another aspect.

Mr Garland:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. There is a long-standing convention of this House that honourable members show the Minister in the House what they wish to be incorporated in Hansard. I was not asked earlier. I have no intention of allowing 1 5 pages to be inserted in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Minister has declined the request.

Mr YOUNG:

-My friend, the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones), has just made the point that Australian workers got the 40-hour week in 1948 and that in France the workers got the 40-hour week in 1936. It is a wonder the economy of France did not collapse. I will tell honourable members something else: People on the job are reading about, want some explanation of and a sharing of the profit levels of some major companies in this country. If we look at some of the 60 or 70 major companies in this country, we find that in the first quarter this year their profits are up by 43.6 per cent. Someone on the job in the metal industry in Australia who reads that the Broken Hill company has made another $400m or $500m, that Utah has made $500m or $600m and that another company has made $700m or $800m is entitled to say: ‘Should not we share in part of that wealth; after all we are doing the job?’

I pose a question to the honourable member for Wilmot because it may be, with his talent, he will not be in the Parliament very much longer. When he returns to work- I take it that he is an unskilled person- he will be doing a job with his hands. He will be saying this: ‘Am I as important as a bank clerk, an insurance clerk or a public servant? Am I doing something as worth while for Australia as all those people?’ The honourable member might reach the conclusion that has been reached by many tradesmen such as fitters, boilermakers and sheet metal workers. He might decide that he is as important in Australia as they are. He might reach the conclusion that if he is as important to the economy as all of those people I have mentioned, why should he work more hours than they do. Why should he be working 40 hours a week while other people are working 36% hours a week?

Irrespective of what the conservatives of this country say, this debate on a shorter working week will continue. It may be that employers and the metal unions will compromise. They might go to 39!4 hours. The Commission might decide that it is not the time for a decision to be made. It might decide it can go to 35 hours. But, as Bill Hayden has said, the union has every right to present its case to the Commission.

Mr Burr:

– But what is your policy?

Mr YOUNG:

– Our policy is this: Inasmuch as productivity, and the welfare of the people of this country are concerned, we recognise shorter working hours as being a legitimate objective of the community of this country. We are not going to run away from it because that has been the background of most people on this side of the House. We are not going to run away from that position.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr PORTER:
Barker

– It is a shame. My colleague, the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr), asked the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) one question, namely, whether he was in favour of this current campaign, but the honourable member happily evaded giving an answer. The honourable member spoke for 15 minutes but did not say whether he is in favour of a 35-hour working week. He said that the 35-hour week will undoubtedly come in time. We are not questioning that at all. What we are saying is that this country cannot afford a 35-hour working week at this time.

It is interesting to note that the honourable member mentioned those people who are working a shorter working week than 40 hours. He said that these people included workers on the waterfront, in the power industries and in telecommunications. That is quite right. All these workers are working in non -competitive industries. They do not have to compete against overseas industries. What about the employment effect of shorter working weeks? What about the unemployment that has been caused by shorter working weeks? Was it not Mr Crean, a former colleague of the honourable member, who said that one man’s pay rise costs another man his job? Is that not a very basic philosophy that we all understand and believe? But no, the honourable member for Port Adelaide is running away from that one. We know one man in this place who has stood up for the Opposition and has said what he believes to be the truth at this time.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), as reported yesterday in the Australian Financial Review told the Australian Colleges of Advanced Education conference in Brisbane that shorter hours would be more likely to increase unemployment than to reduce it. We asked the honourable member for Port Adelaide one question: Did he agree with that or did he not? We did not get an answer. Of course we did not get an answer; like dancing, the honourable member is very quick on his feet, and he does not want to give the answer. Apparently, though, he was not so silent yesterday in the party room. A media report this morning stated:

The debate in yesterday’s executive meeting was led by Tom Uren who described Mr Hayden’s statements on the 35-hour week as pompous and warned that they would be used against the Party by the Government. He was followed by Mick Young who also took a strong stand against Mr Hayden’s statements.

Mr Neil:

– Stabbed him in the back.

Mr PORTER:

-I think that is probably quite right. The report continued:

Several other members of the front bench also spoke against his stand -

That is the stand of the Leader of the Opposition- but they argued in terms of the issues rather than personalities. Among them were Lionel Bowen, Ralph Willis, Paul Keating, Moss Cass and Ted Innes. For while many members of the front bench concede that Mr Hayden is right in saying that economically and politically a 35-hour week’s not on, they question the wisdom of taking such a stand publicly in the very week the campaign was launched by the trade union movement.

It is interesting that that same media report later stated:

Dick Klugman . . . supported Mr Hayden, saying that in his experience with small industries the 35-hour week would cost jobs, not create them.

Is that not what we are concerned about? That same honourable member for Port Adelaide continually stands in here harassing the Government, saying that we are not doing anything about unemployment. That in itself is wrong and yet he came in here today and said: ‘Oh no, we support a shorter working week. We support the unions demand for a 35-hour week.’ Yet one of his colleagues quite rightly has said that that will cause more unemployment. Quite frankly, what is the Australian public supposed to understand from the stand that has been taken by the Opposition?

Mr Chapman:

– They are divided, as always.

Mr PORTER:

-There is no doubt that the Opposition is divided, and I think it is understandable for the public of Australia to be utterly confused. On the other hand let me just put the Government’s position. We have been absolutely consistent over this matter for a very long time. On 24 April this year the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) said:

The Commonwealth is strongly opposed to a general reduction in working hours at this time.

Let me go back a year to 27 March 1979. The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street), when discussing the shorter working hours being brought in by the New South Wales Government in the power industry, said:

It is against this background that the Government is disturbed- indeed disgusted- at the irresponsible, presumably politically expedient decision of the New South Wales Government to introduce shorter working hours in the New South Wales Power Industry.

The Minister went on, and I think this is interesting:

  1. . the Government strongly believes that the benefits of any productivity improvements should not be confined to particular groups of workers. To do so is totally inequitable. It should be distributed for the welfare of the whole community through general wage adjustments, by lower prices or improved standards of service.

No one on this side of the House would contradict that. We obviously agree that if we can afford shorter working hours for the whole of the community, if we all benefit, then let us have them. If the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission at its national wage fixing hearings agrees to that, obviously that will be of benefit for all workers. But why should one section of industry benefit and so disadvantage all the other sections, and, indeed, disadvantage Australia ‘s competitive position? I think it is very important to note that the honourable member for Port Adelaide criticised the Government and said that it was not doing the right thing. At noon today figures came from the Statistician relating to our increased exports from the manufacturing industries. We said five years ago that we wanted to correct the direction in which the economy was heading, to increase our productivity, to increase employment, and to regain Australia’s trading position in the world.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– You cannot increase productivity and employment. It is a contradiction in terms.

Mr PORTER:

-I know that the honourable member has difficulty with these very basic matters. Let me continue. On the basis of the figures released at noon today by the Statistician, manufactured exports rose by 37.1 per cent in the first nine months of 1979-80, compared with the same period in 1978-79. At long last Australia is getting back into the position it was in before the Labor Party took government in this country some eight years ago. We are starting to move ahead. What does the Labor Party want to do? It wants to blow it all. At long last we are starting to become competitive and to increase employment in this country, and members of the Opposition turn around and say that we have to reduce our working hours in the industries in which we hope to export, the industries in which we have to compete with the rest of the world. We know what would be the result of the 35-hour week campaign. We would have increased pressure from imports. What will that do to employment in this country? Already we are having difficulty with our import-competing firms and industries, and they are battling on. In my electorate a 3 5 -hour week would mean the end of some of the small firms in the regional centres. They would be put out of business, and that would mean that those people would go on the unemployment heap.

The honourable member for Port Adelaide does not seem to care. He thinks more of those in his union who support him and who happen to be in work. He says: ‘Oh, they ought to have a 35-hour week. ‘ What about the rest of the people in Australia? Not everyone will get it first up, and those who do will obviously put others out of work. It is those people, the rest of community, about whom we are concerned. As I said before, we are just starting to become competitive, and the Opposition wants to blow it all. As the honourable member for Wilmot has said, the other effect is that the increase in wages and the increase in costs to the manufacturing industry would be enormous. I think his figure was 2 1 per cent. Who on earth can absorb a 2 1 per cent increase in one year in costs of production? What would that mean? Australia is about the third lowest on the international table of inflation amongst all our Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Dvelopment partners. Where would we go? We go up into the league of Italy, which has a 20 per cent inflation rate. I know that the honourable member for Port Adelaide is used to that sort of figure. Inflation was up around that figure when his Government was in power. We cannot afford the 35-hour working week in Australia now, and this Government stands dead against it.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am a little ashamed of the addresses made so far to the chamber. The only sense that has been spoken in this debate has been spoken by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). The interjections from this side of the chamber have been more intelligent than the addresses made to it. The speeches that were made by the two younger people- I use that term advisedly and with respect- would have done credit to those in the 17th century who complained that children were stuffed up chimneys and put to work in factories. Exactly the same sort of argument was put forward that if the children were taken out of the factories and they stopped pushing kids up chimneys, the country would go broke and the economy would not stand it, and what would they do then?

I happen to be a little older than the honourable member for Port Adelaide and, for that reason, I have been a member of a trade union longer than he has. In fact, I have been a trade union member for nearly 35 years. I suppose I can trade a year for an hour, because 35 years ago we were talking about a 35-hour week in the trade union movement and we have continued to do so. Both the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) and the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) said that there was some sort of equivocation on this side of the chamber about where the Labor Party stood on the 35-hour week. I acknowledge that they are both slow learners, but the honourable member for Port Adelaide read out the general principles of the Australian Labor Party. The general principle is that where more leisure time is available for workers that time ought to be given to them. I say to the honourable member for Wilmot that a 35-hour week and 40-hour week and 44-hour week were not granted here. That matter will be determined by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission after all parties, and the Government if it so wishes, have argued before it. Therefore, all that can be achieved by raising the matter in this chamber today is that it be given a general airing. We will never get down to the specific details of whether the claim for a 35-hour week is justified by members of that sector of the community still working 40 hours a week.

The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) spoke about high productivity creating employment. By interjection, the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) pointed out that that is a contradiction in terms.

Mr Porter:

– He picked the wrong one.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I am sorry but that is what the honourable member said. I am sorry that he said it because it is the most stupid thing that has ever been said in this chamber. High productivity is a term that is used to define high output by a worker. Consequently, if one is getting higher output from each worker why would one need to employ more people? Those two things cannot go together and, therefore, must be contradictory. The honourable member for Wilmot used the old cliche that this nation was built on hard work. Of course it was. When Australia was settled 200 years ago there were no bulldozers. If there had been they would have been used. The honourable member mentioned also the old cliche: ‘A fair day’s work for a fanday’s pay’. By inference he is setting himself up as a judge as to what is a fair day’s pay. That statement is as old as my grandmother and it falls to the ground. It is about as virile as my old grandmother who, God rest her soul, is now deceased.

The reason for discussing this matter of public importance is pretty obvious. It has become quite clear to everybody in the chamber. Honourable members opposite spoke about Australia relying on its exports for survival. I suppose that they know that most of Australia’s exports are from primary or extractive industries. Neither of those industries is noted for its high employment of people.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Only 7 per cent overall.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I am informed that 7 per cent of the total work force is engaged in primary and extractive industries- our two biggest exporters. Honourable members opposite say that because a small group of metal workers are seeking a 35-hour week it will destroy the economy of the country as our exports will not be able to compete. Our exports have nothing to do with metal workers. It is about time that a little common sense was injected into the argument. It is about time that a few facts were delivered in this chamber rather than the rhetoric to which we have been subjected this afternoon. It is about time that it is understood by those honourable members opposite that the matter will be determined in another place anyhow. That is not to deny this chamber the opportunity to debate the matter. It ought to be debated in a much better and more full way than by it being raised as a matter of public importance. It rather denigrates the whole debate. It is a serious debate. The honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) has already pointed out in the chamber that a very large group of employees in Australia already work less than 40 hours each week. All that is proposed is that this be the case also for a small group of metal workers.

The honourable member for Wilmot, in seeking to interject, questioned whether I support the campaign for a 35-hour week. Of course I do! I supported the 35-hour week 35 years ago. I have consistently supported it for 35 years and I still support it. But I will not make the final decision on the matter, and that is where the difference lies. The decision will be made by a judge and his fellow judges after evidence has been led. A decision will be made on the basis of whether the evidence is sound. There is no doubt in my mind that it will be found that the evidence of the trade unions is sound and their request will be granted. The prophets of doom who sit opposite will find that what they are saying is not true. Honourable members opposite give an explanation of the unemployment problem. They should go to court to argue that everybody should work a 48 hour week. If a 35-hour week will increase unemployment, surely making people work a 48 hour week will reduce unemployment? That is about the strength of their argument; it is as silly as that.

If honourable members opposite were sincere that is what they would be arguing. But they are not arguing that at all. Because a union is pursuing a policy that it has had for at least 35 years- as the honourable member for Port Adelaide pointed out, not in isolation but as an international campaign by the trade union movement- honourable member’s opposite see something sinister in it. They know the names of only two communists in Australia. If they see me later I will give them the names of another dozen. They could then use those names for a change. They have to bring in Halfpenny and Carmichael to make the whole thing sound like an evil international plot that came out of

Moscow or somewhere else. This is quite ridiculous. This matter is being taken up right around the world, irrespective of the political colour of the countries involved.

There seems to be some sort of misapprehension about low wages necessarily bringing about low product costs. I am only temporarily in Australia as I am going away again. The sacrifices that I make in the interests of my country are remarkable!

Mr Burr:

– Are you going to get another trip before the Left tosses you out, Keith?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Yes. During the course of my last journey I stayed one night at a hotel in Singapore. Honourable members opposite might be interested to know that I paid 70 a night for accommodation and breakfast for my wife and me. Singapore has not the highest paid employees working in its hotels. I paid less than that to stay at a hotel in London which was of equal style with much more highly paid employees. If honourable members care to check the list of international hotels and their prices they will find, paradoxically, that the highest prices for accommodation in the world are in those countries with the lowest wage rates. So there is no relationship in the argument concerning wage rates and other things.

Unit costs are reduced by output- using equipment, manpower or anything else. It does not matter whether a man or a machine is used. How much each unit costs depends on the number of products a man can make. Wages are not terribly relevant. All that the boss has to do is speed up the machine so that more products pop off the end of the line with fewer people being employed.

Mr Burr:

-That is right.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I know that it is right. That puts lie to the argument of honourable members opposite that people do not work hard. It puts lie to the argument that a reduction in workers will automatically bring about an increase in costs. It is a terribly simple argument to take five hours from 40 hours and say that that is 12 Viper cent -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. The discussion is concluded.

page 2710

STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Education · Farrer · LP

-Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) 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:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these two measures?

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a brief comment in that regard. The States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill are major Bills and concern a very important area of education in Australia. The custom of having cognate debates in this way is reducing our capacity to discuss these matters fully. I hope that we will have an examination of the process to ensure that when we reach positions such as this we treat each Bill as a significant piece of legislation and have an opportunity to discuss them separately and directly.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-There being no dissent, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr FIFE (Farrer-Minister for Education) -by leave- In my second reading speech on the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1980 1 informed the House of a new condition, contained in the Bill, that universities and colleges of advanced education pay salaries in accordance with the recommendations of the Academic Salaries Tribunal. Since the Bill was introduced I have had further consultation about the terms of the condition and have decided that amendments are necessary. As the legislation now stands the States would be required to ensure that no university or college of advanced education made salary payments in excess of those recommended by the Academic Salaries Tribunal. Taken literally this would mean that a State could need to take measures necessary to overturn industrial awards and contracts where these required institutions to pay salaries in excess of the recommendations of the Academic Salaries Tribunal.

The amendments to clauses 4 and 8 will provide a mechanism for ascertaining the extent to which institutions may not be observing the salary rates recommended by the Academic Salaries Tribunal. The mechanism involves an extension of existing audit arrangements for which the States are responsible. The mechanism will require the States to ensure that audited statements are provided to the Tertiary Education Commission which certify, in respect of 1981, either that salary rates or scales for categories of prescribed staff have been in accordance with the recommendations of the Academic Salaries Tribunal or the salary rates or scales which have been used to pay those categories of prescribed staff. The deletion of Clause 18 is consequential to the amendments of clauses 4 and 8. The amendments do not make provision for the reduction of any grant should the auditor certify that in respect of 1981 there has been an overpayment of salary. This is because the auditor’s certificate relating to 1981 can only be provided in 1982 and it is therefore only practicable to provide for a reduction of the 1982 grant. However, until legislative provision is made for grants in respect of 1982 it is not possible to make provision for the Minister to reduce grants in respect of that year. I wish to make it plain that it is the Government’s firm intention that the legislation appropriating grants to the States for tertiary education for 1 982 and beyond will contain a provision for the reduction of grants where overpayment occurs in the preceding year. I expect that legislation to be introduced during the Budget sittings in 1 98 1 .

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

-The States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill are basically machinery Bills to provide additional funding to help to keep pace with the increasing costs of the educational institutions. Whilst the Opposition does not oppose the Bills, the debate provides us with an opportunity to make some observations in general terms about the policy of this Government and, if I might say so, about the miserable, tight-fisted approach by the Government in matters of education. As far as schools are concerned it is quite clear that the needs policy that the Labor Party instituted when it came into government in 1972 has gone out the window. With the establishment of the Schools Commission we dramatically increased the amount of funding for schools, particularly schools in poorer circumstances. The allocation of funds was based upon the needs principle. With the Schools Commission classifying the schools throughout the country, we channelled most of the funds to the poorer schools. Some funds went to most of the schools. It was only the very rich schools that got nothing or very little.

Of course, that conflicts with the basic policy, the elitist approach, of the present LiberalNational Country Party Government. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has said that the private wealthy schools produce the leaders of the nation. No wonder that is the case when those schools are so much better off than the general run of schools within the community. All that is achieved by the channelling of extra funds to the richer schools is the maintenance of the difference, the encouragement through the education system of the maintenance of the condemnation of children in the poorer schools to a sort of second-class status in the community. When, under the Labor Government, the Schools Commission raised the level of assistance for schools there was so much to deal with that we were unable to deal with some areas of particular disadvantage to the extent to which need would suggest funds should be directed to those areas. One such area was that of the immigrant children in the education system- in fact, the whole inadequacy of the multicultural education program in a country which, whether it likes it or not, must be a multicultural society. Australia is a multicultural society if we measure it simply in terms of the people from a range of different countries in the world who now make up the Australian community.

I will not discuss the general education areas; I will leave that to my colleagues. I will concentrate, if I may, on the special needs in the area of immigrant children education. The Labor Party has recognised the problems. Senator Button, our spokesman on education, has distributed a paper entitled: ‘Education for a Multicultural Society’. I would like to quote from that paper. It is a discussion paper, a green paper, which was put out by the Labor Party to try to analyse the problems. We are putting out such papers across the whole spectrum of policies for a future Labor government. We show what we consider to be the problems and the inadequacies of the system and we provide suggestions on how these difficulties may be overcome. In the area of education for the children of immigrants, Senator Button comments that a large number of reports have been made, all of which present what he terms a uniformly depressing situation. He states:

Children of immigrants are severely disadvantaged by lack of special facilities, trained language teachers and bureaucratic inefficiency. Ratios of teachers of English as a Second Language to children of non-English speaking immigrants range from-

These figures are terrible; honourable members should listen carefully to them- 1:1241 in Victoria-

Which would seem to be pretty awful- to 1 : 1 360 in Western Australia.

A 1977 ACER survey indicated that 10 per cent of the children of immigrants do not understand English and 35 per cent require remedial assistance. This is not restricted to students from overseas. Of the sample, only 22 per cent of the ten year old students and 34 per cent of the fourteen year old students were born outside Australia; . . .

So a significant proportion of these disadvantaged children were born in the country but they suffer because their parents come from overseas, because their parents do not speak English fluently- their native tongue is not English. We do not learn English just at school. Most of us learn most of our language skills at home, out of the school environment. School can be but a support. In circumstances where children come from homes where English is not taught all the time they suffer. They are unable to keep up with their fellow students at school. They must inevitably fall behind. Some of the labels attached to them suggest that immigrant children are less intelligent than others or that they are discipline problems. The reality is that those children are quite likely to be every bit as intelligent as any other child in the class and may well be more intelligent, but because they do not understand they lose heart. They tune out because it is just impossible to tune in when they do not understand properly. Finally, particularly if they are intelligent, they become bored and in their boredom they start doing the things that any bored child does, which is inevitably seen by the teacher as the child becoming a discipline problem. An Australian Department of Education inquiry into migrant schools comments:

For the immigrant child, education ‘stops dead’ until he masters English. He could be learning a great deal about his new country, about science and mathematics, et cetera by studying these in his own communication medium while learning English at the same time.

But we completely ignore those comments. A very good story is told of a tertiary institution in Adelaide providing courses for teachers in multicultural education. Students rolled up to the first lecture and took their seats. The lecturer came in and started the lecture by speaking in Greek and did not speak one word of English for the whole session. The students were all adults and trained teachers. They were there to learn about multicultural education. They fidgeted in their seats and felt rather embarrassed. At the end of the lecture the lecturer walked out. He said goodbye to them in Greek. The students discussed what had happened and thought that that was a fairly good demonstration. It was a bit embarrassing and made the point well. They turned up for the next lecture and the same thing happened. Not one word of the lecture was spoken in English. The lecturer spoke Greek. Then they got the point which was: How could they expect a migrant child who does not understand English not to be totally demoralised in a situation like that. By that time- at the end of the second lecture- most of the teachers recognised that they were pretty demoralised and pretty stupid.

In Richmond, which is an inner suburb of Melbourne, three principals of schools in that area wrote a letter to the Age newspaper. In that letter they said:

With Commonwealth Government statements that thousands of refugees are expected in Australia in 1979, the education prospects of those of school age become increasingly hopeless.

The Galbally Review of Post-arrival Programs and Services to Migrants, honourable members will recall, was a committee set up by the Liberal-National Country Party Government. In its report it expressed extreme diffidence as to the adequacy of its funding recommendations; in other words its own funding recommendations. It said:

On the evidence available, the funding might need to be doubled if all existing needs were to be met . . .

The report continued: as more precise information becomes available the Government may see the need to increase expenditure even further.

It did not count on how blind the Government would be because it has proved to be quite blind to these needs. An appropriate program for immigrant children should include the fostering of community language teaching, modification of school curricula to make these more responsive to multi-cultural needs and the provision of liaison officers to work with and to develop links between ordinary schools and ethnic community schools.

We need to provide community language teaching in schools for two significant reasons. We make efforts to teach immigrant children English in order to help their families survive and in order to ensure that those children can maintain communications with their own peers. But it has been found that because of their efforts to concentrate on learning English, with the peer pressure from their fellow students and the insults they often collect because they do not understand English adequately, and so are made to feel foolish by school mates, these children often stop speaking their native tongue. They lose the capacity to communicate with their parents and grandparents and this leads to enormous and painful disruptions in their families.

Increasing numbers of the ethnic communities who once thought that the important thing was just to learn English are now recognising that it is important that their sons and daughters should not only learn English, but also they should be able to maintain a knowledge of their native tongue. That is why there has been a dramatic increase in ethnic community schools, the afterschool schools and the Saturday and Sunday schools where these children sit, when their playmates are outside playing, struggling to maintain their knowledge of their native tongue. That is one reason why we need to teach languages in schools so that those children can, within school hours, maintain a knowledge of their own language.

In addition, and just as significant in my view, is a need to allow English speaking children to learn community languages so that when they leave school they will not be in the position which children are in today. The migrant children, I hope, given extra tuition in English and given tuition in their own tongue, will leave school being bi-lingual whilst the poor old ocker Australian children will finish up just speaking English and not speaking it all that well because they will not have had special tuition as they are not migrant children and there is a shortage of teachers to provide extra tuition for children who are falling behind. They will just have to make do. They will not be able to understand any language except English. In that situation Australian children with an English speaking background will finish up educationally disadvantaged. For those reasons the Labor Party thinks it is important to start a program of community language teaching in schools.

The Opposition thinks that the original amounts recommended by the Galbally report for English as a second language and multicultural educational needs are insufficient for the magnitude and the backlog that we have to overcome. There is a need to make a further commitment for a greatly increased amount of money for the 1982-84 triennium. As a quote from the newspaper // Globo suggests there does appear to be something radically wrong with English as a second language program. Not only has the level of funding been declared inadequate- the migrants see that- but also the effectiveness, educational methodology, training of teachers, its operation within the education system and the teaching materials and methods are being increasingly criticised.

In the first year of a Labor government an investigating committee will be set up. This committee will include representatives from the ethnic communities. This committee will report on ways to implement the needed reforms in the programs so that with the increased funding available in 1982 they will be effectively applied. No longer should we maintain the patronising attitude where we know what is good for the immigrants. It is time that we started asking them what they think and what they feel about things. Then, and only then, can we look forward to the reasonable development of a multicultural society.

Let me now turn to the levels of tertiary education assistance and the likely levels of schools grants which is largely a machinery matter, ostensibly to maintain adequate funding for these institutions based on the commitments of the Government at the time when the original amounts were allocated in the Budget. But of course, the Bill does not do that. At the same time, it simply highlights, when one looks at the whole area, the lack of initiative by this present Government and, in essence, the continual tightening of the financial screws on colleges and universities. In this situation, what is it that suffers? What suffers are the teaching methods and particularly research. Professor Low, writing in the Australian National University journal recently said:

The tragedy is that reductions have in the end to be borne at the expense of the university’s prime activities in teaching and research.

The Tertiary Education Commission has drawn attention to this. Its 1979-81 report, Volume I, page 76 stated:

The proportion of universities’ recurrent expenditure devoted to research activities has steadily declined.

Last year the universities received some $12m less than the sum recommended by the TEC. This was not cut back uniformly over the whole spectrum of university activities. For example, non-academic employees received wage increases under State awards. These, of course, had to be paid by the universities and colleges. That inevitably meant that funding available in other areas of the university had to be cut or squeezed. There are other sources of research funds such as the Australian Research Grants Committee and the National Health and Medical Research Council. Let us look at some of the funds available in these areas. In 1976-77 the National Health and Medical Research Council received $ 12.5m. That miserable sum has been increased to a mere $ 14m in 1979-80. When we consider the rate of inflation, that is a significant reduction. The research grants funding amounted to $15m in 1976-77. It has been reduced to $13.9m in 1979-80. Need I say more about that?

Let us look at the funding of medical research in Australia compared with funding in other countries. When one equates annual expenditure per head of population a year with the expenditure via institutions in other countries which are similar to the National Health and Medical Research Council, one finds that whereas the figure in Australia is $550,000, in Canada the figure is $ 1.44m, in France the figure is $890,000 which is significantly higher, in New Zealand, our close neighbour, the figure is $1.3m, Sweden, $1.13m and the United States of America, $6.4m. I remind honourable members that our expenditure is $550,000 per head of population. That is enormously greater expenditure on this sort of research.

Various inquiries, such as the Jackson Committee, the Crawford study group and the Australian Science and Technology Council, have endorsed support for more research and development as a necessary part of industrial growth in Australia. It is interesting to note that that view receives support from none other than the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch). He is quoted in the Age on 18 December 1979 as saying that there has been a disturbing trend in Australian industry to cut funds for research and development. To that I can only say ‘hear, hear’. The article stated:

He said research and development manpower fell 40 per cent in the same period -

That is, from 1973 to 1976- an annual loss of 5,200 man years. The trend continued in 1977-78.

Mr Lynch said if the trend continued Australia’s chance of increasing technological exports and taking full advantage of the growth opportunities of the 80s would be limited.

He said: ‘I believe we cannot afford to risk our future in this fashion’.

Those observations were made by a member of the Liberal Party Government. Let us look at what is the end result of this miserable approach in terms of our manpower. Mr Lynch touches on it -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-The honourable member will refer to the Minister by his correct title.

Dr CASS:

– The Minister touches on it. Let us look at the effect of this cut in funding on manpower which was hinted at by the Minister. I quote from a letter which appeared in the

National Times on 20 January 1979. The letter stated:

SIR, We write to you out of a deepening concern for the scientific climate in Australia.

We are currently engaged in post-doctoral fellowships in the USA and have been viewing our returns to Australia with decreasing enthusiasm. From our somewhat isolated position we cannot be certain of the true situation but from reading your paper it seems that both money for research and jobs for scientists are drying up fast.

In view of the worsening climate at home we can understand the feelings of the many Australians who decide to remain in the USA to pursue their scientific interests.

I understand that the letter was signed by two research scientists working in Wyoming, United States of America. In other words, by this niggardly policy being pursued by the present Liberal Government, in essence we are promoting a brain drain from this country. This is occurring at a time when even members on the Government side are saying increasingly that we must increase our competitive stance in relation to the rest of the world, that we must make our industries more efficient and so on. If that is true it means that we have to better understand technology. We have to develop better technology which is suited to Australia. That can be done only by people working in Australia. It is best done that way. The policy which the Government is pursuing in respect of education is achieving the exact opposite. It will diminish our capacity to survive in an increasingly difficult world where, with the progress of technology as it is, we will increasingly be placed at a disadvantage. We will increasingly assume the posture of an underdeveloped country.

The Opposition has declared in a paper entitled ‘Research in Universities and Colleges’ which was released by the Opposition shadow Minister for Education, Senator Button, that the Opposition would substantially increase special funds for research in universities. If the Australian Labor Party were in office it would increase the funds available to the Australian Research Grants Committee and the NHMRC. We would encourage the development of specialised research institutes in universities, devoted to particular topics of national importance. A Labor Government would contract out research projects to industry and tertiary institutions as a stimulus to this effort. It is important to recognise that whilst one can and should expect industry to do a lot of research- the Opposition has said that it would contract out research projects to industry- the bulk of research in this country still is carried on within the universities and colleges of advanced education. That has been the case in this country for a long time. I do not want to enter into an argument as to why it should be so. It is simply a fact.

It is not likely that massive subsidies granted only to industries would overcome the problem. Therefore, in order to maintain the position that we have had in the past and if we are to build Australia into a modern society in the next decade- we have had a fairly respectable position, particularly through the research efforts of our universities and the Commonwealth and Scientific Industrial Research Organisation; Australia has a reasonable reputation for initiative enterprise in the scientific area- we need more trained people, not fewer. We need more trained people in these institutions and more outside them. If our industries are to become efficient we need more people with tertiary training who have been exposed to research approaches and techniques and who can encourage the development of lateral thinking in these areas so that they can see the problems which face us and bend their minds to solving them. That is not achieved by just training people in a run of the mill fashion.^

The Government seems to accept, sadly, a relatively low participation rate in tertiary education in this country. As Professor Low stated, there is a 47 per cent participation rate in Japan in tertiary education compared to only 25 per cent in Australia in the relevant age groups. Many people have pointed to the magnificent achievement of the Japanese nation in maintaining its position and advancing its position after its apparent defeat in the Second World War. That country has little or nothing in the way of resources other than its manpower. Its energy and minerals have had to be imported. It obtained a lot of its technology originally immediately after the War from the United States, which it has quickly surpassed in many areas. That has been done by massive expenditure on the main resource available to any nation- its people.

Australia is a rich country. We have minerals all around the country and energy to burn. We are happy to burn it on behalf of other countries. One can argue about that. But all this will be to no avail for us if we do not have the people and the skills to develop and harness all those resources for our purposes. In the mining sector we will finish up simply as a hole in the ground. We will finish up giving our energy away and then having to buy back the goods and services provided by the more advanced countries which have technological skills and the research behind those skilled people to enable those countries to compete effectively and stay ahead of us. I think that the present Liberal Government’s approach in the whole area of education is, quite frankly, an utter disaster for the future of this country.

Mr CARLTON:
Mackellar

-Before dealing with the details contained in the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill which we are discussing in relation to the funding of schools and tertiary institutions, I would like to take up some of the points which were made by the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass). If one listens to any honourable member on the opposite side of the House with a genuine social concern, it is possible to be very moved by the case put for additional government activity in whatever area that honourable member happens to be speaking about. It would have been impossible to listen to the honourable member for Maribyrnong when he was talking about the schooling of migrant children and not to agree with him that there are very great difficulties involved in that area. Those of us who have talked to teachers who are teaching in the areas where there is a heavy concentration of migrant children will understand fully that if there is a class wherein perhaps seven-eighths of the children do not speak English very well, there is a severe problem for the very large number of different language groups within that seven-eighths and there is also a very substantial problem for children within the one-eighth who are trying to learn better English. The end result in that case, as the honourable member for Maribyrnong pointed out, is bad for both sets of children, and I accept that.

The point that I make, however, concerns Labor’s theory of incremental expenditure which is that whenever a social ill of any kind is identified and there is a public concern about it- and there always is a public concern about such things as they become known to people and are studied- the automatic response is to say that we need additional funds to meet this identified need. It is always an incremental expenditure.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Funds alone are not enough.

Mr CARLTON:

-That is exactly right as my friend, the honourable member for Lalor, correctly pointed out. I do wish that this were reflected in his party’s general politics. There is an enormous corpus of effort, material and expenditure already there which has been misdirected in various ways and there has to be an enormous change within, for example, the groups of professional people and within the highly centralised educational establishments in the States and Territories in order to bring about any meaningful shift of resources within the existing budgets to deal with those problems. It is extremely difficult to sit here, in a Federal Parliament which does not have the direct administrative responsibility for the bulk of these educational systems, and to say that we have to do something about that specific problem when we know that the State Government will squeeze us to provide additional funds over and above the enormous amount of money which may be misdirected at the moment.

Dr Jenkins:

– You say that and they say you will not give them any.

Mr CARLTON:

-With respect to my honourable friends opposite, the thing we have to do is to start pointing out the simple fact that enormous resources are available for education in this country, both at the tertiary and secondary levels, which could be better used by those currently responsible for their administration. The end result of what the Labor Party would have us do in this case- it quite legitimately draws our attention to difficulties which are being experienced- would be to add enormously to proposed Federal Government expenditures, such as it has suggested over recent weeks to the extent of over $2 billion. If Labor’s proposal were accepted it would cause a bout of inflation which would make the budgeting problems of schools and universities throughout the country utterly impossible. The incremental expenditure in each case might seem small- it might be an extra $20m here or an extra $80m there, but in the case of some programs it would be enormous- but the overall effect of that on the economy and on inflation could not be ignored. The end result on inflation in these areas would be an absolute nightmare for those trying to administer programs in any reasonable way. The rate of inflation at the moment is quite high enough to give people great difficulty in forward budgeting. In fact, one of the advantages of this kind of measure which this Government fully supports is that adjustments are made to allow for price increases so that there is a measure of stability in the planning of the institutions within their existing programs and any new and approved programs.

The other point that I ought to make earlier than I had intended is just what is the Commonwealth Government’s role in the funding of education in the States. Again, we get back to the problem of the proposals put forward by the honourable member for Maribyrnong, when he said that the Federal Government ought to be doing this or that. The Federal Government’s role in education funding is not the major role, certainly with regard to schools. The Government only tops up the funding of the government schools in the States. The Federal Government provides only 12 per cent of the public funding of State and Northern Territory government schools. It provides 9 per cent of the recurrent funding and 30 per cent of the capital funding. So really the way in which money is spent in government schools throughout the Commonwealth of Australia is decided and largely funded by the State governments and their educational instrumentalities. That is where any real change or shift of funds from one purpose to another has to be attacked. I will come back to some very misleading suggestions put forward by, in particular, the Teachers Federation and the Federation of the Parents and Citizens Associations with regard to the way in which that money is allocated and spent.

With non-government schools the position is slightly different; with the Government is the sole source of public funds- that is, external funds- for capital expenditure. Most capital expenditure on non-government schools comes from parents and supporters of those schools. But some of it is provided by the Federal Government. Generally, it is not provided by the States. The States provide only interest subsidies on money borrowed to finance certain school building projects. With recurrent expenditure, the Commonwealth provides about 60 per cent of the public funding of State and Northern Territory non-government schools. Total public funding of both government and nongovernment schools in the States and the Northern Territory is derived from two sources; from the States’ general revenue and capital funds which account for about five-sixths of total public funding, and from the Commonwealth, through the Schools Commission programs which provides about one-sixth. So we are really talking about Commonwealth funding of onesixth of the total amount. That is why it is a grave mistake to analyse in detail programs that are going on within the various schools and to think that by adding an additional element of expenditure from the Commonwealth end- that is, adding to the one-sixth- one can make a profound change to the way in which these whole, large centralised mechanisms are worked.

There are enormous rigidities in those mechanisms. First of all, there are the administrative rigidities of organisations which, despite efforts to regionalise them, I believe are still far too centralised. Secondly, there is the problem of lack of parent involvement. There are many reasons for that. Some years ago Sir Eric Willis, who was then the Minister for Education in New South Wales, tried to introduce a system of school councils or committees in an effort to get parent involvement within each school. I believe that that would have been a very good thing had it been done. But there was a great deal of resistance to the scheme from teachers and, oddly enough, from parent groups who were not prepared to accept certain elements of local responsibility in the education of their children. I think that was a terribly difficult problem.

The third area of rigidity within these educational establishments is the rigidity of the union rather than the professional approach of the teachers’ federations and teachers’ unions in each of the States. That is a matter of very great concern. I think that if teachers’ unions in the various States adopted an essentially professional approach to their tasks and did not always put industrial considerations over and above professional considerations, we could break down a number of those very rigidities that really make teachers’ lives much more difficult. I do believe that teachers’ unions are making the teachers’ jobs very much more difficult because of rigidities in the system. I admit that the fault is on both sides. It is on the side of the administrations and also on the side of the teachers’ unions. Of course, the people who are squeezed in the process are the children, who are our prime customers and the ones we should be worrying about most. As the honourable member for Maribyrnong has pointed out, we find that in those areas where we need a shift of resources to meet very real problems, that shift of resources is almost impossible to bring about within these vast State systems. Therefore, I think that misguidedly there is a call for additional Commonwealth funding to try to solve those problems by adding some sort of pimple on to the large animal.

I continue what I was saying about the Commonwealth’s funding role in education. In the tertiary sphere, of course, the Commonwealth fully funds universities and colleges of advanced education but only tops up the States’ funding of technical and further education. It provides about 25 per cent of the total public expenditure on State and Northern Territory TAFE institutions, 15 per cent of the recurrent expenditure and 60 per cent of the capital expenditure.

Before examining the programs in some detail I wanted to say something about the campaign that is constantly waged by the Teachers Federation and by the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations against the funding of nongovernment schools by the Commonwealth Government. This comes up each year. It is not a campaign that is strongly supported by the public. Only a few of the parents and citizens associations in my electorate, for example, take the advice of the Teachers Federation and of their own federation to approach their local member and complain about the alleged movement of funds to wealthy private schools and away from underprivileged government schools. That is the general charge that is made each year and I am happy to say that fewer and fewer members of parents and citizens associations are falling for it.

Last year I had the extraordinary experience of having three teachers come to Canberra to see me on the subject. I must say that it occurred during a school week, so they must have taken leave from their school. It was part of a Teachers Federation campaign to impress on members of parliament that they should stop this allegedly bad practice. All of the material that had been provided, in this particular case by the Teachers Federation, was totally misleading in that it suggested that all of the funding for ‘these schools was provided by the Commonwealth. What it ignored was that Commonwealth Government funding was essentially top-up funding, the purpose of which was to meet those areas of need which had been judged by the Schools Commission to require immediate treatment. Of course, over the years during which this Government has been in office, the level of resources of government schools has been brought up substantially to Karmel-recommended levels, but most non-government schools have been slow to catch up. Therefore, there has been a need to provide additional funding for the nongovernment schools in the least satisfactory categories.

What the Teachers Federation had said to its members, including the three teachers who came to see me, was that the Federal Government was giving X per cent of education funds to the nongovernment sector and Y per cent to the government sector; that the government sector was losing out. What the Federation had failed to say was that if one takes the whole of education expenditure, both State and Federal, bearing in mind that five-sixths of the total expenditure is provided by the States, one finds that the proportion given to the non-government schools is relatively small, in fact certainly much less than that given to pupils attending government schools; that the Federal Government is merely trying to redress the previous imbalance.

I asked these three teachers, who are responsible for teaching children in my electorate, whether they were aware of this piece of misrepresentation, whether they understood the figures that they had been given by their union. To their shame, they had to admit that they did not understand that distinction. It had not been pointed out to them. The union had treated them as robots and had sent them to Canberra to address their Federal member with duff material. I considered it very bad that they took time off to come to Canberra after having been ill-briefed and misled. I must say that two of the three were profoundly embarrassed by what had happened. The remaining teacher may have had other purposes; I do not know. Certainly, that person was not embarrassed. I asked them, if they came back next year on a campaign, to make sure that they did their own research and did not rely on the totally misleading material provided by the Teachers Federation.

I have had misleading material of exactly the same kind from the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations. I can only say that I have visited the schools in my electorate and certainly there are government schools whose level of resources I would like to see improved. There is no doubt about that at all. Also, there are inequalities in the provision made as between one government school and another. Sometimes it is very hard to understand why the State Department of Education has provided an additional, lavish facility in a school which seems to be well endowed, and has ignored a school down the road which is not well endowed. Sometimes I find it very difficult to explain to the teachers. It is not my immediate responsibility in the Federal sphere, but it is hard to understand. However, when I go across the road to one of the Catholic primary schools I note that the level of physical resources available is substantially below that of the government school across the way.

Mr Bryant:

– Stop giving it to Kings School and give it to them.

Mr CARLTON:

– I will deal with that aspect in a moment. It is another nonsense that keeps coming up. I hasten to say that physical resources are not the key to the way the children come out; there is absolutely no doubt about that. I have in mind two schools I know well which are side by side in one suburb. The government primary school is a first-rate establishment with an excellent principal, a very high morale, a good teaching force and high professional standards, which is certainly becoming more and more the case in the primary schools of the New South Wales system. The Catholic primary school, which is immediately across the road, lacks many of the resources that are available at the government school. Nevertheless, because of the dedication and professionalism of its teachers, it turns out children that are at least as well educated, that are certainly extremely well motivated and reflect the very high professional and personal standards of their teachers.

I tura now to the point made by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant). I am very sad that he will not be in the next parliament, because his contributions, even by way of interjection, are always worthwhile. I refer to the funding of schools which are better off because the parents of the children have spent large sums in capital outlay and recurrent funding, having exercised their choice to do so. Commonwealth funding varies between 1 5 per cent of the cost of educating a child at a government school- this obtains in respect of non-government schools with the highest resource levels, those that the honourable member for Wills is talking aboutand 34 per cent, which obtains in respect of schools with the lowest resource levels. Of course, additions to those recurrent funds are made by the States.

Let us be absolutely clear as to the Government’s policy in this respect. This Government has no concern about allowing parents, whether their children attend Catholic schools which are not terribly well endowed or are better-off or attend other schools, to spend more of their own money on their own children. It will never stop them from doing that. We make no bones about it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it; anybody can do it. Nor will we try to level everybody down. Nor will we prevent wealthy parents from sending their children to government schools, and of course there are many who do. That is another side of the equation which the honourable member for Wills and his colleagues do not seem to raise. We make no apology for choice in education. Our program has sustained that policy. We will continue to follow it and to raise the level of resources at non-government schools in the lowest categories.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

-The cognate debate on these Bills is welcomed. It allows discussion across the whole field of education. We acknowledge that the Bills are virtually topping-up measures, as promised by the Government from time to time. I regret that the cognate debate will be chopped off after I have finished speaking. This is one of the few occasions on which the House has had an opportunity to have a general debate on education. I think that most honourable members would agree that what happens in the field of education is so important, as far as the economic and industrial future of the country is concerned, that we are paying it far too little attention. We note in the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill, to which the Minister for Education (Mr Fife) will move amendments in Committee, the principle that an adjustment will be made if salaries are paid in excess of the rates set by the Academic Salaries Tribunal. As my party supports the principle of salary determination by that independent Tribunal, we certainly would not oppose that provision. I assume that that provision will not affect the custom whereby senior academics are allowed to do outside advisory or consultancy work and to receive extra income from it to a limit set by the authorities in the tertiary institution. I make the assumption that that would be outside the amounts under consideration.

I referred to this being one of those rare opportunities for a general education debate. I welcome the fact that the Minister for Education is now in the House of Representatives and is conducting his own Bills through the House. Many of us have a very high regard for the present Minister as an individual, but we must comment that as yet he is untested as Minister for Education. I hope that at some stage we will hear from the Minister his hopes for education and how he sees the program that he would like to develop in the future at the federal level. In the late 1960s or early 1970s we were used to very clear expositions of this sort from Kim Beazley, both when he was shadow Minister for Education and Minister for Education. We knew some of the aims that the Federal Government or the parliamentary Labor Party had at that time.

One cannot help feeling that at the moment the Government is trying to keep the education debate out of the House, and that it will no longer allow full discussion. I guess there are a couple of reasons for this. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) has already indicated one. The Government wants to wash its hands of responsibility and to leave education to the States. It is said at the federal level that education is a State responsibility, and at the State level it is said: ‘We cannot do things because the Federal Government will not supply the finance’. That is the old alibi which has been offered for many years. Another reason that debate on education is kept out of the House is to dodge any examination of whether the Government’s general education policy is appropriate to the problems of Australia at present.

We welcome the fact that the education commissions are continuing. However, it would be fair to say that the hands of the Schools Commission are now tied. It was very successful in the initial stages because it looked at the needs in the Australian community and because its operations were such that it had wide consultation with many representative bodies in the total education community. The Government hands down guidelines to the Commission so that the ability of the Commission to be responsive to the needs of the community is limited and the Commission has to be much more orientated to government requirements. On this matter I repeat what I have said previously: It would be much more politically honest if the Schools Commission were allowed to make its recommendations after full examination and consultation with interested bodies. The Schools Commission having made those recommendations, it should be the task of government to determine just how many of the needs would be met and how far they could be satisfied. It would be a hard decision for a government but it would allow needs in education to be freely known and seen. The Government’s performance in this regard could then be judged appropriately.

I think we all accept that the finance available to education will be restricted. Because of Ais, do we not have to ask that ever-recurring question: What ought education to be about? This is a matter which requires continuing examination. As I said, we are getting back to the old patchwork approach where no one accepts full responsibility and with federal grants being sought to patch up things here and there. I acknowledge that when the honourable member for Mackellar was talking about that incremental approach, he was talking of almost a patchwork approach. For example, we have seen recently the schooltowork transition program which is aimed at a particular section of the youth, particularly those undertaking technical and further education, and which costs about $6m. All who consider this program are sure that it is unsuccessful and that it is purely a political ploy to try to make education the scapegoat for the dreadful and debilitating effects of youth unemployment in the community. I think we must get back to some basics. I was attracted to a statement made recently by Mrs Joan Kirner in an interview reported on page 5 of the April-May 1980 edition of School Bell. I will quote one section of it. It gets at the sorts of things we ought to discuss about what we want from education. She was asked:

What do you see as the big issues just ahead of us?

She said:

Core Curriculum v School based curriculum development;

Back to Basics v Forward to Basics which means really developing a person’s intellectual competence, hand in hand with his/her social competence;

Liberal Education v Vocational Training.

I think this affects us quite a deal. Her answer continued:

I believe there is an orchestrated attempt by some employers, politicians, bureaucrats in the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and some in the Education Department, to reverse what we know as liberal education and go back to a system where the privileged few have a liberal education which enables them to question and decide, and the majority are trained for employment in a way which limits the development of their questioning ability.

Then those who don ‘t get jobs (one girl in four, one boy in five) will be nicely conditioned not to ponder WHY, but instead, to blame themselves and their teachers. Certainly they will be conditioned not to claim that they have a right to work and society has an obligation to make work possible.

Another subject she mentioned was the divorce between what goes on in schools and in the surrounding community. Those are the questions which we must ask and which I think a wider debate in the Parliament would allow us to ask. Unfortunately we are restricted.

My colleague the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) mentioned that Senator Button, in talking about Australian Labor Party policy, was talking about special research institutes. It may well be that one of those institutes could deal with education. I know that at one institute at the moment there is a suggestion for an institute for studies in education. It has suggested the sort of questions that that institute ought to deal with. It said:

The main functions of the institute would be those concerned with educational research and research training. Its focus would be on policy and practice-orientated research development and evaluation activities. Its mode of operation would be through collaborative work and there would be three major strands in doing this. There would be policy research concerned with the development and implementation of educational policy. Co-development work in course contracting, consultancy, evaluation, school review, curriculum development, educational management and administration, in-service short courses and programs for professional development. The third strand could be materials production in terms of co-operative production of short runs of curriculum materials, piloting, evaluation and dissemination.

That gives a concept of the sort of special institute one could use and which would be very relevant to the points made by my colleague, the honourable member for Maribyrnong. I return to the School Bell from which I quoted because a number of questions were raised in this issue that in the period from 1968 to 1975 would have been discussed within the community and within this House with some vitality, a vitality which is missing in discussions at the moment. All discussions seem to be in-house discussions within small circumscribed groups with no public exposure. The School Bell has an account of a visit by Professor Pearl to Sunshine High School. This publication also records his discussion with youngsters at the school.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– That is in my electorate.

Dr JENKINS:

– As the honourable member for Lalor mentioned, Sunshine High School is in his electorate. However, we have heard the honourable member on many occasions speak of examples of educational needs and educational problems in his electorate and in similar areas. It is fascinating to know that the youngsters at Sunshine High School were able to deal so well with interviews. They asked the Professor:

What are your main ideas concerning education, apart from employment?

The Professor answered:

One is how to get people to see themselves vital to the political process. I would also like young people to want to change the society so it conforms more to what they believe. Another part of education is getting people to appreciate all the different races of people and to appreciate the differences in their backgrounds and cultures. This will make a social system stronger.

This was implicit in what the honourable member for Maribyrnong was talking about in respect of the migrant education program. Professor Pearl continued:

Another aspect of education is to teach us how to be able to utilise leisure time so that we are actively involved in leisure and that it becomes healthy rather than destructive. Still another role of education is to get people to learn how to be happier with themselves.

Any honourable members who have to deal with areas where there is socio-economic depression, where we see kids gathered around the local milk bar riding their bikes or skateboards, appreciate that we are disadvantaging these children in a terrible way in terms of their future.

The other matter to which I wish to refer has also been with us for a long time- that is, compulsory voluntary fees at government schools. Some parents may be requested to pay up to $55 for each child. In many areas these high charges are a burden which many parents can ill-afford to pay. However, if the fees are not paid there is no one else to make up the shortfall. As a result material cannot be supplied at the schools which are already located in obviously disadvantaged areas. So the disadvantaged are further disadvantaged. I think we should be saying in our overall concept of education that there is little place for such fees in the provision of the basics for education.

I made some reference to technical and further education when I discussed the school to work transitional program. I am still concerned about the area of technical and further education. This was one of the areas which lagged behind the educational development that occurred when Mr Beazley was Minister for Education. It was one of those areas that was left till last during a period of very rapid change. I think the honourable member for Mackellar made some comment on the difference in federal funding in this area. I accept that some of that may be due to the different technical set-up in different States. The guidelines for 1980-82 were tabled in this Parliament almost a year ago on 5 June 1979. The following sentence appears at page 2639 of the Senate Hansard:

The level of recurrent support for TAFE in 1981 will be taken up in the context of decisions of the Williams Report.

The Williams Report was submitted to the Government on 28 February 1979. So far we have had no decisions on it. Can the Minister for Education (Mr Fife) tell us when these decisions will be made? The Williams report was supposed to be the blueprint for education and unemployment. The Williams Committee- the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training- was set up with a great fanfare by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in September 1976. Nothing shows the lack of initiative of this Government more than does this. A committee was set up by the Government and that committee reported 14 months ago. Action was promised in respect of the recommendations of this committee. No action has occurred. How long does it take for decisions to be made in this area, particularly when so many people are involved?

Mr Yates:

-Is that State or Federal?

Dr JENKINS:

– We are talking about Federal action. This committee was set up by the Prime Minister. It reported to the Prime Minister and the report was presented to this Parliament. A promise was made in the Senate that action would be taken on the recommendations of the report. No action has been taken although 14 months have passed. TAFE is an essential area of tertiary education. It has been neglected for far too long. A decision is required because this area will play a part in solving many of the problems that we have. Unfortunately my debating time has almost expired. I only regret that more honourable members cannot be given the opportunity in this debate to express some of their thinking on the direction in which education is going in Australia.

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Education · Farrer · LP

– in reply- I am grateful to the honourable members for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) and Scullin (Dr Jenkins) for their contribution to this debate. As each honourable member pointed out in turn, these pieces of legislation are designed to pass on the inflation factor in respect of the various amounts that have already been agreed to by the Parliament. However, the honourable members took the opportunity to make a contribution in relation to the general question of education. I am particularly grateful to my colleague, the honourable member for Mackellar, for his remarks in relation to the funding of schools. I must say that I have had the same experience as he has of deputations and others who have been in touch with me, both personally and by way of correspondence, who obviously do not fully appreciate the policies of the Government and, indeed, the practices that are being followed in this respect. I join with the honourable member in underlining the fact that the Government’s policy is clear. We are interested in ensuring that there are proper facilities for all children at all schools, and that there should be a proper and meaningful choice for parents to exercise in choosing the schools to which they send their children. Also, there is a needs factor that has to be taken into consideration. In relation to needs, let me say to the honourable member for Scullin that the Schools Commission is in no way inhibited in reporting on needs in its triennium reports, and the position has not changed from the days with which he is probably more familiar. The Commission does have that statutory responsibility and, indeed, does report without any constraints being placed on it by government. In due course, government has to take, and in fact does take, decisions in relation to the funds that will be made available year by year, and in that regard it seeks advice from the Schools Commission as to how those funds should be allocated.

I say to the honourable member for Maribyrnong and to the honourable member for Mackellar that I am pleased that the question of migrant education was raised during this debate. I am delighted that it was raised by the honourable member for Maribyrnong and referred to by the honourable member for Mackellar. Migrant education is a tremendously important area, and it is an area with which the Government is concerned. Indeed, I have to say that the Government is extremely concerned about its responsibilities in this area. We recognise that there is a need for even greater effort than is being made at the present time. As an indication of the Government’s concern, and its belief that a greater effort is needed, I point out to the House that this year, that is, 1980, the Government did increase the funds for migrant and multicultural programs in both government and nongovernment schools. As part of its response to the Galbally report, the Government will further increase its commitment for 198 1, and that will become evident when the Government announces the guidelines for 1981. I am sorry that the honourable member for Maribyrnong made the assertion that the Government is blind to the needs in this area. I am sure that, on reflection, he will realise that he made an error. In fact, his assertion is not true. I have already said that we have increased the funds for 1980, and there is an indication that the funds will be further increased in 198 1. The honourable member himself rightly gave the credit to this Government for establishing the Galbally inquiry. It was an initiative taken by this Government. We established the committee of inquiry, and we received and dealt with the recommendations. Many of them have already been acted upon and others are still under consideration. The Government will continue its very real support in this area.

The honourable member for Maribyrnong had something to say about research in Australian universities. Again, I join with him in indicating that this is a very important area. The Government takes its responsibilities in this area extremely seriously and provides support in a meaningful way. It can always be argued that any government, or indeed any funding agency, could do more, but one has to keep well in mind that only a certain amount of money is available to the Government for all of its responsibilities. There are competing demands between departments and agencies and competing demands and priorities within portfolios. Notwithstanding that, the Government’s record is good in this field, albeit that there is room for additional funds if those funds can be found and appropriated. For the record, it is important to point out to the House that university research and research training is funded by the Tertiary Education Commission, other government sources, and some non-government sources. The Government sees this approach as being a positive advantage to the universities and to the community as it maintains a diversity of funding sources for research activities. A proportion of general recurrent grants provided to universities is devoted to research and research training, the actual amount being determined by the university itself. The Government believes that the institutions are best placed to make judgments on the detailed allocation of resources in this area.

In addition to the substantial support provided by general recurrent grants, it is possible to identify particular expenditure as having been incurred directly on research activities. The total identifiable expenditure on research in State universities was at a level in 1978 of some $ 10.4m in real terms above that for 1973, after falling below that level in 1976. The increase in real terms from 1973, when the present Opposition was in government, to 1978 was nearly 20 per cent. The total identifiable expenditure on research at the Australian National University in 1978 showed an increase of about 10 per cent in real terms above the 1973 level. The total number of research workers, both staff and students, rose from about 13,300 in 1973 to about 16,100 in 1978, while expenditure per research worker was the same for both years. In a statement on 22 November last year on the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training, known as the Williams report, my predecessor in this portfolio, Senator Carrick, reaffirmed the Government’s view that strengthening and concentrating research in universities was a major policy objective of the Government. The Tertiary Education Commission has examined the Williams’ proposal to build up research centres in universities, and the Government is considering this advice in the context of its consideration of the 1981 guidelines for tertiary education.

That brings me to one of the last points made by the honourable member for Scullin during his contribution to this debate. He referred to the Williams Committee report and I think he said that there had been inactivity, or words to that effect, on the part of this Government. I point out to the House and particularly to the honourable member for Scullin that the Government has considered the Williams Committee report and, as I have just indicated, my predecessor put down the Government’s initial response to the report and the recommendations contained therein. Some of those recommendations have already been acted upon. Others are receiving further consideration by the Government, or by various advising bodies within the Government. For example, some of the recommendations have been referred to the Tertiary Education Commission for advice in relation to implementation, timing and other matters. I want to emphasise that this is a very valuable report. As I have indicated, it is a report of a committee that was established on the initiative of this Government. This Government has already made some decisions in relation to its recommendations. Other parts of the report are under consideration and will be acted upon or responded to in due course.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-Mr Deputy Chairman, I wish to make my position quite clear. This is a totally inadequate way of treating one of the major social enterprises of Australian government. We are dealing today with the Commonwealth’s contribution to about 10,000 separate institutions in Australia involving perhaps two million or more students and, added to every other piece of finance that goes into these institutions, the bestpart of $2,000m. It is time for us to re-examine this matter in a thorough way. This chamber ought to debate the matter at great length. There is no reason why a subject such as this should not be debated on the general principles, on conduct, on administration, the difficulties and so on. It is a long while since we had a debate of this nature. I would like to remind the Committee of a debate that took place in this chamber before some honourable members were members here. It was on 6 May 1958 and is recorded on page 1450 of Hansard. At that time the honourable member for Wills raised this matter as a matter of public importance:

The urgent need for the Commonwealth to take action to ensure that sufficient funds are available to each State of the Commonwealth to provide adequate public education facilities for its people.

From some perfunctory research that I had undertaken then, it was about 13 years since this matter had previously been debated in this place. During the course of that debate I referred to some of the matters that are still subjects of debate today. For instance, I referred to the pressure placed upon the State education systems by the Commonwealth’s immigration policy, to the inadequacies of the system, to the geographical discrimination, and all the rest of it. I suggest that it would be worthwhile for honourable members to read that debate to see whether we have caught up. In the few minutes available to me I propose to show that we have not caught up, that we have not really applied ourselves to this subject with all the energy with which we are endowed.

The debate took place at a time when there was some grace in the management of this Parliament. Even a person who had been a member here only two-and-a-half years was able to lead in such a debate. He was able to have his say and to be answered by the Prime Minister then, Mr Menzies. Dr Evatt then spoke and he was followed by the Postmaster-General. People were inclined then to take these matters seriously and treated each person in this place as something of an equal. It is interesting to see what the right honourable the Prime Minister then had to say. I quote:

I should like to say to the honourable member that I rather envy the easy way in which he sets the Constitution on one side. The fact is that it still exists. The fact is that education, except in Commonwealth territories, remains a function of the States.

At least we have made that much progress. The Minister for Education (Mr Fife) did not say that. I want to deal with this general question of grants to the States, what they are about and whether they are achieving those objectives about which we have spoken this afternoon? Those objectives were mentioned by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass), my colleague the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins), and the Minister. What are the features of Australian education? Have we overcome them? I am quite convinced that honourable members, particularly those honourable members on the other side of the chamber, really are not aware of the state of much of the State education systems of Australia. The honourable member for Mackellar mentioned administrative complexities and the difficulties experienced by these State systems.

In this country there is sheer inadequacy of the physical surroundings in which so much education is carried on, particularly in electorates such as mine. There are differences throughout the country. During the speech of the honourable member for Mackellar he pointed out the differences in the way in which facilities are provided to schools almost in the same area. It is our duty to see that every person in Australia is treated equally regardless of the State in which he lives- or suffers in some instances- regardless of which part of the continent he lives in and regardless of the state of his finances. I, or anyone else, cannot be convinced that there is equality of education in this country yet. When in government the Labor Party tried its best to do something about it. It abolished university fees. I am concerned at the consistent attack on this throughout the country. It is said to involve grants to the wealthy and other people not gaining any advantage. That is not my observation from the people I know who are able to send their sons and daughters to universities and higher tertiary institutions as a result of this initiative. We must protect this system. There is no equality.

Honourable members opposite made out a strong case for aid to non-government schools. I am not for or against it. If it produces some sort of equality of responsibility then that is the way it ought to go. The non-government school is not open to everybody. If a school is charging fees of $700 or $800 for each term that excludes a very large proportion of the population. We have not arrived yet at a proper accountability for public expenditure by people who receive such large sums. It is not just a question of arithmetic.

I want to deal now with some of the other matters that are before us. Firstly, I suggest to the Minister that the time is past when we should give serious consideration to making direct grants to the schools as institutions- State and non-government schools. This is happening with some non-government schools. When we come to the tertiary legislation it will be apparent that grants are made directly to the institutions. It is my experience and observation, as a result of the three years that the Labor Party was in government and as a result of watching the current work proceeding and talking to people involved in the system, that there is very little opportunity of Commonwealth funds getting through the system in such a way that each school is equally advantaged, unless we get submissions directly from them and make grants direct to them. I admit that it is a fairly substantial administrative exercise but it is interesting to consider how the innovation grants were administered during the period the Labor Party was in office. In fact this is possible.

Somehow we have to bypass the strangulation of the State education systems which, as has been pointed out, are quite mammoth and which bestow a particular disadvantage in many areas upon the schools. I am disappointed that after all the efforts we have made for so long, especially over the last seven or eight years- particularly during the Labor Party’s term of office- that so many of the schools in the electorate that I represent and in the immediate surrounding suburbs are still totally inadequate and depressing places.

It is true that education can be carried on in a situation where actual surroundings are drab. If people live in drab suburbs and come from drab houses- I am not talking of slums but simply the drabness of much of our suburban area- then our effort ought to be directed towards seeing that the surroundings at the schools are pleasant to raise their sights aesthetically in other ways. I am convinced that there is still inadequate effort on the part of the Government. Each of the States operates in a different way.

I mentioned as long ago as 22 years recurrent expenditure on migrant education. I notice that in schedule 2 of Schedule 1 of this Bill- it is a little more complicated than most legislationthe ratio of recurrent expenditure on migrant education in government schools as against nongovernment schools is two and a half to one. It is true, of course, that State expenditure goes into government schools. It is also true that State per capita grants go into non-government schools. I would take a bit of convincing that the ratio of migrants in government schools to those in nongovernment schools is two and a half to one. I would have thought that it was more likely to be somewhere between four to one and six to one, depending on the area. Of course, migrants are totally the Commonwealth’s responsibility. We brought them here, we invited them here and we put them into the community. We cannot say that the responsibility for them is somebody else’s job.

We have made an effort in this field, as we made an effort in relation to Aboriginal education- a situation I would like to have talked about- in teaching the Aboriginal language in the schools. That was an enormously difficult task. But nobody can tell me that at present we are making a major effort in this area. The application of ceilings to staffing, the financial constraints in the ancillary services and so on are crippling the system. When my friends opposite talk about government expenditure having a special debilitating effect upon the community they must forget about the importance of the education system. The education system is the generator of future progress. When we debate the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill in Committee I hope to point out how the system is crippling a particular institution that is of concern to Australian industry. I regret that this debate is of such a limited nature. I regret that we are not able to debate the Bill at great length. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity before I retire from Parliament to hold a debate of perhaps two or three days’ duration so that people can really make an input into the debate. I assert that the appropriations are being crippled by the financial nonsense which the present Government calls economic theory but which is rather a mystical theology of some sort. No matter what it costs, our future will be strangled unless we fit the education system to the needs of the future.

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

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Education · Farrer · LP

– I take the opportunity to say a few words in relation to the comments made by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant). He concluded by saying that he hoped that there would be other opportunities before he retired to take part in a debate on education. There will, of course, be an opportunity in relation to the guidelines. At least, I am hoping that it will be possible to announce the guidelines for 1981 before this session concludes. Of course, in the Budget session there will be at least one other opportunity for debate on education.

What I really want to say is how much I appreciated the contribution of the honourable member, albeit a short one, in the Committee stage of this debate. I join with the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) in saying that we will miss the honourable member for Wills when he retires at the end of this Parliament. On behalf of honourable members on this side of the House, I say that we take him seriously whenever he rises to speak, even if some of his colleagues do not. I was delighted that he saw fit today to refer to something that he said in this chamber some 22 years ago. I think it would be appropriate, particularly in a bipartisan spirit, to congratulate the honourable member for Wills for his contribution not only today but also over the years. I will certainly keep in mind what he said today and take his suggestions on board.

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

-I take the opportunity to make some of the input that the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) claims we are unable to make because of the short nature of this debate. This input is to endeavour to point out to the House that much of the criticism of the Federal Government’s financing of State education systems appears to be monumentally misdirected. I refer in particular to the attacks on the Federal Government for allegedly starving the States, particularly New South Wales, of capital funds for education with the result that various school building programs cannot proceed. The fact is that these allegations are self-evidently nonsensical. They are selfevidently nonsensical for the very good reason that in the last two years the Government of New South Wales has in effect decided not to use all of the capital funds which are allocated for school building in New South Wales. Instead that Government, which has continually claimed that its incapacity to proceed with building programs is a result of the miserly behaviour of the Federal Government, has deliberately diverted to recurrent expenditure, the bulk of which goes towards paying teachers, $6.1m in 1978 dollar terms from the allocations made to it by this Government.

I am not opposed to the proposition that teachers should be paid. No teachers in this place or outside it should take the view that I am. But if the Government of New South Wales wants to try to blame the Federal Government for its refusal to proceed with much-needed building programs, such as a third high school in Nowra, let it be honest enough to say that the reason why the money is not there is that the State Government has bowed to the pressure of the New South Wales Teachers Federation and diverted capital funding from the purposes for which it was directed by this Government and to recurrent spending. Unfortunately the Federal Government does not have the power, nor does it seek to have the power, to refuse requests by a State government to divert money in this way. After all, we are a Federal party with a federalist philosophic position. We believe that the States should be entitled to run their own ships, no matter how incompetently. The ship is run incompetently in New South Wales.

Let me stress that New South Wales is the only State in Australia to have taken the view that pay for teachers comes before facilities for children. It is the only State that has diverted capital funding to recurrent expenditure. In fact, it is in total contrast to Queensland, which has taken the view that it should divert recurrent expenditure allocations by this Government to capital spending because it feels that in the growth areas of that State there is an urgent need for schools. The total population of New South Wales may be stagnant. Whether Mr Wran can claim credit for that is another matter. There is no doubt that the school population is stagnant or in fact declining a little. Maybe he can claim credit for that. Nevertheless, there are various areas in New South Wales with major growth problems. One of them is the Nowra area of my electorate, where there has been an enormous increase in the population, in particular in the population of people of school age. There is an urgent need for additional school facilities in that area. Yet the representatives of the State Government, Ministers of the State Government, have attended meetings in my electorate and made most disgraceful and dishonest statements, such as: ‘We cannot build a third Nowra high school because the Federal Government has cut our capital spending program’. The fact is that the State Government has diverted capital funding to recurrent funding.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Rubbish!

Mr BAUME:

– The honourable member for Hughes says ‘rubbish.’ I presume that he believes that the information on page 1 1 of the Schools Commission’s report is all rubbish. It states that the amount transferred by New South Wales in 1979 from capital spending to recurrent spending was $6,068,000. The same thing happened in 1980. I know that the honourable member for Hughes does not want to believe the Schools Commission’s report. The information is in black and white; it only states the facts. The honourable member for Hughes, like the other members of the Opposition, does not want to know the facts. He does not want to know that the New South Wales Government has been so obsessive about placating the Teachers Federation- I am not referring to all teachers; I am referring to the Teachers Federation- that it has diverted money that should properly be allocated and was allocated to the building of capital facilities in our State to the payment of teachers’ salaries.

The facts are very simple. It is a simple situation. In New South Wales, quite properly, there has been a determined policy of endeavouring to reduce class sizes in keeping with the Karmel report recommendations. I totally support that and the Federal Government totally supports that. After all, the Federal Government was even providing a special allocation of money to the Government of New South Wales to try to help it catch up with the other States because of the abysmal performance of the Wran Government in meeting the Karmel report targets. Let us recognise this: Since the Wran Government came to power its performance in education, as against the Victorian Government or against the performance of any other government honourable members would like to name, including the Queensland Government- much to my chagrin-has been appalling. It has fallen dramatically per head of pupils at schools. The amount being spent on capital works in New South Wales has collapsed under the Wran Government compared to the amount spent in the last Lewis Budget.

Mr Fife:

-The former New South Wales Government built the second high school at Nowra without any assistance from the Commonwealth.

Mr BAUME:

– Indeed. I take the point from the Minister. The New South Wales Government of which he was a most distinguished member, had always come to the assistance of my electorate. It had always looked after my electorate. But the Wran Government has done nothing. It has falsely accused the Federal Government of being the instrumentality which has prevented the building of the much needed third Nowra high school.

By pursuing this issue of lower class sizes which obviously means employing more and more teachers per head of pupils, the Government of New South Wales has taken the view that that has a higher priority than building schools for kids in new and developing areas. I am not saying that reducing class sizes is, per se, bad. It is a very noble objective. But is it more noble than building schools for kids where there are not enough schools? Here we have a situation that, no matter how much we give the New South Wales Government, it is going to cut that amount, take it away and give it to recurrent spending, despite the fact that the total amount of money being spent on education in this nation, after accounting for inflation, has never been higher in the nation’s history. After we account for inflation, the total amount of money spent per child has never been higher than at present. I think this House has to recognise this fact. Any deliberate and determined policy by the States to redistribute the money out of capital works and into recurrent spending is their own deliberate and determined policy. The priority of the New South Wales Government is to placate the Teachers Federation, not to provide facilities for kids where they are needed.

Let us see what the consequence of that has been. Under four New South Wales Labor Budgets, total education spending has risen by 42 per cent. But there has been a 13 per cent cut in capital spending and a 6 1 per cent increase in recurrent spending. Under the Lewis Government in New South Wales, 25 per cent of the State education Budget went in facilities for kids. That has been reduced under the Wran Government to 15.3 per cent That is all. The rest is going into recurrent expenditure. I want the House to recognise this: The Federal Government’s contribution and its total policy of financing the States has enabled a record amount of money for education to be made available to each kid throughout Australia. The disgraceful incompetent allocation of money in New South Wales is a matter totally for the State Government.

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

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) calculates like a failed stockbroker. He does not understand the difference between absolute figures and relative figures. Of course more money is being spent in absolute figures on education. In every aspect of government, due to inflation, to population expansion and to increases in gross revenue, of course there must be higher levels of expenditure. Another point that the honourable member made which needs correction is that we cannot arbitrarily say that a particular percentage is the right amount to be used for recurrent expenditure or for capital works. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on the area. It may vary from State to State. We cannot pluck a figure out of the air and say that one figure is right, or that a figure that is 5 per cent lower in one area and 5 per cent up in another area is correct. It differs from place to place.

The House has not faced up to the fact that Australia has a split-level education system which perpetuates existing social, ethnic, class and regional divisions in society instead of eliminating them, which was the small ‘1’ liberal hope for universal education. The ‘first division’ produces the officers and non-commissioned officers of Australia’s social army. It is: First, predominantly urban middle class; second, achievement oriented with the highest self image; third, aimed at producing qualifications for a career with the presumption of success, affluence, readily marketable skills, the prospect of professional satisfaction and personal autonomy in determining work patterns; and, fourth, marked by a high degree of absorption in tertiary education. The ‘second division’ provides an educational minimum for the other ranks and rejects from the system. This division is: First, predominantly working class, ethnic, rural or regional; second, failure oriented with a low selfimage; third, aimed at producing competitors for a declining number of relatively semi-skilled or unskilled jobs often poorly paid and with a low degree of work satisfaction and little personal autonomy; and, fourth, is marked by a low degree of absorption in tertiary education.

There is a widely and strongly held belief in the community that Australia is spending too much on education. This is an utterly mistaken belief. I am not aware of any case in world history, anywhere, where higher spending on education has not been abundantly justified in the long term as the social investment in raising levels of personal development quite apart from its impact on economic development. But in raising middle-class standards even higher in Australia we must be careful to make sure that we do more to raise working-class expectations and performance in education as well.

I go back to an earlier exchange which I had with the honourable member for Mackellar. It is not just a matter of money. It may be partly a matter of reallocating already existing resources but it is essentially a matter of determining priorities to ensure that the educational revolution which took place at the end of the 1960s and through the early 1970s and then ended after having an enormous impact on middleclass participation in further education, is continued with working-class people and those not from the more affluent part of society.

The provision of additional courses here and there in the technical and further education system is not quite an answer. TAFE is something of a palliative and does not provide sufficient educational absorption. It will be necessary to change attitudes including, I must say, the attitudes of the potential recipients. If there is a lowered level of expectation, very little will be asked for. That is why we cannot say: ‘Look, it is all covered by the Tertiary Education Commission guidelines. The TEC guidelines are supposed to take some account of needs’. If we have a low level of expectation and we ask for very little it is very easy for those set in authority to say: ‘Well, they do not need much more’.

I draw to the attention of the Minister as an object lesson- the tragicomic report on the fourth university for Victoria. The committee’s terms of reference were to look at Melbourne ‘s western suburbs where 25 per cent of the population lived with a view to setting up a tertiary institution there. The committee made a few cursory inspections. It flew over the area, no doubt by helicopter, and said: ‘Well, we have solved our problem. The people do not want a university. There is absolutely no demand- in that area with 25 per cent of Melbourne’s population for a university. We have a good idea: To have a fourth university placed in Melbourne’s eastern suburbs where there are already three universities and increasing levels of demand ‘. If we do not give people the opportunity for tertiary education and if we do not see the need for secondary education to have a close continuing relationship with tertiary education then people tend to see it as being quite irrelevant for them. Ultimately, of course, that fourth university was placed down in Geelong as a sort of compromise which provided some access for the west.

I am really very much concerned with the enormous gap between what is available in Melbourne ‘s eastern suburbs and what is available in the western suburbs. Education is one example but there are a long string of examples, such as the number of doctors available, the number of dentists, the number of hospital beds or the number of sporting and cultural facilities. In each case there is an enormous discrepancy in which 25. per cent of the people residing in the west have- I say this without any exaggeration- only 5 per cent of the total amenities. It could be said that the people of the west appear to have a curious lack of need for education, doctors, sporting and cultural facilities. It could be said that they are lucky to be so self-contained, to be satisfied with so little. But that would be a very foolish and short-sighted view which I hope that the Minister will not take.

Following on from the Minister’s well deserved tribute to the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), this is the Minister’s baptism of fire in the education portfolio. This is the first debate that he has been involved in as Minister for Education. If I were to introduce a slightly carping note, it is rather disappointing that in an important area such as this we have been confined to two speakers from either side of the House in the debate at the second reading stage of the Bill. It is true that we will be able to squeeze in a few words at the Committee stage. Education is bound up with the entire future of the country. There is a prevailing feeling that education had its whack during the Whitlam years and that it is not a very important subject any more.

I am concerned about the perpetuation of poverty by impact of inferior quality in education and of inferior expectation offered to the working class. It is taken for granted that they can be placed in any old job that happens to be around. It is also taken for granted, often by working class people themselves, that they will accept that lowered level of expectation.

I remember that when Herman Kahn, the American author, economic prophet and exponent of hyperindustrialism was here last year he spoke in the Parliamentary Library. A number of honourable members will recall that he told a story against himself. He had been on a television debate in America with the secretary of a union, of which the membership was overwhelmingly Negro. Kahn had derided the idea of an overall job shortage and argued that any person with drive and capacity could hustle around, find a job and do well at it. He pointed out that as a young man he had worked as a shoeshine boy, a short order cook, an errand boy and so on. The Negro union secretary made a very effective reply. He said: ‘Herman, you are a New York Jewish intellectual and you have such a tough core of self-esteem that when you were working as a shoeshine boy you said to yourself: “I am Herman Kahn, the New York Jewish intellectual, temporarily working as a shoeshine boy, but in two years I will have my degree. In five years I will have my doctorate and in ten years I’ll have made my first million and I will then reminisce with pride about my rise to fame and fortune- having been a shoeshine boy and so on”.’ It is like working up from being a clerk assistant. The union secretary continued: ‘But if your father was a shoeshine boy and your grandfather was a shoeshine boy, and you see no prospect of breaking out of that level of job, there is little to be optimistic about.’ Kahn admitted that it was a very valid point, and it is. Theoretically there is a range of options. One can say that anybody in Melbourne can reach the top but in practise the chances are not equal.

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

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am very glad that the Minister for Education (Mr Fife) has permitted the debate on the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill to be extended even though the terms of the legislation are extremely limited. I well understand the contentions that have been made that it is time there was an opportunity for honourable members to talk in a more expansive way about education in the interests of contemplating the future of this nation and the role that education will play in it. As has been indicated previously in years gone by there have been very long, protracted and informed debates in this area. As is the case with housing, we have seen the nature of the Parliament changing. I think that it is very important to get back to grass roots issues. I know that teachers and parents are anxious to know where education is going and what the attitudes of the respective parties are about it.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was making the point that it is timely that we are having this debate on education. As the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) pointed out earlier in the course of the debate, about 24 or 25 years ago he and I had the good fortune to participate in debates which were then characterised by the participation of leaders of this country. It was not uncommon for Mr Menzies, as he then was, and Dr Evatt to fight out the great principles involved in education and in particular the issues of whether the Commonwealth Government should become more closely involved in education under provisions of section 96 of the Constitution. We all remember how the Prime Minister of the day changed his tune when Sir Keith Murray, having met the Prime Minister in London, came to Australia and was involved in an inquiry into tertiary education. Subsequently the Commonwealth’s involvement was extended to secondary education, primary education and pre-school education.

For a long time it was the view of the conservative governments that prevailed that the Commonwealth’s only role was that associated with post-war rehabilitation. It is interesting to see that development in our history. There is still a tendency for people in this place to have ostrich-like attitudes and to argue that responsibility for education should be turned over to the States. We cannot be satisfied at all with what has been happening in recent times. In my view the kinds of debates taking place should traverse the problem of the quality of education in our modern society, what kind of application it has to leisure, what kind of application it might have to technological change and the capacity of people to come out of an educational experience into a work situation and the like. Certainly, there is great need for us to debate issues such as early child care and the extent to which that should be a public or a private prerogative.

As you, Mr Deputy Chairman, indicated earlier there is an enormous range of issues under the heading of ‘disadvantaged children’ that requires the consideration of the Parliament. I say to the comparatively new Minister for Education that he would be doing the country a great service if we were to get back to the types of conditions that prevailed some years ago and if this subject were given a great airing. There are too many people around who say that education has no application to modern day society. There are people of my generation in private industry and commerce who say that kids come out of school not being able to write, spell or add up. I do not know the truth of that allegation but obviously that is the sort of thing that needs to be examined.

I remember that after the last Budget I was very critical of the curtailment of funds for education. It is useless the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) saying that there is nothing to be desired in that regard. Of course there is. Using December 1978 prices, capital grants to non-government schools were cut in the last Budget from $32.23m to $26. 13m, which is a drop of 19 per cent. Capital grants to government schools were cut from $ 137.25m to $93.25m- a reduction of 32 per cent. Of course the Government attempted to justify the reductions by claiming that the prospective decrease in capital expenditure was in line with the levelling off in total enrolments in schools and projections of the downward trend in the school population through the 1980s. But there is a different point of view to be put. It is about the need for capital expenditure on new schools required in new suburbs, expanding suburbs and country towns, not just in respect of the overall number of children in schools. We have these problem areas scattered throughout the country. We have lost our momentum with education. Teachers and parents are expressing their concern at this. The level of expenditure has actually dropped in real terms. Just compare that with the tremendous transformation that took place in the 1972-73 and 1974-75 Budgets. In the last Liberal Budget prior to Labor’s coming to office, expenditure on education was $442m whereas in the 1974-75 Labor Budget the expenditure was $ 1,626m- a quadrupling of funds for education. The Labor Government lifted education out of the doldrums. I believe that anybody who looked at these figures would concede the great merit of Labor’s priorities. I do not believe that the job could be regarded as being finished at that stage. It is an on-going process and I ask the Minister to adopt a far more enthusiastic attitude and to advocate in the Cabinet that his Government should do likewise.

In the years from 1976 to 1980 recurrent grants for government schools fell from $202m to $ 192.4m- a drop of 4.8 per cent. Capital expenditure for government schools fell from $140.1m to $93.2m-a drop of 33.5 per cent. There is a mass of figures to show that in figure terms alone we are not doing very well. This Government has never been enthusiastic about an independent Schools Commission. It likes to make political capital out of things and to manipulate expenditure up and down according to whether it is an election year or otherwise. The fact is that the Schools Commission recommended a 5 per cent increase in education funding in the last Budget. I regret that that was cut to one per cent. We all know the way in which the Schools Commission is manipulated by the present Government. The former Minister for Education, Senator Carrick, said in an interview:

Well Mr Chairman of course anyone who says that the Schools Commission is wrong is of course challenging the umpire.

But that was in a different context. When the umpire said ‘We need 5 per cent’, the honourable senator, the former Minister, decided to exercise his own prerogative and drop the figure to one per cent. Sometimes the Schools Commission is the umpire and sometimes the Schools Commission is the antagonist. There is a great range of deficiencies in education at present in connection with class sizes and libraries. I am told that in New South Wales alone over 1,480 libraries are inadequate in primary and secondary schools. Twenty-five per cent of our high schools and a large proportion of our primary schools do not have assembly facilities for the proper development of curricula. These are figures from surveys conducted by the Teachers Federation. We know that there is a great deal to do, for example, in migrant remedial English and many other matters of that kind. We know that there are disadvantaged children. As my time is running out I make the point that we have just touched on this subject tonight in a cursory way. I hope that we are starting to raise the curtain on a greater realisation on the part of this Government that we need much more talking time on education.

Mr YATES:
Holt

– I would have thought that this debate should be the beginning of a series on education. One must admire the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) for drawing attention to past debates on education when Prime Ministers were in the House to listen and when honourable members, having spoken, remained in the chamber to take part further and to listen to what other honourable members had to say. The honourable member for Wills believes that the standards of debate have fallen, that we have not the attendance that we should have and that we have not present in the chamber the senior Ministers that we might once have had. That is a very interesting point of view. It may be true. I was not here then and simply do not know.

However, as far as the Australian history of education is concerned, speaking as an ordinary teacher first at Karingal High School in the Victorian State system and then at Brighton Grammar School, I would have through that one of the great things that happened in education in Victoria was the appointment as Federal Minister for Education from 1972 to 1975 of the former honourable member for Fremantle, Mr Beazley. In my view, he is one of the most distinguished men that this country has ever produced to lead education in the Federal sphere. I find it rather boring when people drag party politics into the subject of education as such. Let us be fair to the former honourable member for Fremantle, who was the Minister for Education during those years.

Mr Kerin:

– He was a great Minister.

Mr YATES:

– Do not over-praise him, because over-praise can sometimes withdraw the praise originally offered. As Minister, he did have the advantage of a tremendous influx of capital investment in Australian education. Certainly that was true with regard to all of the State colleges, certain universities and the secondary schools. I believe that he really concentrated the minds of the Australian people strongly on the form of education that they were seeking for their children. Luckily, he was followed by Senator Carrick, a Minister of an even more important calibre. Senator Carrick had to come to realities with education, to realise that money in itself, or buildings in themselves, provide no solution of educational problems, however much they may help.

I have visited the Fitzroy High School, which is in the electorate of the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins). It might be said by the local people that their area was drab or that the high school was not to their liking, but I would have thought that it was a first class example of a Victorian secondary school, as a result of the work not only of Mr Beazley but also of Senator Carrick.

Senator Carrick had one great quality which everybody admired. I refer to his absolute integrity and straightforwardness in speaking to parents. For the first time, as far as I can judge, parents have become very interested in the quality of the education that their children are receiving. They are interested in who is giving it, and in what that person is teaching and saying. Parents tell me that they are considering their children being given not merely teaching in the arts but also teaching in such matters as morals, ethics, standards and manners. Perhaps this is something that parents have not done before. Surely they realise that they above all exert the maximum influence on their children and on their children’s education. Therefore, the honourable member for Wills begins to see the changing pattern of education, one in which people in local communities are asking: Are we getting, in view of all of our tax outlay and of the State’s contribution, the right sort of education for our children? Are we hiring the best teachers for our community? In noting this, the honourable member for Wills is foreshadowing a future in Australian education for which we must give him credit. That pattern may follow the American pattern rather closely in some ways but at least it acknowledges that the great State bureaucracy of education is showing signs of faltering. Local communities, business people and citizens now feel competent to enter discussions concerning education and no longer leave it to the educationists, to those who thought that they knew everything about education. Far more often now parents, counsellors, businessmen and professional men come together and say: ‘If we are building the future of Australia for our children, are they being taught the things that will be of value to them- not just how to make a crust but what will be of value to Australia, at the end of this century, as a great power in the Far East?’ I must say that in so describing Australia, President Nixon has shown that he is not always wrong. These people ask: ‘Are we teaching our children to face the Third World and to accept responsibility with our neighbours ‘.

The Minister for Education (Mr Fife), who is at the table, will recall that the other day I asked him about our international student exchange agreements. What has happened to our international secondary school exchange agreements with other countries? Do we still have them? Why was it that in China I met three or four people who thought that what they were doing was a bit of a joke; that it was a rest and a holiday from school and teaching in their State. Who arranged that program? Why were they in China? By what authority were they there? Were they the best sort of teacher to be in China discussing the education of our country?

The Minister must begin thinking very carefully about the international exchange students that we send to the Third World. What part does the Government play in the student exchange program at the secondary school level? Does anybody know? Do honourable members opposite know what part the Federal Government plays in arranging secondary school student exchanges with those of our near neighbours? I believe that they know very little. Some very good schools arrange exchanges privately. Rotary, Apex and other organisations take part in other arrangements. Is this the kind of education exchange arrangement that a great nation such as Australia should have with the education departments and schools of its neighbours?

The Asian students of my electorate would like to say to the Minister and to the Government that they were very thankful to be allowed to continue their education in Australia. Although they were threatened with compulsory fees, it was to the great credit of the Government that it said that if the students had been asked to come to this country to study free of charge they should be able to continue to do so. I hope that our exchange program with Malaya and our near neighbours in the Association of South East Asian Nations will be well thought out.

What are we to consider in regard to our education program? What about the training that is to take part in the schools themselves? The greatest menace to education is television and the greatest need of parents is to get rid of it. In my view, and I have had four boys and have taught myself, nothing is more destructive to and disruptive of a child’s education than the impact of television upon the work that those who are in charge of education have asked be done. Television has an important part to play in education but in my view it has had a most damaging and downright disastrous effect upon the education of our children. I apologise to the media for saying so. If I thought that their educational television programs were valuable I would support them more.

I congratulate the Minister for what he is trying to do. We support his views as to the fairness of government grants to State schools and universities. We hope that his program, and the programs of those who work with him, will succeed in the years ahead. We are thankful that he holds the office that he does and wish him well.

Mr KERIN:
Werriwa

-I think we were all delighted to hear the comments of the honourable member for Holt (Mr Yates), or the impostor for Oldmeadow’, as we affectionately term him, when he spoke in rather broad terms about education per se. I believe this is an incredible debate, inasmuch as we have one speaker from the Government and two from the Opposition in a set piece debate. Yet at this stage, because of the amendments, we are allowed a wide-ranging discussion on education issues (per se). One of the problems in a debate on education in this Parliament is that much of it is about money and little of it is about education. Education itself bothers the minds of members of this chamber more than money does, but to our detriment much of the debate centres on money.

Education is very much a political issue. It is an issue which, we hope, will grow in this election year, because it is now not just about money. I think many of the money problems concerning education have been solved. This chamber should address itself to the more basic educational questions. That is the reason why we enjoyed some of the comments of the honourable member for Holt when he talked about the impact of television on children. He said that he had four sons. I am very much aware of that situation as I have three daughters and one son. What the Fraser Government is trying to do is to make education a non-issue in many ways in this election year.

Quite a few people in the parents and citizens associations and in the various bodies concerned with education in my electorate have said to me: We want you to make education more of an issue in this election year’. I have said to them that there is not much apprehension in the community about education. This is due largely to the success and the progress, that the Whitlam Government achieved between 1972 and 1975, particularly under the Minister for Education at that time, the Honourable Kim Beazley. We took education out of politics. We set up the education commissions. More importantly, we funded education in a proper way. Possibly we tried to put too much pressure on the State governments by allocating to them the responsibility for handling education issues with the extra funding. During the period 1969-72 the P and C associations, the parents and friends organisations and various other people concerned with education were actively working on and thinking about education issues, but that has dropped away. That is unfortunate. I am quite sure that all members of this chamber would like to see the education debate getting back to education issues, now that money issues have been resolved by and large.

This Federal Government, due to the work of the Whitlam Government, of Beazley and of the education commissions, has accepted the absolute responsibility to take up education as a federal responsibility. What worries me is that the Fraser Government is attempting to make education a non-issue in this election year. Surely education should always be an issue in an election year. This year the Government will play down the severe problems facing schools, the universities and the colleges of advanced education in an attempt to take the Austraiian public’s attention away from the inadequacies of the Government’s education policies which are now surfacing. I guess it is a bit of a concession to say that in the first one or two years of the Fraser Government, education was not an issue because by and large it was going along with the parameters set by the Whitlam Government.

If we look at constant prices, those which are inflated by movements in the implicit price deflator for major components of the gross national expenditure- one has to use economic jargonand if we assume a 10 per cent price increase for 1979-80, we will see that Commonwealth funding for universities and CAEs will drop from $840m in 1974-75 to a projected $764m this year. But we are talking about schools. The reallocation of funds from government to nongovernment schools can be illustrated by showing the decline in funding to government schools in real terms- that is, constant prices againfrom$547.9min 1974-75 to a projected $408. lm this year. Funding for non-government schools will rise from $21 1.6m in 1974-75 to a projected $264.9m this year.

The States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill, which we are debating in Committee, is a machinery Bill designed to provide for increased costs previously allowed for. It is not a new measure to assist or to develop education. That has been settled. The last Labor Government set up the machinery for federal assistance to education and used it to give massive federal aid. It began the healing process of the divisions over State aid by beginning the needs policy. This Government, underneath its rhetoric of supposedly developing education, merely wants to give generous aid and support to the wealthier private schools and only so much to the others as the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Executive think is necessary to gain votes. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) recently made their position and bias clear when they made some disparaging remarks about government schools. They suggested that if the organisation known as the Council for the Defence of Government Schools won its current appeal in the High Court, the Prime Minister would move to have a referendum on State aid. If the Prime Minister is so keen to have a referendum, why does he not have it now? The reason he does not is that he is too astute for that. He realises that a high percentage of middle class children attend state schools and he cannot afford to alienate any section of the middle class vote. This is the crude politics of the situation.

Let me make the position clear. The Opposition is not opposed to State aid on a needs basis- we never have been- particularly to the poorer Catholic parochial schools. The Australian Labor Party is opposed to the policy of this Government which diverts funds from government schools to the wealthy private school sector. This Government is gradually whittling away at the financial position and viability of Catholic parochial schools- this particularly affects electorates such as mine- while at the same time introducing a policy whereby all students at private schools are given assistance at the level of 20 per cent of average school costs. The Catholic parochial schools get in excess of that amount, but what the Government is trying to do is a blatant example of extra funds being channelled into the large and wealthy private schools. The Government has attempted to justify cutting funds for primary and secondary education on the grounds that enrolments are tapering off, but no account is taken of growth at points within States where the population is largely growing. That includes the Macarthur Growth Centre in my electorate- I do not know why it is called the Macarthur Growth Centre as most of it is in the electorate of WerriwaGosfordWyong in New South Wales and also Queensland. Nor has account been taken of the imperative need for career advisers, extra ancillary staff, migrant educators and remedial teachers, particularly for disadvantaged areas. Again they include areas such as mine. In some of the schools in my electorate staff are trying to teach English as a second language to four or five language groups when they are dealing with 28 language groups. The staff in these areas cannot even get permanent employment.

Mr Carlton:

-Talk to Mr Wran.

Mr KERIN:

– It is all right for honourable members to say: ‘Talk to the State Government’. If the Federal Government has dealt into education to the level that it has, it should take a policy position on these matters.

Another aspect of this debate derives from the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill. I have only a few comments on this. This Bill is also a machinery Bill to adjust for movement in costs. It also provides an opportunity to look at the Government’s handling of the tertiary sector of education. I think, in the face of a stationary or declining budget, and with steady commitments, what suffers in the end is teaching and research. Although time does not allow and although we are speaking mainly about schools, I think we also need to look at the allocation of post-graduate research funds. Students in that category are suffering badly under this Government. I think the Government should look very closely at that area.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-I would like to add a couple of comments to what was said earlier in the debate. First of all, I take up one of the points made by the honourable member for Holt (Mr Yates). There is a debate at present about whether advantages are being given to the already advantaged by the way in which we fund non-government schools. The honourable member for Holt mentioned that he had taught at one of the State secondary schools in Victoria and that he had also taught at the Brighton Grammar School which is one of the major private schools in the Victorian system. One may well ask why, if the government schools are properly managed, properly funded and properly endowed, people pay fees to send their children to some other form of institution. What is the factor which makes the difference?

It is interesting that 20 or 40 years ago people said the children gained different ethics out of such an education because there was a greater emphasis on religious instruction. I have serious doubts about whether that is a significant factor and about whether the honourable member for Holt was being more Christian and more ethical when he was teaching at Brighton Grammar than when he was teaching at Karingal High School. I notice that in the Catholic system only about 20 per cent of teachers now belong to the Catholic teaching orders in the larger areas of Australia. I am moved to answer the honourable member’s remarks because I think there is an element of danger creeping into the system in the creation of non-government schools to suit the aspiration of some local people. I think some of it has to do with the effort to take part in the direction of the education system.

There is a high school at Eltham in Victoria which has been operating since the 1920s. It is in a very good spot and originally it was finely established. But as the years went by, it became rather underendowed, the building became inadequate and so on. The Eltham High School has been operating for a long time and I have no doubt that it has good professional staff, et cetera. But in recent years a new institution has grown up which I suspect has been 50 per cent funded from the State and Federal Governments. I refer to the Eltham College. I have not had the time to investigate exactly why people have to be involved in the direction of the education system. I do not know what has happened to our State secondary school system to make people feel this need. Some of it I suspect is because there is a capacity somewhere for people to have a greater say in the way education is directed. But I think the other reason is that more funds are available.

I have a feeling also that the per capita grants system, no matter how well we handle the disadvantaged schools system, compounds inequalities. According to statistics, the level of assistance for sixth year students in non-government secondary schools is $562 a year. That goes to the rich and poor schools alike. It goes to the parochial Catholic secondary schools, it goes to the Melbourne Grammar School and to all the other schools. That can only be compounding inequalities. I do not care how good the administrative system is; it is doing that. From the very beginning I have felt that the objective of this Government and this Parliament ought to be to see that there is equality of education delivered to all Australians no matter from where they come or whatever their talents may be. There should be an equality of educational effort. I say that we are still a long way short of that.

In most of the secondary schools and the government schools, the ancillary services are meagre compared to what I see in some of the better organised and perhaps more richly endowed non-government schools.

I spoke recently to a teacher who was teaching at what I presume is one of the more highly endowed non-government secondary girls schools in Victoria. She said that she used to teach in the State system and that her new position had all sorts of things going for it as a job. She has more typists available to do work. She has more space to sit down and work as a member of the teaching staff. The classes are smaller and the services are better. I think it is time we set up an objective. Whilst I admit it is possible to conduct education, as I said earlier, under the most drab surroundings- I see some very effective teaching going on around Australia in this situation-there is no need for the surroundings to be drab any more than there is any need for the new Parliament House or even the new High Court building in Canberra to be drab. As a country, we should set high standards ethically and in every other way. So that is one point I wanted to put.

The other point to which I think we ought to address ourselves somewhere along the line is how we ought manage the schools, how ought we let the community itself become involved without imposing upon the teaching staff the eccentric behaviour of school councils? I am a member of two school councils and I attend as many meetings as I can. I do not know that I would want to be involved in handling staff in that sort of way although there are certain staff involvements. That I expect is a fairly difficult question in Australia because of the way the system is run. But I want to suggest in respect of the management of school capital works that we ought to give more authority to the school councils that have been developed throughout the country in the government schools as in the nongovernment schools. One of the sweet mysteries of our system is why we are able to give government guarantees for a loan to a non-state school and let its board or council, call it what you will, get on with the job but we would not think of trusting the committee or council of a government school in that way. If we are to run short of capital funds, if we want to get rid of money out of the Budget so that there are not so many noughts on the end of amounts to terrify people with some sort of eccentric financial behaviour, why can not we give guarantees to the government schools in the way we give guarantees to non-government schools? For instance, in Canberra we could easily do that by simply establishing each one of them under an ordinance, as we have done in a number of other cases.

The time has come for a bit of adventurous spirit. I say again, as I said earlier, unless we can get past the State systems and make sure that the money gets to the people in the way we would like it to, our aims will not be realised. There are political connotations in the State system that do not exist for us. For some mysterious reason I suspect that even retrogressive, conservative, reactionary governments like this one- begging the presence of the Minister for Education (Mr Fife), who is at the table- are likely to be more objective in trying to deliver the goods to Australians regardless of the electorate in which they live.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– I did not intend to speak in this debate because I know that the legislation has to be passed by a certain time. However, I was driven to take a few minutes to reply to some of the comments that have been made in regard to the Government’s attitude towards schools, that the Government is leaning only towards the richer schools. I would like to quote from a speech that was delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) at Riverview College. Let me quote inter alia from that speech. The Prime Minister said:

However, as part of the education explosion of the last two decades, the resource capacity of government schools has increased dramatically with the result that the gap between non-government school resources and the average of that available to government schools continues to be large.

I hope this will sink into the heads of some of those people who have been making certain comments recently. The Prime Minister continued:

In fact, the resource targets set by the Schools Commission have been so rapidly achieved by government schools that they now average out, on a 6 point scale, to the second highest point on the scale.

Whereas 90 per cent of all primary school students and 56 per cent of all secondary students in the non-government sector attend schools which are rated, on their resources, as being at the bottom of the scale; that is amongst the schools which demonstrably have the greatest resource needs.

So much for the nonsense that the Government is looking after only the rich schools. That is a fallacy. This is something that the Labor Party has been hanging onto for a long time. It is time that this myth was exploded. I just wanted to answer the comments that were made in this respect.

Let me further indicate what the Government has done in relation to schools which need help. I refer to the priority country areas program which has been designed for people living in isolated areas who need so much assistance. These people are disadvantaged by distance. Some members of this Parliament do not know anything about this scheme. It was instigated by the Commonwealth Government. It is being implemented by the State governments which are doing a remarkable job in assisting those people who are disadvantaged particularly because of distance.

I have a pamphlet here headed ‘Disadvantaged Country Areas’. The scheme was started in 1977. We have not heard a word about the problems of people who live in these areas. No one seems to worry about the people who live away from the metropolitan areas, and some of us in this Parliament have to speak for them in this way. Despite the fact that there are not many people out there, this Government has done something for them. It has done something about education, it has done something about giving them some cultural advantages, something about which people on the other side of the House do not seem to worry at all.

I have agreed not to speak for more than a few minutes on this subject. However, I want to say to the Committee and to the people of this country that the Government is concerned with the education of all students and all people. The Government views education from the widest possible angle. It subscribes to the four great freedoms, which include freedom of religious belief and it extends that freedom to support of independent schools as well as of government schools. I have no objection to government schools. I learned in government schools and I was the chairman of a government school committee. I appreciate the work they do. Teachers and staff in government schools have great records and have given great service to the community at large. I do not like the bias that is evident. I would like the parents of the students of this country to be given the choice of a dual education system, of sending their children to the schools they want them to attend, and having them taught citizenship in those schools.

Mr Carlton:

– Christian citizenship.

Mr CORBETT:

-Christian citizenship, if you like. What is wrong with that? If they do not want to go to those schools, they do not have to go to them. As I pointed out earlier, those schools are the ones that are most disadvantaged.

Mr Bryant:

– Are you saying that the government schools are unchristian?

Mr CORBETT:

– I am surprised at the honourable member for Wills. I was with him overseas once, and he seems to talk a lot more sense outside the House than he does in it. I would not have said that except that he has been constantly interjecting. In the few short minutes I have left I should like to point out that the friendly competition between the great public schools has been of great advantage to education. There has been co-operation between those schools in a number of cities. There has been an interchange of teachers, and friendly rivalry in sport. The example they have set in living together and in trying to promote the welfare of the community at large is an example that many members of this Parliament might worthily strive to emulate.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2735

STATES GRANTS (TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a secondtime.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Education · Farrer · LP

– by leave- I move:

One should issue a word of warning about what is happening to the apprenticeship system, and indeed the whole training system. Because there has been a reluctance on the part of many employers to take on apprentices, and in many instances because smaller employers are financially incapable of handling it and also perhaps incapable of handling the training of apprentices, there has been a fall-off in apprenticeship numbers in certain parts of the industry. Nobody can deny that the automotive industry and its ancilliary or related industries such as the maintenance of heavy equipment are a very important part of Australia’s industrial base. If we allow it to collapse at this stage, in 10 years time we will be very seriously disadvantaged. There are some problems associated with the apprenticeship system which we are unable to tackle or perhaps are not prepared to tackle because a deeply rooted psychology is apparent in the trade union movement and elsewhere in the community when a new way of handling the apprenticeship system is mentioned.

One of the oddities of this life is that no matter how old one is, perhaps 30 or 40 years of age, one can embark on a medical course and end up as a doctor. But there is very little chance in this country if one is 30 or 40 years of age of embarking on a training program and ending up as a plumber. We have to change that. For instance, the Batman Automotive College now has approximately 1,300 apprentices in training on a part-time basis, but it has a physical capacity as far as the buildings and so on are concerned of handling at least 3,000. In the training system there is also a totally inadequate use of the resources available. This set of buildings is worth approximately $Sm or $6m at least, and the equipment in it is used for a limited period every day. I want to remind the Minister for Education (Mr Fife) that, in considering these matters, some of the technical and further education institutions in Australia, and particularly in Victoria, are disadvantaged in the way they are handled. My information is that the Department has much greater difficulty handling the Victorian system and getting information out of it than it has anywhere else. Some notes from the planning officers ‘ report on the college states:

Greater demand is being placed on the College for more practical based rather than theory based educational instruction.

The report makes this point:

  1. . it is necessary for the College to instruct students on updated equipment and not just updated theory.
  2. . there is insufficient input of new capital equipment.

The report refers to the sort of equipment that is available, some of it dating back to 1933. This is a training institute that requires new vehicles to work on all the time. A motor car in the system for training purposes gets dismantled a dozen times. The wheels are put out of alignment and then the car is worked on. When that has been done 100 times the car is not good for training use. All the nuts and bolts have been ruined and so on. One just has to provide a supply of new equipment and new motor cars to be worked on. The young fellows working on them eventually end up working with people who perform that type of work. I guess that what has happened to the Batman Automotive College- I am a member of the school council- is happening to a large number of training and technical education institutions throughout Australia. It has serious connotations for the future of Australian industry. I remind the Minister of a statement from a report by the Victorian Industrial Training Commission which we ought to take up as a serious matter at Commonwealth level. This involves technical school facilities and staffing. The report states:

The Commission is most concerned that the changing community emphasis towards technical education has not been paralleled by a corresponding increase in funds allocated to technical education and is alarmed that restrictions on funding available to the Technical Schools Division of the Education Department will prevent the adequate technical school training of apprentices.

Those are not my words; they are from the report of the Industrial Training Commission. The Industrial Training Commission report was not produced as a political document. These are serious commentaries on the situation. It is all right to say that money is not everything, but we do not sustain the provision of new motor cars and new equipment to work on unless there are adequate funds. It is quite ridiculous in one of the largest industrial nations of the world that there is an inadequacy at the training level. It is fundamental to our future. The success of Germany and Japan during the post-war period has been due to the fact that they were totally re-equipped as a result of the War. In most instances they were re-equipped from the victors’ money and were helped along the way by the destruction of their old equipment. That is a challenge to us and if we let it pass we are failing in our duty. I hope that the Minister will take up this question of what is happening to the senior technical institutions which are not tertiary institutions in the strict sense but which supply the hard core of Australia ‘s industrial base.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

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

Third Reading

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

page 2737

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION BILL 1979

Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate insists on disagreeing to the amendment insisted on by the House of Representatives.

Motion (by Mr Staley) agreed to:

That the message be taken into consideration at the next sitting.

page 2737

WHALE PROTECTION BILL 1980

Mr GILES:
Wakefield

-I have to report that the Whale Protection Bill 1980 has been considered in Legislation Committee and has been agreed to with an amendment.

Motion (by Mr Staley) agreed to:

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

page 2737

FISHERIES AMENDMENT (WHALE PROTECTION) BILL 1980

Mr GILES:
Wakefield

-I have to report that the Fisheries Amendment (Whale Protection) Bill 1980 has been considered in Legislation Committee and has been agreed to without amendment.

Motion ( by Mr Staley) agreed to:

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

page 2738

CONTINENTAL SHELF (LIVING NATURAL RESOURCES) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Mr GILES:
Wakefield

-I have to report that the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Amendment Bill 1980 has been considered in Legislation Committee and has been agreed to without amendment.

Motion ( by Mr Staley) agreed to:

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

page 2738

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Debate resumed from 1 May 1980.

Consideration of Legislation Committee report.

Amendments made by Legislation Committee-

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

– I move:

  1. 1 ) That the following amendment be made to the Bill: Clause 6, page 4, after proposed sub-section (2a) insert the following sub-sections: (2aa) Where the Tribunal is directed under subsection (2) to hold an inquiry into a matter, the Tribunal shall, by notice in the Gazelle and in such newspaper or newspapers as the Tribunal thinks appropriate, invite members of the public to lodge with the Tribunal, not later than a specified date (not being earlier than 21 days after the date of publication of the notice in the Gazelle), written submissions relating to that matter. (2ab) The Tribunal shall, at an inquiry referred to in sub-section (2aa), have regard to any submissions lodged in accordance with that sub-section. ‘.

I would like to say a few words regarding the Legislation Committee process through which we have gone. I found this a very valuable and constructive contribution to the framing of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill and one which has resulted, I believe, in a strengthening of its provisions. It is a clear demonstration ofthe way in which Parliament can work effectively in the consideration of legislation of this type. I found the contributions of honourable members from both sides of the House to be extremely valuable and have incorporated many of the matters raised in the Committee within the amendments I propose to move. For the convenience of the House I propose to seek leave to deal with the amendments in natural groupings based on subject matter.

In discussions following consideration of the Bill by the Legislation Committee, the Parliamentary Counsel has suggested alternative wordings to certain of the amendments made in that Committee. Accordingly, I will be moving to substitute alternative provisions which, nevertheless, retain the sense of the amendments moved in the Committee. I propose to move other amendments which will cover consequential matters and still others which will cover matters raised during discussions and which I undertook to consider for inclusion in the Bill.

The amendment which I have just moved requires the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to invite written submissions from the public during the course of any inquiry directed by the Minister. This has been suggested by my colleague, the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass), who is representing the Opposition. This amendment provides also for the Tribunal to have regard to those submissions in its subsequent deliberations on that inquiry. In the Legislation Committee I agreed to consider a proposal to allow appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against any decision by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal under paragraph (b) of proposed new section 18 (2) contained in clause 6, not to allow a person to appear before it. Following consultation with the Attorney-General’s Department I have now decided not to include such a provision in this Bill as it would pre-empt matters presently under consideration by the Administrative Review Council. That Council is presently reviewing the procedures of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, the standing of persons seeking to be heard before the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and the decisions ofthe Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and the Minister which should be subject to review. As part of its review the Council has called for submissions from the general public. As an alternative to that course which was suggested by the honourable member for Maribyrnong I propose to refer the matters raised in the Legislation Committee to that Council.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

-The Opposition accepts this amendment because it is in the spirit of the first pan of its original amendment to the Bill. We adhere to the view that there ought also to be a right of appeal against a refusal by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to acknowledge a contribution by a member of the public. I must be honest and concede that the idea to separate the amendment and to put it in a form which made it possible for the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) to accept part of it was actually formulated by a member of his party- the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon). We are certainly appreciative of the contribution he made in enabling at least part of the substance of our amendment to be accepted. We adhere to the view that there ought to bea right of appeal and we trust that some account will be taken of that view as a result of the Minister’s decision to submit this matter to the committee that is inquiring into the whole procedure.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

-by leave-I move together amendments (1) and (2) as follows:

I should like to deal specifically with the points that the honourable member for Maribyrnong raised with respect to the ethnic Press and the objections which have been put forward by a number of representatives of ethnic community newspapers in recent weeks. I think it should be mentioned firstly that some of the ethnic newspapers have only just come forward with their objections. In fact, the idea for multicultural television has been floating around for some time. It was the subject of an election undertaking by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in the 1977 election campaign. There have been discussions and reviews of the proposals since then in coming to the final stage at which we have these Bills before us now. In the discussions that I have had in recent weeks with some of the representatives of the ethnic Press they have acknowledged that they were somewhat tardy in coming forward with the objections that they are now expressing.

The honourable member for Maribyrnong expressed concern that the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation would take advertising revenue away from the ethnic community newspapers. I concede that, to some extent, that will obviously be the case. The Corporation will draw away from those newspapers some categories of advertising. But I suggest that there will be other categories of advertising revenue which the ethnic newspapers will retain. There may be other categories of advertising which they will be able to attract as a result of a development of ethnic television broadcasting in Australia. There is, of course, a certain amount of business that the ethnic community newspapers attract in the way of advertising revenue which is not likely to go to a broadly based ethnic community television system. Certain types of businesses- restaurants and smaller to medium sized businesses in particular areas- are not likely to want to advertise on television. They are much more likely to feel that their target audience is being hit by a specific ethnic community newspaper. They will continue to advertise in that newspaper.

It may well be that some of the national advertisers which the honourable member for Maribyrnong has mentioned will find some attraction in ethnic television. They will put some of their advertising revenue in that direction. I also would like to suggest that the ethnic newspapers will gain additional revenue as a result of the development of ethnic broadcasting. If the ethnic newspapers are given a piece of the action in the development of programs and, in particular, the development of news services as I trust they will be, then I believe that they will gain some additional exposure for themselves. They will gain some status in the eyes of the ethnic community and in the eyes of potential advertisers if they are involved in ethnic television and if they obtain some coverage and some publicity through ethnic television. They will, therefore, be able to appeal to other advertisers who otherwise would not have had any great degree of consciousness of ethnic community newspapers. So I believe that that is an important area for the ethnic newspapers to concentrate on.

There are many advertisers who, I believe, have not given sufficient attention to the growing migrant communities in Australia in relation to getting their message across by advertising their products and their services. I believe that the development of ethnic television will, in fact, raise the consciousness of a greater number of potential advertisers about the importance of getting a message across to the migrant communities in Australia however that message can be got across. One of those means will be by television. But I am sure a great number of advertisers will discover, for the first time, the ethnic community newspapers which, in many respects, are not very well known outside their own communities. For those reasons I believe that the ethnic newspapers, while they may have some fears about the development of the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation from the point of view of a possible loss in advertising revenue, should consider that it will also open up some new opportunities for the ethnic newspapers of which they should be aware and which they should be ready to exploit.

Mr SIMON:
McMillan

-Many of the issues which have been raised tonight were canvassed in the Legislation Committee when this amendment was put by the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass). Since that debate a number of representations have been made to honourable members by interested parties. I think it would be well worth while having those representations incorporated in Hansard so that they will be available for the information of honourable members when the review is undertaken two years from now. During the debate in the Legislation Committee reference was made to proposed section 79zs which refers to the review of operations of the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation not later than two years after the commencement of that part of the Bill. As I understand it the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) indicated that he would be prepared to strongly urge the Committee, which will be appointed pursuant to that section, to look at the whole question of advertising at that time to see whether, in fact, the section had been effective and to see whether broadcasting had been adversely affected by the introduction of advertising into that media. If the Minister is prepared to give that undertaking it would be worth while to incorporate into Hansard two sets of representations which have been made to me- I have no doubt also to other honourable members- so that there is a record there of the concerns which have been expressed now by two expert groups and so that there can be a yardstick which can be referred back to during the time of the review in two years time. The first document to which I refer is a letter dated 5 May 1980 from Mr D. L. Foster who is the Federal Director of the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters. This letter directs itself specifically to the question of advertising. The second document is a paper which is headed ‘Independent Multi-Cultural Broadcasting Corporation’. It is a submission which is supported by 20 publishers of community ethnic Press. I seek leave to incorporate those two papers in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

page 2741

FEDERATION OF AUSTRALIAN RADIO BROADCASTERS

8 Glen Street, Milsons Point 206 1 . Telephone: 929 4866. Area Code: 02. Telegrams: FARB, Sydney. Telex: FARBAA25 161. PO Box 294 Milsons Point 206 1 .

D. L. Foster, Federal Director

Dear Mr Simon,

Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1980

I am taking the liberty of writing to you because I understand you are a member of the Legislation Committee which is examining this Bill, and because of the serious concern of the commercial radio industry about a number of provisions in the Bill dealing with the proposed Independent and Multi-Cultural Broadcasting Corporation.

Our overriding concern is the proposal that the I.M.B.C. should be funded by advertising and that it should endeavour to obtain ‘as much revenue as is possible’ from this source. (S 79d (2) (b)).

The main objection to this proposal, which is quite frankly aimed at transferring a public cost to the private sector, are first, the obvious failure to consider its implications or consequences, and second, the fact that it bestows substantial unfair competitive advantages on the I.M.B.C.

It must be recognised at the outset that the ‘market’ at which I.M.B.C. programs will be directed is a substantial market. The I.M.B.C, therefore, will be in direct competition with other commercial media, and its impact on those media, although unassessed at this stage, is bound to be considerable.

To undertake such a venture without any serious thought of the consequences would be, in our view, irresponsible.

Worse still, the Bill does not propose merely to establish the I.M.B.C. as a significant commercial competitor, it also places the I.M.B.C. in a position of extraordinary privilege in the marketplace.

For example, since the I.M.B.C. will be the recipient of substantial funding from sources other than advertising, it will not be subject to the normal pressures of a free market in establishing its advertising rates. It will have carte blanche to undercut the rates of commercial media which have no alternative sources of revenue.

The manifest injustice of such a situation is glaringly obvious. I sincerely hope you share this view and that you will press for the I.M.B.C- if it is to exist- to be funded in the same manner as the Australian Broadcasting Commission (which very nearly was given the responsibility for ethnic and multicultural broadcasting before the Special Broadcasting Service was established).

A second aspect of the Bill which concerns us is the vague and open-ended nature of the I.M.B.C. “charter” to provide services that “appeal to, entertain, inform and are of educational value to the Australian community as a whole and its component ethnic communities”. (S. 79D( 1 ) (a)).

In the absence of definition of terms like “ethnic” and “multi-cultural” this function of the I.M.B.C. could be interpreted to mean almost anything.

Finally, we must question the wisdom of granting to this particular Corporation the responsibility to support and encourage the provision and development of public broadcasting and television services (S. 79D( 1 ) (b)) especially when coupled with the power to “make grants or loans of money on such conditions as it thinks fit.” (S. 79E(f)).

There is a considerable risk that the I.M.B.C. “support and encouragement” would be forthcoming as much in the interests of the I.M.B.C. as in public broadcasting for its own sake. What assurance is there that the most support will not go to the public broadcasting stations which give most cooperation to the I.M.B.C.?

We understand the I.M.B.C. will have normal business transactions with the public broadcasting (i.e. specialpurpose) sector. For example, some public broadcasting stations may broadcast programs produced by the I.M.B.C. But this, in our view, only makes the patronage of public broadcasting by the I.M.B.C. more objectionable.

We are not opposed to some public funds finding their way to public broadcasting- as is the case now through bodies like the Australia Council and through educational institutions- but the I.M.B.C. is a most inappropriate source for further handouts of this nature.

Cordially,

D.L. Foster 5 May 1980

P.S. Because Parliament is not sitting this week I am sending a second copy of this letter to your home address.

Mr B. D.Simon, Bathe Road, Pakenham, Victoria 3810

page 2742

INDEPENDENT MULTI-CULTURAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION

The ethnic press is deeply concerned about the probable ramifications of commercial multicultural television as proposed by the legislation now before parliament.

We feel that advertising on the proposed I.M.B.C. ‘s television channel could signal the end of many ethnic newspapers. We are concerned that a government subsidised media network will be allowed to enter the limited market available to the ethnic press and divert a significant amount of advertising revenue which at present allows many ethnic newspapers to survive. Since ethnic newspapers receive no public funding many may be forced to close down. There are in excess of 90 ethnic newspapers in Australia employing many hundreds of Australian citizens. Many benefits flow to the Australian community from the existence of the ethnic publishing industry in that it provides jobs for printers, transport workers, postal workers, telecom employees et cetera as well as taxation revenue for the government.

We do not seek public funding for any ethnic newspaper as this would invite political interference in an otherwise free and independent ethnic press. What we are calling for is that if the I.M.B.C. is to be established then it should be totally non-commercial.

Why is it likely that commercial multicultural T.V. could lead to the end of a significant segment of the ethnic press when the Australian press exists side by side with Australian commercial T.V.?

Almost every ethnic community in Australia has a newspaper to serve its needs. Even some of the smallest communities have a newspaper in their own language. These newspapers have permitted a healthy freedom of expression and their very existence is now threatened by allowing advertising on the I.M.B.C. channel. The need for these newspapers is quite clear since they have provided a community service for many decades- and hope to continue to do so. We feel it is absolutely iniquitous that a government sponsored channel would be free to compete with ethnic newspapers for advertising. The service provided by the ethnic newspapers has not cost the Australian taxpayer anything; -quite to the contrary, it has generated revenue and employment for the whole community.

We call on the Government to establish the I.M.B.C. as a totally non commercial broadcasting body and to delay its introduction until adequate consideration has been given to the consequences of the IMBC ‘s introduction.

This statement is supported by:

Die Woche in Australien- Hans-Peter Jakobi/John Jakobi.

El Espanol en Australia- Hans-Peter Jakobi/John Jakobi.

Correio Portugues-Hans-Peter Jakobi/John Jakobi.

The Maltese Herald-Lino Vella/Hans-Peter Jakobi.

IL Globo-Urbaldo Larobina.

La Fiama- Urbaldo Larobina

Neos Kosmos- Pezaros/Gogos.

The Greek Times-Pezaros/Gogos.

El Telegraph-Edward Obeid

Le Courrier Australien- Jean-piere Sourdin.

The Ukranian Weekly- W. Shumsky.

Greek National Vema- Peter Aroney.

Ethnic News- Joseph Doueihi.

An-Nahar- Anthony Maron.

Novo Doba- Andrija Silic.

Polish News- J. Dunin-Karwicki, M.B.E.

Dutch Australian Weekly- A. Schuurman.

Al watan- Jeffrey Baker.

Yeni Vatan- Sedat Yilmazok.

Yorum- Umran Baran.

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

– I have been asked to give an assurance that the Government would be prepared to see these matters considered in the review. Of course I give that assurance. The points which have been made by my colleague I do not think need to be remade by me. We went over these matters in great depth at the Legislation Committee. I think that we should now proceed to vote on the amendments and move on to the next amendment.

Amendments negatived.

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

– by leave- I move together amendments (2) to (4), (6) to (9), ( 13) to ( 16), (18) to (21), (26) and (27) as follows:

  1. That amendment No. (1) made by the legislation committee be omitted and the following amendment substituted: Clause 18, page 8, after the definition of “Chairman” in proposed section 79b insert the following definition: “ ‘Chief Executive Officer’ means the officer appointed under section 79s;”.
  2. That the following amendment be made to the Bill:

Clause 1 8, page 8, lines 13-14, omit “ a chief executive officer appointed under section 79s”, substitute “the Chief Executive Officer”.

  1. That the following amendment be made to the Bill:

Clause 18, page 10, lines 14-15, omit paragraph ( 1) (c) of proposed section 79j, substitute the following paragraphs: “(c) the Chief Executive Officer; and

not less than 4 nor more than 8 other members.”.

That the following amendment be made to the Bill: Clause 18, page 10, line 20, omit “chief executive officer (if any) appointed under section 79s”, substitute “Chief Executive Officer”.

That the following amendment be made to the Bill: Clause 18, page 10, line 38, omit “or Vice-Chairman”, substitute “, Vice-Chairman or Chief Executive Officer”.

That the following amendment be made to the Bill:

Clause 18, page 11, lines 4-5, omit sub-section (11) of proposed section 79J, substitute the following sub-section: “(11) In this section, except in sub-sections ( 1 ), (4) and (9) , ‘member’ does not include the Chief Executive Officer.”.

That the following amendment be made to the Bill: Clause 18, page 1 1, lines 7-9, omit proposed section 79k..

That the following amendment be made to the Bill:

Clause 18, page 11, line 31, omit “a chief executive officer appointed under section 79s”, substitute “the Chief Executive Officer”.

14) That the following amendment be made to the Bill: Clause 18, page 12, line 9, omit “9 “.substitute “8”.

That the following amendment be made to the Bill: Clause 18, page 12, lines 34-35, omit “(including, where applicable, the powers of a chief executive officer) ‘ .

16) That the following amendment be made to the Bill: Clause 18, page 13, lines 2-3, omit “a chief executive officer appointed under section 79s”, substitute “the Chief Executive Officer”.

That the following amendment be made to the Bill: Clause 18, page 13, lines 22-23, omit “a chief executive, officer appointed under section 79s”, substitute “the Chief Executive Officer’ ‘.

That the following amendment be made to the Bill: Clause 1 8, page 14, lines 8-9, omit proposed section 79 R.

That the following amendment be made to the Bill: Clause 18, page 14, lines 11-14, omit sub-section (1) of proposed section 79s, substitute the following sub-section: “(1) The Corporation shall appoint a chief executive officer of the Corporation, with such designation as is specified in his instrument of appointment. “.

That the following amendments be made to the Bill: Clause 18, pages 14 and 15, omit “chief executive officer” (wherever occurring) from proposed sections 79s, 79T, 79u, 79v and 79w, substitute “Chief Executive Officer”.

That the following amendment be made to the Bill: Clause 31, page 26, lines 39-41, omit “or as a full-time Chairman of the Corporation or appointed under section 79s as a chief executive officer of the Corporation”, substitute “, as a full-time Chairman of the Corporation or as the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation ‘ ‘.

That the following amendment be made to the Bill: Clause 41, page 30, lines 34-35, omit “and may be made at any time after the commencement of that sub-section “.

These amendments insert a definition of the Chief Executive Officer in proposed section 79b of the Bill and remove references in the Bill to the possibility of a full time Chairman of the Corporation also performing the duties of the Chief Executive Officer. This matter was raised by my friend, the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass), and was supported around the table in the Legislation Committee. I was prepared to accept it for the Government. Amendment No. (2) substitutes an alternative provision of like kind to amendment No. (1) as moved in the Legislation Committee. The other amendments are consequential to this or are consequential to amendment No. (2) as moved in the Legislation Committee.

Amendments agreed to.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

-I move:

This amendment seeks to have added to that section: ‘on the recommendation of a joint committee of the Parliament.’ For too long there have been claims and counterclaims by both sides of this Parliament against the other side when in government. The criticisms, across the board, are that appointments too often represent jobs for the boys. Similar scathing comments have been made. It is the policy of the Australian Labor Party to suggest in all such appointments that they should come before a joint committee of the Parliament. The final recommendations of that joint committee could then be submitted to the Government. In this way we feel it would be possible, in the course of discussion- perhaps even in meetings with the nominees for these appointments- to get a consensus which would remove the suggestion that the Labor Government was stacking the Australian Broadcasting Commission, which was one of the criticisms levelled at that Government. As soon as the Labor Government was removed from office, all the members of the Commission were changed the other way. I would like to think that we have not made the claim too vigorously that the Liberal Government was stacking the Commission. I was sorry that some of the people who departed were allowed to do so, but obviously I have a prejudiced view. For these reasons the Opposition wishes to persist with this amendment. It is the policy of the Party concerning all such appointments.

Mr SIMON:
McMillan

– I would like to place on the record a matter which was debated in the Legislation Committee. I seek to record it in order that when a review is again undertaken in two years, consideration can be given to the way in which appointments have been made and how they have worked out. Without necessarily endorsing the policy of the party of the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass), I think there is some merit in the amendment and it is something which ought to be looked at by all parties, whether it be in relation to the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill or other Bills.

The suggestion which was made by the Legislation Committee which I seek to record now was that if a joint party committee was appointed for the purposes of making recommendations on appointments and one member did not agree with that appointment, that member would have the right to veto that decision. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) would then have the opportunity to make a decision in relation to that appointment. That would be the safety valve available to any government of whatever complexion. I would have thought that that was something which ought to be investigated a little more thoroughly than it has been in relation to this amendment. It is a matter which I hope the Minister will not just let lie fallow for the time being. I hope that he will think about the situation and the review which will take place in two years time in relation to this Bill.

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

– I believe it would be appropriate for the matter to be considered in that context. There are problems about accepting the Opposition’s amendment at this stage. It is a matter of considerable policy interest which goes beyond the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill. Whilst I am entirely sympathetic with the aim of the suggestion, I have some concern about what could possibly be the divisive outcomes which would be entirely unanticipated or unintended. There is also the practical aspect in that there is a need to set up this matter very quickly. I think it is appropriate for the matter to be reviewed in the first review which will take place in two years.

Amendment negatived.

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

– by leave- I move amendments Nos (5), (22), (24) as follows:

  1. That the following amendment be made to the Bill: Clause 18, page 10, line 16, add at the end of sub-section (2) of proposed section 79j ‘, who shall ensure, as far as practicable, that the membership of the Corporation reflects the diversity of the ethnic communities within Australia ‘.
  2. That the following amendment be made to the Bill: Clause 18, page 20, after sub-section (3) of proposed section 79ZN insert the following sub-section: (3a) The Corporation shall ensure, as far as practicable, that the membership of a Consultative Committee reflects the diversity of the ethnic communities within Australia.’
  3. That the following amendment be made to the Bill: Clause 1 8, page 20, after sub-section ( 1 ) of proposed section 79zp insert the following sub-section: ( 1a) The Corporation shall, in appointing members of the National Consultative Committee under sub-section ( 1 ), ensure, as far as practicable, that the membership as a whole of that Committee reflects the diversity of the ethnic communities within Australia. ‘

These amendments are designed to ensure that the members of the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation and its State, Territory and national consultative committees reflect the diversity of ethnic communities. I think that that is another suggestion made by the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) which won considerable support around the table in the Legislation Committee. These amendments are good. They will ensure a diversity of viewpoints and cultural perspective of the highest level in the Corporation. They also reflect the major role of the Corporation in promoting multiculturalism and in fostering understanding of the diverse cultural backgrounds of present day Australians. I might say that naturally with an upper limit of 1 1 members on the Corporation, there will be great practical problems in covering the field. I think the important point is that the spirit is reflected in the words of the amendments which have been brought before us tonight. That does not mean that it will be possible in any way to represent every ethnic community or every interest involved, but I believe that honourable members will understand the spirit in which the amendments were moved and support them.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

-These amendments were put forward by the Opposition. I acknowledge that due to the diversity of the ethnic communities and the limited number of members of the Corporation, because it covers the consultative committees and the national committee, clearly, all the communities cannot, b.e represented. In the original drafting of the amendments, there was no suggestion that they would have any representation at all. That was the reason the Opposition moved the amendments. For this reason, naturally enough, the Opposition is glad that the amendments were accepted.

Amendments agreed to.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

-by leave-I move amendments Nos (4) and (5) as follows:

  1. 10) That the following amendment be made to the Bill: Clause 18, page 11, lines 11-12, omit ‘chief executive officer appointed under section 79s’, substitute full-time Chairman or the Chief Executive Officer’.
  2. That amendment No. (3) made by the legislation committee be omitted and the following amendment substituted: Clause 18, page II, lines 18-23, omit sub-section (2) of proposed section 79L, substitute the following sub-section:
  3. A disclosure under sub-section (1) shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the Corporation and the member shall not be present at or take part in any deliberation of, or the making of any decisions by, the Corporation with respect to that matter. ‘.
  4. 12 ) That the following amendment be made to the Bill: Clause 18, page 11, lines 24-28, omit sub-section (3) of proposed section 79l, substitute the following sub-section:
  5. ) Where, on the date on which a person becomes a fulltime Chairman, the person has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a business carried on in Australia, or in a body corporate carrying on such a business, being an interest that could be in conflict with his duties as Chairman, he shall dispose ofthe interest within 14 days after that date. ‘.
  6. That the following amendment be made to the Bill: Clause 18, page 13, after paragraph (2)(c) of proposed section 79P insert the following paragraph: (ca) being a full-time Chairman, acquires a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a business carried on in Australia, or in a body corporate carrying on such a business, being an interest that could be in conflict with his duties as Chairman;

There was considerable discussion, as the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) has pointed out, regarding the pecuniary interest applying to the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation. The amendments propose to strengthen these provisions. They provide for a member with a pecuniary interest in a matter being considered by the Corporation to be absent and not to take any part in any deliberations or decisions relating to that matter. Amendment No. 1 1 substitutes a new provision for amendment No. 3 as moved in the Legislation Committee. Other amendments strengthen the pecuniary interest provisions in relation to a full-time chairman.

Concern was expressed by Committee members in relation to the wording of proposed section 79L ( 1 ) concerning the possible need for a definition of ‘pecuniary interest’ and the question of penalties for a breach of the provision. Officers of my Department have examined approximately 30 pieces of legislation passed by this Parliament over the last five years. The results of that examination have revealed that with the exception of the recent National Companies and Securities Commission Act 1979, from which the honourable member for Maribyrnong said there was poaching, the provisions in the Bill are standard ones applying to many other bodies and are as strong as or stronger than the provisions in those other Acts. No Act contained a definition of ‘pecuniary interest’ and I believe that this is probably due to the great difficulties in formulating a definition. Once there is a definition, of course, people can get around it and therefore it is thought better to leave the matter for examination in the courts and not to circumscribe it.

In relation to penalties for breaches of pecuniary interest provisions apart from the possibility of the termination of appointment of a member envisaged in section 79P of the Bill, I draw honourable members’ attention to section 132 of the principal Act. This section provides ample penalties for breaches of any provision of the Act. I am also conscious of the recommendations in the Report on Public Duty and Private Interest, called the Bowen report, and will be discussing these with all the statutory bodies within my portfolio.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

-These amendments largely arose out of the discussion on the proposals we had put and, once again, the helpful contribution of the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon) in particular. Whilst not going as far as we would have liked the amendments considerably strengthen the provision beyond that contained in the original drafting. For that reason, we are happy to accept the amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

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

– by leave- I move:

Amendments Nos (23) and (25) together as follows:

That amendment No. (4) made by the legislation committee be omitted and the following amendment substituted: Clause 18, page 20, lines 8-10, omit sub-section (5) of proposed section 79zn, substitute the following sub-section:

Each Consultative Committee shall elect one of its members as the Chairman and another of its members as the Deputy Chairman. ‘.

That the following amendment be made to the Bill: Clause 18, page 20, lines 40-41, omit sub-section (4) of proposed section 79zp, substitute the following sub-section:

The National Consultative Committee shall elect one of its members as the Chairman and another of its members as the Deputy Chairman. ‘.

Amendment No. (4) as moved in the Legislation Committee provided for the State Consultative Committees of the Corporation to elect their own chairman and deputy chairman. This would replace the provision in the Bill for the Corporation to appoint the chairman and the deputy chairman. Parliamentary Counsel has proposed an alternative form of words to achieve the same end and they are included in Amendment No (23). Amendment No. (24) extends the principle to the National Consultative Committee and I am delighted to accept the move which came from a number of members of the Legislation Committee led, I think, by the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass).

Amendments agreed to.

Bill as reported, and as further amended, agreed to.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Staley)- by leave- proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

-I would like to make a couple of comments on the outcome of the deliberations of the Legislation Committee and the way in which it has resulted in a large number of amendments being put forward. I think it was a very constructive exercise. I am speaking mainly to draw the attention of honourable members on both sides of the House to the value of this procedure because I am conscious of the fact that there is still some scepticism about whether such a procedure is worth while. That scepticism is on both sides of the House and, as I understand it, exists in the Ministry itself. The Legislation Committee procedure certainly means that the Minister has to know rather more about his portfolio than he might have had to in the past. In the inarticulate way in which we sometimes conducted those discussions in the Legislation Committee at which, interestingly enough, members of the Press were largely absent or when they were present did not understand the significance of many of the comments, which really amazed me -

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP

– Oh dear!

Dr CASS:

– They did not understand. The important point is that if they had really had their eyes and ears open they would have noticed that people on both sides of the political spectrum were agreeing and were aiding and abetting one another in suggesting amendments which did have some significance. That is what is important. I think that some day we ought to go a step further. The last two amendments which the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) moved conceded the right of members of the National Consultative Committee to appoint their own chairman. I am sure that in retrospect the Minister recognises the importance of this step. In fact, during the Legislative Committee hearing he said that he was amazed that that right had not been conceded and said it seemed odd that that right should not be given. In other words, it is time that our sort of patronising approach to such groups was forgotten for ever. Community groups should be brought into these sorts of things and should be allowed to express themselves, even to the extent of voting on issues without having to be told what to do.

Some day when we think of ideas for legislation to satisfy some community need and before the Government formulates its proposal in detail, maybe a proposal should be put to a committee of the Parliament to have public hearings on the matter. As has been the case with this Committee and some other committees such as the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, with public hearings it has been possible to get opinion from the community which has been of value to both sides of the House. Significantly, some of the reports- and I am certainly well aware of the reports of the Committee on Environment and Conservation because I was a member of that Committee for a time- have been unanimous. They have had something realistic to say. What I am saying is that if such things were done before the Government puts its neck out, if you like, by formulating a proposal in detail, it would have the benefit of the contribution from the community and from its own committee in then drawing up much more reasonable legislation without there being the problem which exists now when the proposal is formulated in detail beforehand and then suggestions come up, putting the Government in a cleft stick. If one takes too much notice of the other side it may be suggested that one is retreating. It is far better to get the ideas first, then one can afford to be flexible. For these reasons I wish to register the satisfaction of the Opposition with the outcome of these deliberations. We hope that it will encourage the Government to pursue the matter more vigorously on many more controversial Bills.

Mr SIMON:
McMillan

– I echo the comments made by the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass). Without any doubt the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1980 is a better piece of legislation for having gone through the Legislation Committee, which reflects the purpose of establishing such committees. I think that we ought to underscore that. I emphasise that in my experience it was probably the most successful Legislation Committee in improving legislation. That was partly due to the membership of the Committee, and I think that we can pat ourselves on the back for that, but I think more particularly it was due to the responsiveness of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) to suggestions no matter where they came from. Members’ party political affiliations were not relevant to the consideration of the value of that particular suggestion. The Committee’s success is also due to the work of the Postal and Telecommunications Department which had the torturous job of carrying through a number of very complex amendments to this Bill.

I think it also needs to be emphasised that many people who listen to the Parliament or who perhaps read of its deliberations are aware of the confrontations which go on in this chamber. Little notice is ever taken of the work of committees of the Parliament. I want to emphasise something which has been said before; that is, that the work of this Legislation Committee was not based on a party political line. That ought to be emphasised and recreated in many other situations because as a result of it a better piece of legislation has come out because the party political line was not followed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2748

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 May, on motion by Mr Eric Robinson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House has a general debate covering this Bill, the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Income Tax Assesment Amendment Bill (No. 3) as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion ofthe debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

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

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-The Bills now before the House basically do three things. They give effect to four income tax measures which were announced in the last Budget but which have not yet been legislated. Secondly, they give effect to what is described as drought relief measures that were announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on 14 April last. Thirdly, they implement a further income tax rise for most taxpayers, in the guise of a tax cut, by applying about two-fifths tax indexation to the income tax scales. The Opposition does not oppose the Income Tax Assessment Amendment

Bill (No. 2) which incorporates the four Budget measures and the increase in the spouse and associated rebates. However, it will be moving second reading amendments to the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3).

Let me discuss first the matter of tax indexation. By far the most important aspect of these Bills is that which affects everyone. I refer to the introduction of what the Government describes as half tax indexation. I believe that the concept of tax indexation still is not particularly well understood in the community. Nevertheless, it is quite an important one. It is important because, without it in a progressive income tax system, the incidence of tax automatically increases; the proportion of income that is paid in tax increases automatically with inflation. That has happened under various governments. It happened consistently under the Menzies Government, the Holt Government, the Gorton Government, the McMahon Government and certainly also the Whitlam Government, although during the terms of all those governments, and I suppose more particularly that of Mr Whitlam, large tax cuts occurred.

Nevertheless, there was not a system which prevented an automatic and continual movement up the tax scale by taxpayers through the process of receiving higher incomes. This happens simply because, with a progressive income tax system, the higher one’s income the higher the proportion of that income that one pays in tax. If, with inflation, incomes increase one is no better off if one has only kept up with inflation. One’s gross income buys only the same amount of goods and services, but if the tax scale remains unchanged one will still pay more of that income in tax. Therefore in real terms what is left after tax is paid is continually reduced. That demonstrates the importance of tax indexation. Without it, and without a system of discretionary tax changes, taxpayers move into higher tax brackets. They pay more of their income in tax.

This process, which has taken place under many governments, was described by the present Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, as taxation by stealth. He spoke as though it had happened only under the Whitlam Government. In fact, it had happened under previous Liberal governments. It seemed to be a rather severe criticism of his predecessors. He said that when his party was in government it would stop this process and would make governments honest by introducing a system of full tax indexation. He promised to introduce it over a term of three years. The idea had been put into his mind by a recommendation of the Mathews Committee, which had been set up by the then Labor Government to investigate the whole issue of taxation and inflation. One of its recommendations was that personal income tax scales should be indexed. Thus, the present Prime Minister promised when Leader of the Opposition that there would be full tax indexation if his party was elected. His Government has never established full tax indexation. It went close to doing so in the first year but its performance has deteriorated progressively since. In its first year in office, 1976-77, indexation amounted to 93 per cent. It fell to 80 per cent in 1977-78 and to 35 per cent in 1978-79. There has been no indexation at all in the current financial year.

The Government has claimed that the indexation which was granted in its first two years in office was full tax indexation, but to arrive at what the Government termed the full indexation factor it excluded from the price rise in the previous year those increases that were attributable to government policy. One was surprised to find how large a price increase the Government was prepared to attribute to policy. I refer to such aspects as devaluation, indirect tax increases, health insurance increases and, more latterly, oil price increases. The Government has admitted, in an indirect way, the extent to which, in its attempts to combat inflation, it had been adding to prices. That is a rather curious process and one which the Government has never satisfactorily explained.

In 1978-79 the Government claimed that it could afford only half tax indexation. This, after excluding various price rises, became 35 per cent indexation. The Prime Minister said that it would operate for only one year, with a tax surcharge which was at that time 2.5c in the dollar. As I am sure most Australians recall, in May 1979 the Government announced a change of plan, stating that it would not be able to remove the surcharge or restore tax indexation in 1979-80 and certainly would not be able to do both. Eventually, in December of last year, the surcharge was lifted but no tax indexation has applied during the current financial year.

The legislation now before the House is an attempt by the Government to restore some honour, to remove its image as a government that cannot be trusted, that does not keep its promises, by now supposedly restoring half indexation. Of course, the Government has been severely wounded by the breach of promise in which it engaged in May 1979 when it reneged on its undertaking to remove the surcharge and return to what it said would be full tax indexation. Instead, the legislation before us only confirms this Government’s image as a deceptive government, a thoroughly untrustworthy government which is still not implementing its promise in regard to tax indexation. We are now in the fifth year of office of the Fraser Government and it is still not implementing its promise to give full tax indexation. Even leaving aside the whole question of whether one should exclude various items from consideration the Government is still not implementing full tax indexation. It claims that it is introducing half tax indexation.

In our view, this whole legislative package is a deceptive one in respect of tax indexation. It is deceptive for various reasons. Firstly, it is decep tive because the Government sought to portray this measure, which it has described as representiig half tax indexation- in fact, it amounts to less han 40 per cent- as a tax cut. The Government has published tables showing reductions per week at various income levels. The Treasurer (Mr Howard), in his statement to the House on 6 March, incorporated in Hansard various tables seeking to point out the degree of tax cut which various taxpayers would receive. For the great bulk of taxpayers these so-called tax cuts are extraordinarily minute. In fact, for the vast bulk of Australian taxpayers this grand tax cut, which they will receive in the first pay period after 1 July, will amount to a whole 85c a week. That is what will be received by all persons who pay tax as a single taxpayer and earn less than $300 a week. They represent by far the great bulk of Australian taxpayers. It is interesting to note that that 85c will not go to every taxpayer who pays tax as a single person. If one earns $ 1 000 a week the tax cut will be $5.60. So, it will be rather more if one can move up the tax scale a bit. Nevertheless, for the great bulk of taxpayers it will be a rather derisorily small tax cut.

A more important point is that these tax cuts are illusory because incomes do not remain the same. With 1 1 per cent inflation, of course, they would not need to. What is relevant is to set the new tax scales for 1980-81, which have been announced and which we are debating now, against the increased incomes which will be earned in that year, not against the 1979-80 incomes as the Government misleadingly sets out in its tables. That is the relevant comparison. It is not relevant just to look at incomes and to say: On $4,000, $6,000 or $8,000 you will receive $X in tax cuts’. The relevant comparison is the comparison of the proportion of income one will be paying in 1980-81- given that one’s income, whatever position one has in life, will most likely be increased by somewhere near the rate of inflation- with one’s income in 1979-80. If one does that comparison one will see that all taxpayers who pay tax as a single person will pay, because of the lack of full tax indexation, a higher proportion of their income in tax in 1980-81 than they paid in 1979-80. That is the relevant and important point for people to understand.

This so-called tax cut for all those people who pay tax as a single taxpayer will in fact be a tax rise. If their incomes in 1980-81 increase only at the rate of inflation- the Government’s policy in respect of wages is that incomes should increase at less than the rate of inflation- under the legislation now before the Parliament they will be paying a higher proportion of their income in tax next year than they pay this year. Approximately 75 per cent of taxpayers pay tax as a single person. So, 75 per cent of taxpayers are in the category of facing an increase in their tax burden in 1980-81 as a result of the Bills now before the House. To give some details of this I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which sets out the real effect of these supposed tax cuts in respect of taxpayers without dependants.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Mr WILLIS:

-I thank the House. That table, the details of which I cannot go into too extensively, simply sets out incomes, in 1979-80 at various levels from $4,000 to $50,000 a year; assumes a 12 per cent increase in wages because of the higher rate of inflation likely in 1980-81 compared with 1979-80; and looks at what would then happen under the tax scales which are now being implemented for 1 980-8 1 at those various increased income levels. We see that for lower income people there is a considerable increase in money tax- the total amount of income they pay in tax. There is also an increase in the proportion of income they pay in tax. Someone who earned an income of, say, $7,000 in 1979-80, with a 12 per cent increase in wages, will have an 18 per cent increase in income tax next year as a result of this legislation. The proportion of his income paid in tax will increase by 5.4 per cent. The percentage diminishes as incomes rise. An income of around $ 12,000, which approximates average weekly earnings, would rise to $13,440 next year. At that level of income the increase in tax will be 12.2 per cent against an increase in wages of 12 per cent. So, there is a slightly greater increase in tax, and an increase of 0.4 per cent in the proportion of income paid in tax. The figure tends to increase again slightly above that level.

The general situation is that for quite low income earners there is substantial increase in the proportion of income paid in tax and the figure tails off up the income scale. That is the reality.

I have assumed that the tax indexation factor for 1980-8 1 will be 3.7 per cent. I should explain here that the Treasurer announced in his statement of 6 March that the tax indexation factor, as he assessed it then without knowing what the March quarter figure was, would be 3.6 per cent, which figure he derived by taking the 12 months increase in the consumer price index -

Mr Howard:

– You know how I derived it.

Mr WILLIS:

– I am explaining it to the House.

Mr Howard:

– I did then.

Mr WILLIS:

– I am explaining it again. Honourable members may have forgotten.

Mr Howard:

– I do not think so.

Mr WILLIS:

-I think they may have. I think many people would have forgotten. I am not sure that the Treasurer is entirely on top of it either. The Treasurer, by taking the increase in the CPI over the 12 months from March 1979 to March 1 980, derived at that time a figure of 9.5 per cent, from which he deducted 2.3 per cent for price increases for which he was responsible, which gave 7.2 per cent. He cut that figure in half and got 3.6 per cent. It is amazing how the tax indexation factor can be reduced. Suddenly 9.5 per cent becomes 3.6 per cent. In fact when we finally got the March quarter figure it showed 9.7 per cent increase for the 12 months. If one then deducts 2.3 per cent we get 7.4 per cent, half of which is 3.7 per cent. I have assumed in the table that that is the tax indexation factor, but the Treasurer will have to confirm that at a later date. Perhaps he has another fiddle to work somewhere along the line which might reduce it further. The situation is that 75 per cent of taxpayers who pay tax as single persons will move into higher tax brackets in 1980-81.

Of course, it is also true that the legislation before us substantially increases the spouse rebate and the associated rebates, which covers the other 25 per cent of taxpayers. For these people the situation will most certainly be better in 1 980-8 1 than it will be for the other 75 per cent. The spouse rebate and all the other rebates are to be increased by 34 per cent. Although we admit that this certainly provides assistance to single income earner families, I would like to make a couple of points about that. It certainly does not help families according to need. I think this is an extraordinarily important point. It does not do that for two reasons. Firstly, although the increase in the spouse rebate will help low income single earner families, it will do so by no more than it will help high income single earner families. In other words, the money saving in tax will be the same. A labourer with a dependent spouse and a couple of children will get the same money saving as a doctor whose wife does not work. Presumably that is fair iri the eyes ofthe Government. We do not particularly think that that is making tax assistance available on the basis of need. It quite clearly is not doing that. It is giving the same money assistance, regardless of the level of income.

Secondly, it will not help families according to the number of dependants. That also, of course, is a very important point. A family with a dependent spouse but no dependent children- that is to say, a man with a wife who does not work- will get exactly the same financial assistance as a family with a dependent spouse and 10 dependent children or however many dependent children one wants to think of. Is that the best way in which to provide assistance to people in need? I think we have to ask ourselves serious questions about that. Although we certainly do no oppose an increase in the spouse rebate, the Government can not then say: ‘We have done this marvellous thing in respect of the spouse rebate to look after people in need ‘. It will give some help to people in need, the low income single earner families, but it will give the same help to high income single earner families who do not need it. It will also give assistance to people without any regard to their real need, which is determined by the number of children. That is a very relevant factor because the tax deduction for children has now been abolished. So, we cannot give assistance through the tax system in respect of children by increasing tax rebates. If we are to give assistance to families on the basis of need, we have to do what this Government has refused to do since 1 976; that is, to increase family allowances.

In the period since the Government changed the system, abolished the tax rebate and made the money payable by way of family allowance- a reform which we approved and commended at the time- there has been an increase in prices of about 45 per cent. The real value of that assistance by way of family allowance has been enormously eroded. The assistance which that system gave to low income families has been very significantly reduced by this Government’s absolute and flat refusal to make any adjustment to the family allowance during that period.

Of course, the Labor Opposition has announced a proposal which it would implement in government which is designed to give substantial assistance to families on the basis of need. This is a form of increase in the family allowance which means that all families with an income of less than $8,000 a year will get an additional $4 a child; families receiving from $8,000 to $10,000 a year will get an additional $3 a child; families receiving between $10,000 and $12,000 will receive an extra $2 a child; and families receiving $12,000 to $14,000 will get an extra $1 a child. That scheme is deliberately designed to give a maximum increase in the living standards of low income families. It will be far more effective for the given amount of money than an increase in the spouse rebate.

The Government should think very carefully about its policy if it is really saying: ‘We are looking after families in need ‘. The Government cannot say it is doing so by way of the spouse allowance. It is giving some help but it is certainly not giving help in the way which is best designed to assist low income people. So overall a tax package means no more than a reduced tax rise for the great majority of taxpayers. It is a tax cut for single income families which has little relation to family needs.

Another reason why this tax package is deceptive is that its cost has already been paid for by increased petrol tax. The last round of petrol tax rises which came into operation last January added 4.5c to a litre of petrol. Of course, that is a petrol tax. It will earn the Government $680m in a year. One should compare that to the ‘cost’ of the tax increases now before the House. I have put the word ‘cost’ in inverted commas because most of the cost is a cost of not increasing taxes. We should bear in mind that the cost of the Treasurer’s measures now before the House are almost totally not a cost in terms of revenue foregone- that is in tax cuts- but in terms of not increasing taxes by as much as he otherwise would have without these measures. That is the way in which it is a cost. In that sense the cost is $6 16m. Therefore we have $6 16m for these income tax ‘cuts’ against $680m increase in revenue from his last petrol tax rise which has been operating since January. So these measures give less back to taxpayers, by not increasing taxes by as much as they otherwise would have, than the increase in tax which has already been applying since January this year by way of the petrol tax rise.

So much for the Treasurer’s suggestion that the latest petrol tax rise would enable the Government to contemplate tax reductions. These were his words on 2 January. He might have contemplated them for a while. But he has decided not to bother about them; instead he has decided not to increase taxes by as much as he was going to previously, and not to do even that until 1980-81. Of course, by 1980-81 -by the time these measures we are now debating come into operation- another petrol tax rise will be implemented. The next petrol tax rise will come in early July. By that time the Government will implement the next stage of its crude oil pricing policy. It will increase the price of Australian produced crude oil in line with import parity prices. That will mean an increase in petrol taxes that we will all be paying at the petrol pump by mid-July. So we will be picking up our 85c in tax cuts in the first pay period in July at just about the same time as we are about to pay an additional petrol tax rise at the petrol pump through the next stage of this Government’s petrol tax policy.

This is the situation which people now face. It also means for most taxpayers that the 85c tax cut that they will get in July will cover the petrol tax increase for 19 litres of petrol- that is, the petrol tax increase will pay for about 19 litres of petrol and we will be getting that just at the time when the price of petrol goes up again. Of course, 19 litres of petrol is far less than most people buy in a week. So in 1 980-8 1 most taxpayers will pay more of their income in income tax. They have not in any way been compensated for the petrol tax rise of last January, let alone for all the previous rises. Whilst they are paying this higher income tax in 1980-81, the Government intends to increase their petrol tax twice more- in July and then again next January. So while these income tax schedules are being implemented in 1 980-8 1 , we will be suffering two petrol tax increases. This is all from the party which says it regards itself as the low tax party. This all sounds rather ludicrous after what has been happening.

It is also a matter of some importance to me, although I do not have time now to explain it, that this Government has been clearly fiddling the tax indexation factor, leaving aside the question of whether things should be taken out in respect of health insurance. I have no time to go into detail on that. But the essence of it is that when health insurance changes by this Government bring about an increase in the consumer price index, the Government says they should be excluded. But if the Treasurer had implemented the tax indexation factor for 1979-80 which he announced last May- of course, he did not implement it because eventually he gave no tax indexation- he would not have taken account of the reduction in the CPI attributable to the introduction of the 40 per cent Commonwealth rebate for medical services under $20. This was a sub.tantial reduction. But when it reduced the CPI no account would be taken of it. The Treasurer should look at his May statement of last year. There is no mention of that in his statement in respect of the tax indexation calculation for 1979-80. But this year he is going to take out the increases attributable to this factor. If he had any decency in this respect, instead of writing into the tax legislation as we are doing now in this legislation, increases in health insurance, he would say ‘changes in health insurance’. But he does not. He just wants to take out the increases and forget about the reductions. One could perhaps take it beyond health insurance to other factors as well. But I have not time to pursue that any further.

It is also true- again I do not have time to elaborate on this point- that these large tax increases which will be incurred in 1980-81 by 75 per cent of single taxpayers who will pay more of their income in tax and all of us who will pay more of our income in petrol tax, are going to be a part of the pattern which is now very well established under this Government almost continuously during its period in office. The proportion of the gross domestic product paid in tax, despite the $2.5 billion of tax concessions to companies, was higher in the first three years of the Fraser Government than it was in the three years of the Labor Government- namely, 23.5 per cent to 22.5 per cent. In this year on our calculations it will be 24 per cent. In terms of payasyouearn tax as a proportion of wages and salaries, it was 16.3 per cent in three years of Labor; 1 8.5 per cent in the first three years of the Fraser Government; and 19.4 per cent this year on the Budget calculations. Quite clearly, this is a government which has very substantially increased tax. I do not have time to go further into that important matter.

In the time that I have left to me I would like to say a few words about the taxation concession being provided on the grounds of drought relief. This legislation allows primary producers immediately to deduct from their income the complete cost of capital expenditure on plant or structural improvement for conserving or conveying water. So it includes expenditure on dams, earth tanks, underground and above ground tanks, bores, wells, pipes, pumps, reticulating equipment and irrigation channels. These measures were announced by the Prime Minister on 14 April. They were supposedly prompted by the drought which has severely afflicted farmers in substantial regions of Australia- not all regions but certainly in substantial parts. Previously, farmers have only been able to write off such expenditure over 10 years. So an immediate write-off is a very substantial change.

The generosity of this measure was enhanced by the fact that expenditure which attracts the current investment allowance of 20 per cent, such as purchasing water pumps, will still attract that 20 per cent allowance. So farmers can write off under this legislation 120 per cent of the cost in the year of expenditure. If the expenditure attracts the new energy conversion allowance of 40 per cent, which is also contained in this legislation- that is where one is changing from a petrol driven pump to an electricity driven pump- one can write off 140 per cent of the cost of that item in the year of expenditure. That is a very substantial concession indeed. These socalled drought relief measures seem to us to have been the result of a prime ministerial whim rather than a considered response to the urgent needs of primary producers afflicted by drought. The concessions were announced by the Prime Minister just before his departure for Zimbabwe. As we understand it, these measures were rushed through the Cabinet without a written submission. The officials of the Department of Primary Industry were taken by surprise by the proposals and they had not been involved in formulating them. No estimates of the costs were available to Cabinet and none has been given to this Parliament. I believe that before this debate is over the Treasurer has a duty to announce to the House the costing of this proposal. None has been given so far, either to us or to the people, and the Government surely has a duty to tell us roughly what the costs of this apparently offthetopofthehead promise by the Prime Minister will be.

Criticisms of this measure are that it will offer little help to farmers genuinely suffering hardship from drought. There will be no benefit to farmers who have no incomes because of drought. Tax relief measures are of no use if one has no income, a matter that has been admitted by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) and also by Senator Thomas. The measures will do nothing to relieve water shortages in the current situation. These across-the-board measures apply where there is drought and where there is no drought, and as tax deductions they give the greatest benefit to those with the highest incomes. In other words, farmers whose incomes are high because they are not affected by drought get a very substantial benefit in that they take it off the top of their income, and those whose incomes are down because they are affected by drought get much less benefit. The most amazing situation, as we calculate it, is that if they can attract the energy conversion allowance and write off 140 per cent as a deduction in one year, then the subsidy given by the Australian people to farmers for such expenditure is more than 100 per cent. I ask the Treasurer to think about that. This legislation is giving to farmers who, for instance, introduce a pump which is electrically driven rather than petrol driven a subsidy of about $105 for every $100 they expend.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr BRADFIELD:
Barton

-The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill (No. 2), and the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) involve many amendments to the taxation Acts. This is a clear indication of the Government’s continuing policy to provide incentives through taxation and to return to the people a fair share of the taxation revenue that has come through the Government’s oil conservation policies. As the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) said, it is impossible to mention all the measures in these Bills. However, I should like to speak about some of the more important measures.

Firstly, I refer to the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3), which the honourable member for Gellibrand put last. I put that Bill first because it is extremely generous to the primary producer. It will also provide results that will give Australia exports, results that in the years to come will provide a better living standard not only for people in the rural areas but also for people throughout Australia. As the honourable member for Gellibrand has said, the taxation purpose of this Bill is to provide for a deduction of total expenses incurred in the construction, installation or extensions of any land works or equipment required for the conservation or conveyance of water. This will provide an advantage to the grazing and grain producing industries of Australia. It is an extremely generous provision, and I can think of no better way of providing end benefits to Australia than through those industries which produce exports.

The Bill also reflects the Government’s policy, because in the almost five years this Government has been in power it has been using tax incentives and the taxation system to strengthen the export industries of this country. One can see from the export figures of Australia in recent months, and in the balance of payments of this great country, that the incentives provided by the Government over the years are bearing fruit. Over recent months, exports have risen by in the vicinity of 30 per cent, while imports have remained fairly constant. I had a look tonight at some of the current export performance figures compared with some of the performance statistics when the Labor Government was in power. The summary from the Australian Bureau of Statistics for those years shows that in 1973-74 Australia had a negative balance of payment of $800m. In 1974-75 that figure had increased to $943m, and in 1975-76 it was over $1 billion. That shows the detrimental effect the policies of the Labor Government had on the economy of this country, when compared with today’s figures. Today Australia has a positive balance of payments due to its overseas trading. Those results come through Bills such as the ones we have before us, which provide incentives to our export industries. In the past, through our manufacturing industries such provisions have been shown to be right for the people of Australia. When reading the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3), I too, like the Opposition, became concerned about the sorts of antiavoidance measures that are necessary to stop people doing the wrong thing with taxation incentives. I have read this Bill quite thoroughly, and I can see that it contains anti-avoidance measures which will ensure the provision of the right incentives for the right people.

Moving from that Bill to some of the other provisions in these comprehensive Bills before the Parliament, I wish to deal with a provision to which the honourable member for Gellibrand quite rightly gave a great deal of his time. I have a great personal interest in the clauses dealing with reductions in personal income tax. The Bill provides for the indexation of personal income tax to be effective from 1 July this year. It is true that a half indexation factor will be applied, and I understand from inquiries to the office of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) that the factor is currently being calculated and should be available in approximately one week’s time. I know that the honourable member for Gellibrand had some calculations. I do not know where he got them from, but they are certainly not available to me. My understanding is that the factor is currently being calculated and will be available in one week’s time. The half indexation that is coming to the Australian people is a step in the right direction. Certainly it is not as far as we would like it to go, and it is not as far as the honourable member for Gellibrand expects us to go. No one wants to pay tax, but there will be a reduction and it will be appreciated by the Australian people.

The consumer price index, on which the indexation factor will be calculated, runs from the year March to March. We already know that the increase in the consumer price index from March 1979 to March 1980 was 10.5 per cent. It was quite correctly pointed out by the honourable member for Gellibrand that two minor adjustments have to be made for increases in the health component and the fuel component. They must be deducted before the factor is worked out.

In conjunction with that matter perhaps I should talk about some of the examples given by the honourable member for Gellibrand. I feel that some of them were quite misleading. Firstly, he mentioned that a person whose income increases by 12 per cent during the year would have a tax increase of 18 per cent. Of course, the honourable member for Gellibrand was talking about a single person with no dependants. In such a case it is true that there would be some increase in the tax paid by that person.

The honourable member for Gellibrand did not mention the generosity of another section of the Bills before the House which supplies very large and very generous spouse rebates to the taxpayers of Australia. When I say ‘tax rebate’ I mean a deduction not in the taxable income- as it is thought to be by many people- but in fact a complete deduction from the total tax paid. When we look at the details of these rebates we see their generosity. The rebate for a spouse will increase from $597, as it is at the moment, to $800. That $800 rebate is the equivalent of making $2,500 a year of the income of a person on a normal income tax free. At the moment the tax free threshold is about $4,000. A single income person with a dependent spouse, after the indexation factor is applied, can have an income of between $6,500 and $7,000 before his income tax commences. That will help many of the small people on that income in Australia. It will be of tremendous help to those people having their incomes exempted from tax. These same deductions are made for daughter-housekeepers. Their rebate has gone from $597 to $800. There are also the same generous allowances for invalid relatives and where the parents of the taxpayer are in his or her care. So really there is a great deal of generosity in these Bills.

I will briefly run through some of the other items covered by these Bills. Perhaps one of the most important of them is the deduction for capital expenditure on traveller accommodation. It is obvious that the honourable member for Gellibrand did not have time to speak at length on this matter. It is another example of this Government’s providing an incentive for something that will be an income earner for this country on an international basis. It realises the importance of the tourist industry in attracting overseas money to Australia. The 2Vi per cent depreciation deduction for tourist accommodation will be an incentive for more people in Australia to invest in this industry. We all know that for many years Australia has been only scratching the surface of the potential of the overseas tourist industry. If we can provide the facilities the potential for Australia to earn the money is there.

Let us look at the definition of this 2Vi per cent depreciation. A building or a complex becomes eligible for this depreciation deduction provided it meets certain standards. In brief, those standards are that it must have more than 10 separate accommodating units and it must be used also for short term accommodation. There are other safety clauses in the Bill which I feel confident will not allow the generosity of this 2Vi per cent depreciation allowance to be exploited by those people who try to find schemes to evade paying tax in Australia. It is normal for investors to get only a 7 per cent or 8 per cent return. We are looking at the incentive to an investor being able to claim roughly 30 per cent of his income as a tax deduction. That will provide a lot of incentive for the building of more tourist accommodation throughout Australia.

Some of the other aspects of the Bills provide incentives for people to convert oil-fired equipment to use perhaps electricity as the main source of power. They also tighten up the law on profits made when vehicles which have been leased over years are sold. In the past profits have been made on some of these vehicles and this has evaded taxation. The Bills tighten up that loophole and cover the Budget announcement last year limiting to $18,000 the depreciation on a motor vehicle which can be claimed by an enterprise. The decision announced in the Budget last August has created a great deal of discussion and some unhappiness for those people who, for some reason or another- they have the choice to do this- have chosen to purchase either directly, or by way of lease, an expensive motor vehicle.

I would like to say something to those people who think it is unfair and who think that there should not be a limit on the type of vehicle that they purchase. I remind them that over the years limits on many things have been accepted. Limits have always been accepted on expenditure on education, life assurance, and rates and taxes that can be claimed in tax returns. Why should people not accept a limit of $18,000 on a car if they choose to purchase one? It does not stop people from purchasing expensive cars. Anyone can buy a $40,000 car if he wishes to do so. The only thing is that he will get a depreciation deduction on eighteen-fortieths of that car. Certainly I think that that is fair.

I say briefly to the people who have been complaining about this $18,000 limit that the statistics of car sales throughout Australia over the years show clearly that price is not a barrier to the selling of a car. An increase in the price of motor vehicles will deter people from buying a car for a few months, but later on those sales return to normal. In the same way, if the Government decides to be generous and to take measures that reduce the price of a car, people might bring forward their buying orders by some two or three months and there would be a flood of car sales. Over an extended period these ups and downs level out and there is clear evidence that in the long run price has no influence on the sale of cars.

Debate interrupted.

page 2756

ADJOURNMENT

Ministerial Responsibility- Superannuation Contribution: Tax Deductibility- Wollongong City Council: Waste Disposal -Articled Clerks: Salaries- Army Reserve Pay: Unemployment Benefit- Australian Labor Party: Australian Capital Territory

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

That the House do now adjourn.

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

-One of the few remaining facets of the ancient traditions and authority that belong to parliamentary institutions today- they have been worn away- is the ability of ordinary members of parliament to bring before a Minister cases of individual constituents who appear to have been treated unjustly or unfairly by the bureaucracy over which the Minister presides. This is an important power which I think belongs to all members of this Parliament. We, as members of parliament, have a responsibility first of all to investigate the facts to confirm that there is at least a case for bureaucratic reconsideration. It is not our task to prove that the bureaucracy is wrong, but it is out task to prove that at least there is a case for a review of a decision. On the other hand, the Minister has the responsibility to ensure that there is a proper and genuine reconsideration of the facts and not to accept supinely the viewpoint of the bureaucrat. He should ensure at least that the original bureaucratic viewpoint is challenged.

I wish tonight to bring before the House a case in which the Ministers concerned have carried out that responsibility in a most cursory and shabby way. One of the Ministers involved- the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen)- has frequently boasted of his devotion to the parliamentary institution. Let me just bring the points of the case to light. In March 1980 a young flight lieutenant in my constituency approached me about a threatened discharge on medical grounds. He was to be discharged on 29 Aprilthe date is important- on the grounds of an anxiety condition. These things are always fairly debatable. Both by his own demeanor and on my investigation of the case there was considerable evidence of some elements of victimisation by Royal Australian Air Force authorities. I secured from his own doctor and from a senior social worker, both of whom I know and in both of whom I have considerable confidence, further medical evidence which contradicted the evidence supplied by the Air Force authorities. On 9 April I forwarded this evidence to the Minister for Defence and asked for a reconsideration of the discharge. I received a letter dated 2 1 April from the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence (Mr John McLeay) in which it was stated:

I shall write to you again as soon as possible. In the meantime no discharge action will be taken until examination of this matter has been completed.

As it had taken him about a fortnight to give me his formal acknowledgment, I certainly presumed that it would take him more than a week to complete the inquiry. So I informed the flight lieutenant that, although I could not predict the outcome of the appeal, his discharge the following week was most unlikely. It is true that when I returned to my constituency that weekend- that is, on 25 April- two disturbing incidents were reported to me. Firstly, I was advised that the young officer concerned had been told by his commanding officer when he presented the Minister’s letter: ‘It makes no difference. We have an answer for him’. Secondly, a comment was relayed to me from an officer in the Department of Defence that the Air Force was acting with indecent haste’ in this matter. Nevertheless, I retained some faith in the parliamentary process and returned to Canberra to await an answer. I was surprised, therefore, to find on my desk on Tuesday, 29 April a letter in reply, specially hand delivered, from the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. The letter that I received was factually incorrect. It revealed that no serious consideration had been given to my representations or to the contrary medical evidence and it noted that the flight lieutenant was to be discharged that day, 29 April- that is, there had been no reconsideration whatsoever of the original date of discharge.

It seems to me that this treatment is a fairly cursory, shabby and contemptible response to the proper parliamentary procedures in matters such as this. That letter revealed simply a supine acquiescence in the original views of the Air Force officials concerned. There was no real effort to examine the contrary evidence, to challenge the original view, which was the Minister’s responsibility. The timetable I have outlined shows quite clearly that there was simply an acquiescence by the Minister concerned in the indecent haste which characterised this whole affair and which raises further doubts as to whether this young man has been victimised. It simply made a farce of the procedures of this House, which are designed so that ordinary members can intervene to ensure that at least an adequate investigation of alleged injustices towards individual constituents takes place. To make one final comment, although there certainly will be more, this young man, who has been discharged on the basis of an anxiety condition, who has had his whole career shattered, and who has considerable financial problems- he has two young children- is showing incredible equanimity, certainly more than most of us in this House would show in that situation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr SHACK:
Tangney

– I should like tonight to support publicly the current preBudget campaign which calls for improvements in the present superannuation position with respect to the self-employed professional and the small businessman. At the moment taxation anomalies exist in this area of self-employed superannuation as against employee-employer superannuation arrangements, with consequent disadvantage to professionals and small businessmen who operate as sole traders or in partnerships. The attraction of superannuation in the employee-employer context results largely from the fact that substantial tax deductions are available to an employer in respect of contributions to superannuation funds approved by the Commissioner of Taxation as providing benefits for his employees.

The establishment and operation of superannuation funds formed for the benefit of employees is governed by section 23F of the Income Tax Assessment Act. The amount of the annual tax deductible employer contribution to a section 23f fund is determined by a series of calculations which are designed to ensure that retirement benefits are not excessive by reference to an employee’s salary level. Thus, public companies and incorporated firms are able to achieve substantial tax deductions for contributions to a superannuation fund for employees. From the employee’s point of view, he can claim a tax rebate in respect of his superannuation contributions of a maximum of $1,200 at the current rebate rate. On retirement, such an employee or his dependants are the beneficiaries of a superannuation scheme which incorporates substantial employer contributions and which, when taken as a lump sum, is taxed under existing legislation as to only 5 per cent.

On the other hand, the self-employed professional or small businessman who is both employer and employee suffers in several respects. Firstly, the guidelines established by the Commissioner of Taxation for the calculation of the maximum reasonable benefit which may be provided by a section 23F fund do not extend to sole traders or partners. The maximum annual contribution which may be made to a self-employed persons’ superannuation fund for different age categories is considerabley less than that which can be made by an employer to an employees’ fund. Secondly, a tax deduction is not available in respect of contributions to a self-employed persons’ fund and only the rebate provision applies. Thirdly, a superannuation beneficiary of a self-employed persons’ fund receives only those contributions that he has made himself. Without any separate employer contributions, it becomes virtually impossible for the selfemployed person to build up over a normal lifetime of business activities a fund anything like that which is available for employees. Thus, as both employer and employee, the self-employed professional or small businessman is at a disadvantage.

In recent years, various professionals and small businessmen have sought to redress the imbalance by establishing the required employeremployee relationships and then forming section 23F funds of which both they and their employees are members. This is often done by the establishment of artificial service or administrative companies which the self-employed own and by which they are also employed. To me it seems anomalous that a self-employed professional or small businessman must go to the length of establishing himself as an employee of a separate entity in order that tax deductible superannuation contributions for his retirement will be commensurate with those of his counterparts in employee positions.

In summary, I contend that both the present tax law and its administration have features which are unduly discriminating and which operate against the interests of the self-employed person. I believe that the Income Tax Assessment Act should be amended, or that its administration should be modified, so that in all respects the self-employed person is able to provide for himself and his dependants the same level of benefits as may be achieved for employees. If possible this should be achieved so that reasonable benefits may be set aside without the self-employed professional or small businessmen having to resort to the formation of companies, trusts or other entities which I have mentioned. One solution would be to permit a portion of the self-employed person’s annual superannuation contribution to be a deduction against income. That tax deductive portion should be related to what an employer would have been allowed had the fund member been employed. I am grateful that the Treasurer (Mr Howard) is present in the chamber tonight. I commend this suggestion to the Treasurer and the Cabinet. I sincerely trust that this year’s Budget will see initiatives in the area of” selfemployed superannuation which will rectify the present anomalous and discriminatory situation.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-On 4 March this year I made representations to the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson) on behalf of the Council of the City of Wollongong. The subject of those representations involved waste management material recycling. A submission of a very comprehensive nature which was the product of inquiry and investigation by Maunsell and Partners Pty Ltd and the Metropolitan Water, Sewage and Drainage Board was included with the representations. I was very surprised to receive the acknowledgement from the Minister. One can always tell a new Minister. Often he is befuddled and very often indifferent. But this Minister seemed to be very much influenced by the attitude of his Department. He said in his reply:

I have forwarded a copy of your letter along with the submission to my Department for a reply.

One would hope that a Minister would reply to a member’s submission on his own account rather than be dependent on his Department to that extent. Of course, when the reply came along it was pretty useless. He said: . . there are no specific programs within my Department for providing direct assistance to local government on waste management and recycling schemes.

Further, he went on to say that if the Council contacted his Department some information or report might be made available. He gave the name of a departmental officer.

I want to say to this Minister and to this Government that it is time that the Federal Government ceased its trend to abdicate from great areas of responsibility and got into the action of assisting local government and the people generally. The Government has abandoned such things as the Australian Assistance Plan and the Regional Employment Development Scheme and many schemes of that kind.

This proposal put forward by the Wollongong City Council was about recycling waste. The approximate present volume of materials being recycled by the Wollongong City Council is: Glass, 50 tonnes per month; aluminium cans, 4 tonnes per month; scrap steel, 115 tonnes per month; and car bodies, 200 tonnes per month. We are told by the Metropolitan Waste Disposal Authority in its 1975 Position Paper on Recycling that the potential is: Mixed paper, 35 per cent; putrescible and garbage waste, 35 per cent; glass, 16 per cent; metal, 6 per cent; rags and other textile wastes, 2 per cent; mixed plastic, 2 per cent; rubber and leather, 1 per cent; and others, ashes and dirt, 3 per cent. In all there is an enormous tonnage. One hundred and six tonnes of paper, glass, metals and plastics per day could be recycled. I believe that this is a very important and significant pilot scheme that is proposed for one of our great industrial cities where experimentation could bring a very great benefit to other local government authorities throughout Australia. We did not want such an indifferent reply from the Minister. The request involved matters for which this Government does, in fact, have responsibility.

Let me mention some of the matters to which the Council asked consideration might be given. First of all, it asked for taxation incentives and low interest loans for the purchase of plant and equipment. Honourable members should remember that this is a pilot that is proposed. The Council asked for grants towards the employment of staff and it asked for legislation requiring certain percentages of recycled materials to be incorporated into certain products. That last matter involves a bit of initiative on the part of this Government if it is interested in recycling. The Federal Government has refused to give any financial or moral support to this Council in its ambitious waste management and recycling program. I believe that the Minister should take a far more serious interest in this matter in view of its wide application to local government authorities throughout this country.

Mr N. A. BROWN (Diamond Valley) 10.45)- Of all the pleas for handouts which come across the desks of members of Parliament- pleas for economic crutches and protection from the Government- one which must really take the prize is the submission recently sent to members of Parliament on behalf of the Law Institute of Victoria. It asks, believe it or not, for a subsidy for the salaries of articled clerks, not only for those in necessitous circumstances but apparently for all articled clerks. This is an extraordinary request and one which I hope the Government, particularly at this time of the financial year, will reject outright. Not only is it an extraordinary request, but also the reasons that are advanced in support of it are equally extraordinary.

Three reasons are advanced in support of this strange request. The first reason is that the solicitors are so poor that they cannot afford to pay the articled clerks their wages. We are told in the submission that the average income of a solicitor is now $21,286. What a terrible situation that is! The solicitors go on to say that the employers for that reason simply cannot afford to pay the award wage. What a ridiculous situation it is. We have award wages which come about as a result of the solicitors setting up the tribunal which fixes the award salaries. The solicitors then turn around and say: ‘It is a terrible situation. Our salaries are over $20,000 a year and we cannot afford to pay the award wage’. That is an absurd argument.

The second argument is one which is often advanced. It is the argument that the scheme would not cost very much if the Government subsidised the salaries of articled clerks under the National Employment and Training System. They say: Why indeed, it would only cost $760,000 a year’. That is the situation that we have got ourselves into in this country. People ask for requests which they should not make and they, of course, advance the argument that it would cost only $760,000 or that it would cost only $lm a year or that it would cost only $10m a year. They say that that is chicken feed in the context of the overall Budget. That is an absurd argument.

The arguments get weaker as we go on. The third argument, believe it or not, is that the New Zealand Government subsidises the salaries of articled clerks. The reason the New Zealand Government does it, and I suppose that is one of the reasons why New Zealand has the economic trouble that it has, is that it has a scheme under which if the solicitors- I am quoting virtually from the words of the submission- create more jobs in the offices than are needed, more than the normal requirements, then the Government of New Zealand will provide a subsidy. That, of course, is not an economically sound argument. It is an absurd argument economically to say: Look first of all at the normal requirements of what the market requires and what the office staff needs and then appoint someone in excess of those requirements who is not needed economically. Then let the government pay for him’. That is an absurd argument. But it is accepted apparently in New Zealand. I only hope that it is not accepted here.

The most extraordinary argument of all is the last argument advanced in the submission and that is that there is no lack of solicitors. They say that there is no need for any more solicitors in Victoria and for that reason the Government should pay the salaries of articled clerks. What they are saying is that we should look again at the economic necessity and if there is no need for employees then the Government should pay their salary or subsidise them and put them into solicitors ‘firms.

Mr Howard:

– It is the Victorian Law Institute, is it not?

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

-Indeed it is. I would hope that no such submission would come from the Law Society of New South Wales. Finally, this particular submission shows two things. The first thing it shows is what happens when award wages become uneconomic and the market will not support the uneconomic wage which is fixed by the wage fixing tribunal. The second thing that it shows is just how far the poison of mendicancy has spread in this country. Even the legal profession now says that it cannot afford to pay the award wage rate to articled clerks. It says that it cannot afford to work within an economic context as determined by the market. It says: Please, government, relieve us. Relieve us of the economic burden of dealing in the real world. Prop us up. Protect us against the economic forces. Pay the salaries of our employees because we cannot afford to pay them ourselves’. I hope the Government will reject this absurd and outrageous submission.

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

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I almost weep tears of blood for the solicitors who cannot afford to pay their employees. I wish one could say that those people in need of solicitors’ services could afford to pay their fees. Unfortunately, too great a number of the people in our community do not have real or proper access to the law because it is well and truly outside their economic ability to cope and is outside the risks that they are capable of taking with the financial backing that they are able to obtain. A loss suffered against an insurance company involved in a major case can render an ordinary person totally bankrupt. Thus, that person is economically denied access to the law and justice.

I want to raise a matter which I have raised previously on a number of occasions in this House. At this stage there appears to be no evidence that the Government is taking any action to correct what I see as a serious anomaly and a very serious injustice. I refer to persons who are members of the Australian military forces reserves who are in receipt of the unemployment benefit. The discrimination against those people is extremely serious. I am glad that the Treasurer (Mr Howard) is present in the chamber because I think he will acknowledge the seriousness of the discrimination.

Government members- Hear, hear!

Mr SCHOLES:

-I am glad that Government members say, ‘hear, hear’. All members of this House are fully aware that earnings from service in the Defence Force reserves are tax free, irrespective of whether a person is a very highly paid professional or whether that person’s income is extremely low. All political parties and governments have supported that proposition. We now have a situation which has been highlighted in recent times. Persons who are unemployed but who are members of the Defence Force reserve, whose incomes can be as low as $36 a week and which most likely do not exceed $60 a week, have that income taken into account in the social service means test and the amount is deducted from their unemployment benefit. The income which those people receive for service in the Australian Citizen Military Forces is extremely low. A person perhaps in our income bracket or a higher bracket receives a 50c or 60c rebate which is tax free. I am not disputing that for one minute.

A person earning $36 a week who receives in excess of $6 a week from his service in the CMF is taxed by the reduction of his unemployment benefit- in other words, his wage. He is taxed $ 1 for every dollar he earns over that $6 a week. If he spends a period in camp he is subject todepending on the circumstances- the normal application of penalties against a person who has some income from work during a period when he received the unemployment benefit. There are a number of young men who are serving their country quite properly and well who are unfortunate enough to be on the unemployment benefit. They are being actively discouraged by the discrimination which is applied against them, in that the Government itself reduces their income by applying the earnings from the CMF in the means test whereas, if they were working, the Government would give them the advantage of the existing law. I have raised this matter on a number of occasions. To date I have received no response at all from the Government and no one has answered me from the Government side.

I realise that there are problems in effecting changes of this nature, but if income is deemed to be tax free and is deemed to be reasonable for that application to be made, I think it is also reasonable that it should be exempt from the means test where the person’s income is derived from the unemployment benefit. It is unfortunate because there are persons who are unemployed and on low incomes who derive some benefit from being members of the Defence Force reserves. They were members of the Defence Force reserves before becoming unemployed in many cases and are doing something worthwhile for their country. It ill behoves the Government, which is involved in a campaign of encouraging employer support for the Defence Force reserves, to discriminate against those people.

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

Mr HASLEM:
Canberra

-At this time we have a concerted campaign by the Australian Labor Party in Canberra to undermine the confidence of the people whom it professes to represent and serve. I would like to underline some of the Labor Party’s recent statements which have contained gross misrepresentations. Firstly, let me explain that I regard the truth as important and I regard lies as despicable. In the Canberra Times on Monday, 5 May the preselected candidate for the Australian Capital Territory, Ros Kelly, was reported to have said:

The ACT had fallen behind in moves to get its rail line electrified to Goulburn. The Federal Government’s proposals were to electrify the Sydney-Melbourne link, not the Canberra spur.

At a meeting of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory last

Monday, the Department of Transport gave evidence which rebutted that statement. The Department stated that the study currently being undertaken included the Canberra spur. I now turn to comments attributable to Mr Ken Doyle, a member of the House of Assembly for the Australian Labor Party. An article in the Canberra Times this week stated:

The latest housing figures issued by the Department of the Capital Territory showed a further decline in housing activity in the Territory . . .

The number of plans for new residences lodged in April was 50 per cent down for April, 1979. Plans for 273 residences were lodged in 1 979 and 1 35 in 1 980.

Mr Doyle said there was also a decline in the number of completed houses.

Mr Doyle is an expert on these matters. He is a school teacher in Weston Creek and, undoubtedly, is very much experienced in matters commercial. The Australian Capital Territory building statistics which were put out by the Department of the Capital Territory show that Mr Doyle told part of the truth but he selectively quoted and misled the people of Canberra. The facts are: Firstly, building permits granted went up from 200 to 249 for April 1980 compared with April 1979. The value of building permits grants went up from $9.5m to $ 12.5m. That is hardly a decline. Secondly, the sales of properties in Canberra recently reported by the Department of the Capital Territory show that they were valued in March at $24.65m, whereas in February they were worth $ 18.24m. That is hardly a sign of decline. To put it another way, there were 582 house and unit sales in March 1980 compared with 429 in February of this year. Clearly, Mr Doyle is wishing to confuse and mislead the people of Canberra.

Even worse, I refer to the most scandalous mis-statement of Mr Doyle, the Labor MHA, which was reported in the Southern Standard of 9 May. The article states:

Plans to open a primary school at Monash in the Tuggeranong Valley in 1 982 may now be scrapped, according to Mr Ken Doyle, Labor member of the ACT House of Assembly.

Mr Doyle said this week future development of Tuggeranong was in jeopardy, following release of the National Capital Development Commission’s plans to defer further growth works in the area.

I simply refer to a Press statement put out by the National Capital Development Commission dated 13 May. The statement read:

The National Capital Development Commission has invited tenders for construction of the Monash Primary School, Pre-School and Health Clinic on a site in the vicinity of Corlette Crescent, Monash. Construction is scheduled to start in July 1980.

It seems to me that if members of the House of Assembly in Canberra on 9 May were willing to say certain things which would be put into print and that projects have been scrapped -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Howard:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I require the debate to be extended.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The debate may continue until 1 1.10 p.m.

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– During the course of the adjournment debate, the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) raised a matter concerning the calculation of Army Reserve pay in respect of unemployment benefit. This is a matter which I think a number of people on both sides of the House recognise might represent an anomaly, particularly having regard to the tax exempt status of Army pay in other circumstances. The matter has been raised with the Government by a number of Government members. It is under consideration. I am not in a position to advise the House of the result of that consideration, but I will see to it that the remarks of the honourable member for Corio, which I accept as having been properly motivated and echoing, I think, a view snared by a number of people in the House, are brought to the attention of my colleague the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle). We will in due course indicate to the House or perhaps to another place the outcome of that examination.

Mr John McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I understand that earlier in the adjournment debate the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) made some remarks about a case of a Royal Australian Air Force person being discharged. If the honourable member had given me some advice that he was going to raise the matter on the adjournment I could have listened.

Dr Blewett:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I did inform the Minister that I would raise the matter at the first opportunity. Given the way in which business has been organised this is the first general adjournment debate that we have had.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

-The position is, Mr Deputy Speaker, going through it very quickly because of the time, that the events to which the honourable gentleman referred occurred on Thursday, the day before Anzac Day. The person in question was due to be discharged on the following Tuesday. The honourable member’s office rang my office on the Thursday. At that time I was en route to Melbourne, going on to Adelaide, and was in the air at the time. When I reached Melbourne my office contacted me about this case and the representations that the honourable gentleman had made. At this stage he had not had a substantive reply; he had only a holding reply. I told the Department of Defence to put a stop to the discharge arrangements. Apparently an additional worry of the person who was being discharged was the fact that he thought that he might be required to move out of his RAAF house. So at the same time I told the Department of Defence to ensure that he was relieved of that worry and that he be allowed another month’s occupation. When I arrived home that night there was a request to ring that RAAF person’s doctor, which I did. On the Saturday I rang him again. On the Monday, having considered the file over the weekend, the person himself rang me in Adelaide and I told him the result. I would not think that that happens many times when Service people approach Ministers. This man’s doctor also rang me and I told him the position. I do not think that any member of parliament or any serviceman about to be discharged or in any other circumstances ever had better treatment than this man had. I say to the honourable member for Bonython that I will look very carefully at any future representation he makes.

Mr Deputy Speaker, because there are still a few moments left, I would like to read into Hansard a letter which I sent today to the honourable member for Bonython. If he had waited another day to raise this matter he would have received it. The letter reads:

I have considered the remarks in your letter of 30 April 1 980 in connection with your personal representations on behalf of ex Flight Lieutenant . . . and am grateful for the opportunity to comment upon them.

Perhaps 1 could relate the sequence of events which led to the departure of Flight Lieutenant . . . from the Royal Australian Air Force.

Early in March 1 980 a recommendation was put to me by Air Force Office that I recommend to His Excellency the Governor-General in Council that the appointment of Flight Lieutenant … be terminated on medical grounds with effect from the expiration of 29 April 1980 and that … be placed on the retired list the following day. On 27 March 1980 His Excellency Approved in Council that recommendation.

I might add that at no time prior to your representations -

That is, the representations of the honourable member for Bonython- did . . . object to his appointment being terminated and he merely sought an extension of the date of effect.

Your personal representations in which you sought a review of the decision to terminate his appointment were received on 16 April 1980 and instructions were given for a re-examination by Air Force Office. On 24 April -

That is the day before Anzac Day, the day I referred to earlier- the relevant papers were referred for my consideration. This advice included medical opinion of a specialist nature that the termination of . . . appointment should proceed.

I should say here that . . . medical condition had been evaluated on several occasions over the past two years and included examination by a specialist psychologist, a neurologist and a psychiatric adviser. In addition, as you will recall in my advice of 28 April the Director of Air Force Medicine, who has served in the Royal Australian Air Force as a medical officer for 25 years, was in no doubt that the officer was medically unfit for further service.

I must disagree with your claims that scant regard was paid to your representations and the correspondence which you forwarded. I can assure you that far more than a cursory examination of your representations took place. Whilst I did acquiesce in the views of Air Force medical advisers the views of . . . and . . . were taken into account.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The Minister’s time has expired. If no other Minister seeks the call, the Minister for Administrative Services may again speak.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It would be rather unfortunate to chop off the matter in mid-air. I will not take very much longer. The letter continues:

You mentioned that Flight Lieutenant … is displaying no signs of his alleged chronic anxiety state in a situation which you allege would stimulate anxiety in most of us. I believe that the officer’s medical history recognises that he responds well to treatment but equally his condition always recurs.

For your personal information 1 am obliged to say that medical advice is that the officer has a very fragile personality and it is inevitable that he will continue to have disabling acute reactions to stress in the future.

Dr . . . opinion that the officer was fit to resume duty was no doubt correct at the time; but then . . . has a history of favourable response to treatment as demonstrated over the past few years.

I turn to your comments in relation to remarks allegedly made by . . . commanding officer. I have been unable to confirm that that comment was made but, in any event, it certainly had no effect on my deliberations nor on those of the medical staff at Air Force Office.

So far as an official with the Department of Defence having informed you that Air Force Office was acting with indecent haste’ in the matter, I have a report from an officer who spoke with your electoral secretary following contact by … in relation to the retention of his married quarter. I am assured that no remark of the nature you mentioned could be construed from that conversation.

I can advise you that . . . may retain his married quarter for a period not exceeding 28 days commencing 30 April. I would hope that this extension would give him sufficient time to obtain alternative accommodation.

Finally, I have noted your intention to raise this matter in the House.

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the House for the indulgence shown. I think it important to place on the record that this person received every possible consideration, as everybody does, and that the representations made by the honourable member for Bonython were equally carefully considered.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11.9 p.m.

page 2763

NOTICES

The following notices were given:

Mr MacKellar to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1 974.

Mr MacKellar to present a Bill for an Act to amend the National Health Act 1953.

Mr Adermann to present a Bill for an Act relating to war graves.

Mr Hunt to present a Bill for an Act to grant financial assistance to the States and to the Northern Territory in relation to roads.

Mr Groom ;to move; That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament, namely: The construction of the proposed Defence Force Academy in the ACT.

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

Defence Force Academy- Report of Public Works Committee- Government analysis- Paper.

Defence Force Academy- The case for- Paper.

Public Works Committee- Report on analysis of Defence Force Academy.

Mr Groom to move ; That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1 969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report, namely: The replacement of operating theatres and surgical wards at the Repatriation General Hospital, Hollywood, Western Australia.

page 2763

REPLIES TO REQUESTS FOR DETAILED INFORMATION

Joint House Department

  1. 1 ) Have any representations been made to have the staff canteen in Parliament House air-conditioned following the air-conditioning of the wing of the building in which the canteen is located during Autumn 1979.
  2. If so, who made those representations and when were they made.
  3. Has any feasibility study of this project been made by any Parliamentary Department or any consultant employed for this purpose; if so, what were the results of that feasibility study.
  4. If air-conditioning of the staff canteen has been rejected as not feasible for any reason, has any consideration been given to upgrading heating and cooling services to the food preparation area of the canteen to take account of seasonal variations of temperature.

Mr Speaker; The answer to the honourable members question is as follows:

  1. There is no record of representations having been received.
  2. Not applicable.
  3. At the request of the Joint House Department, the Department of Housing and Construction carried out a feasibility study and as a result air-conditioning of the staff cafeteria has been committed for installation during the 1980 winter recess.
  4. Not applicable.

Joint House Department

  1. How many permanent photographic identity passes have been issued for access to Parliament House from the inception of the pass system to 1 9 February 1 980.
  2. How many of those passes have been issued to (a) staff of Members and Senators, (b) staff of Parliamentary Departments, (c) staff of Public Service Departments and statutory authorities, (d) embassies, consulates and high commissions, (e) Eric White and Associates, (0 Canberra Liaison Pty Ltd, (g) International Public Relations, (h) the Confederation of Australian Industry, (i) Dunkley International, (j) Ronald C. Fisher Trade Consultants Pty Ltd, (k) the Australian Mining Industry Council, (1) Peter Cullen Enterprises, (m) Eric Walsh Pty Ltd, (n) Denis M. Gilmour and Associates, (o) Brammall Sons and Morris, (p) Kevin J. Cremen and Associates, (q) F. C. H. Consultants Pty Ltd, (r) Mcintosh Parkes and Associates, (s) P. A. Management Consultants Pty Ltd, (t) Nicholas Clark and Associates, (u) Dale Budd and Associates, (v) Frank Boddy and Partners, (w) G. Mailath and Associates, (x) the Metal Trades Industry Association, (y) the Australian Automobile Association, (z) the National Farmers Federation, (aa) the National Heart Foundation, (bb) political parries’ secretariats, (cc) members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery and (dd) all other organisations.
  3. How many requests for permanent photographic identity passes have been received by the Security Coordinator from the inception of the pass system to 19 February 1980.
  4. How many of those requests were refused.
  5. 5 ) On what grounds were those requests refused.
  6. What were the reasons for revised regulations which now restrict the issue or retention of photographic identity passes.
  7. Do the Presiding Officers personally examine requests for photographic passes.
  8. If not, to which person or persons is the authority to issue or refuse to issue passes delegated.
  9. Which persons have access to the sheets compiled by Parliamentary Attendants listing temporary passes issued when those sheets are completed and what are their names and classifications.
  10. Which organisations also have access to the sheets referred to in part (9) when they are completed.
  11. What types of temporary passes are currently issued and what are the pre-requisite conditions for each type.

Mr Speaker; The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 5,754.
  2. (a) 505; (b) 967; (c) 1,792; (d) 71; (e) 8; (f) nil; (g) 8; (h) 2; (i) nil; (j) nil; (k) 5; (1) 3; (m) nil; (n) 2; (o) nil; (p) 1; (q) nil; (r) 3; (s) 1; (t) nil; (u) 1; (v) nil; (w) nil; (x) 6; (y) 5; (z) 1; (aa) nil; (bb) 3 1; (cc) 282; (dd) 136.
  3. 5,830 written requests. Verbal requests not recorded.
    1. Verbal refusals not recorded.
  4. Insufficient visits to Parliament House to warrant the issue of photographic pass.

Excessive number of passes currently on issue to the particular Department, etc.

That a pass other than a photographic pass would meet the situation for the period required.

  1. With over 5,000 photographic passes on issue it was considered necessary for security control purposes to impose limitations on the issue of photographic passes, therefore non-regular visitors were required to use visitors passes.
  2. No.
  3. The Security Co-ordinator or the Deputy Security Co-ordinator.
  4. Security Co-ordinator, Mr W. J. McLaren; Second Division Level 1.

Deputy Security Co-ordinator, Mr R. T. Stevens; Third Division, Class 10.

Officer in Charge, Pass Office, Mrs L. Williams; Fourth Division, Acting Clerical Assistant Grade 5.

  1. None except:

    1. Lawrence Neild and Partners, architectural consultants for the Parliament House Construction Authority who extracted statistical information relating to a User Information Survey, and
  2. Urwick International Pty Ltd, Consultants, who made random selections of persons issued with passes in relation to a management review of the Joint House Department.

Access to the records in both cases was subject to Presiding Officers ‘ approval.

  1. Escorted day passes and Unescorted day passes are issued. The first named require the holder to be escorted at all times in the private areas of the Parliament. Unescorted passes are issued to persons accompanying Senators and Members and to tradesmen whose duties or visits preclude the necessity of an escort.

page 2765

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Personal Income Tax (Question No. 5469)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 February 1980:

What proportion of personal income tax was paid at the (1) highest, (2) medium and (3) lowest rate for the last financial year for which details are available.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

The latest available statistics relate to the 1977-78 income year. For that year a composite rate scale applied which was based on (a) the rates for the 1976-77 income year indexed by 10.9 percent, withaweightof7/12; and (b) the standard rate scale introduced from 1 February 1978 with a weight of 5/12. Under the standard rate scale the rate of 32 per cent applies to taxable income in excess of $3,750 and surcharges give effective marginal rates of 46 per cent and 60 per cent at taxable incomes in excess of $16,000 and $32,000 respectively.

If the standard rate scale had applied for the whole of the 1977-78 income year the estimated proportions of personal income tax that would have been payable at the three tax rates are:

1 ) at the highest rate, 3.49 per cent

at the medium rate, 8.65 per cent

at the lowest rate, 87.86 per cent

Commonwealth Employment Service: Work Program System (Question No. 5583)

Mr Humphreys:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 5 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) In respect of the revised work program system based on a review of Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) procedures by Urwick International Pty Ltd, what is the (a) standard time and (b) formula by which man-years are calculated for each of (i) self-service transactions, (ii) new registrations, (iii) re-registrations, (iv) vacancy servicing, (v) social security procedures, (vi) other callers, (vii) agent services, ( viii) clerical activities and (ix) harvest labour.
  2. What does each of the discrete activities referred to in part(1)entail.
  3. Is it possible to reasonably and effectively provide formulae for computing workload for the various discrete activities in the CES on the basis of averaged times taken over the review period to complete identifiable transactions.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The formulae relating to components of the revised work program system as developed by Urwick International Pty Ltd are too detailed and complex to be published in Hansard. The information sought has been made available to staff and staff associations and will be made available also to the honourable member if he so requests.
  2. Yes.

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Question No. 5645)

Mr FitzPatrick:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 1 8 March 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government (a) taken away the powers of the Prices Justification Tribunal to control the prices of locallyoccurring liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and (b) set LPG prices (together with those for oil), at world parity prices; if so, why.
  2. Has it been suggested that Australia has limited supplies of LPG.
  3. Does Australia export 1.5 million tonnes of LPG to Japan each year and is Australia currently looking for further export markets; if so, why, if there are limited supplies of LPG.
  4. Have LPG users been singled out in being asked to pay world parity prices when other locally-produced fuels such as (a) natural gas, (b) electricity, (c) briquettes and (d) firewood have had only normal price increases to cover inflation.
  5. What is the justification for the large windfall profits gained by (a) the Government and (b) Esso-BHP from a locally produced product.
  6. Has the Government (a) offered a token LPG subsidy of $80 per tonne partly to cover previous price increases and (b) allowed a price rise of $105 per tonne the same day; if so, why.
Mr Anthony:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) (a) Yes. The Government decided to remove naturally occurring LPG from the application of the Prices Justification Act in November 1978.
  2. 1 ) ( b ) In my Press statement of 8 April 1 980, it was announced that the price of LPG sold on the domestic market would be reduced to $205 per tonne and that future LPG price increases would be linked with the percentage increases in indigenous crude oil prices. This policy will mean that LPG will be available to the Australian market at a price which reflects the value of the crude oil which it is replacing.
  3. Australia’s supplies of naturally occurring LPG are necessarily finite. Naturally occurring LPG is produced as a co-product with crude oil and natural gas.
  4. The Australian market for LPG has not been large enough to absorb all LPG and substantial quantities have therefore been exported. It is Government policy to ensure that this versatile fuel is readily available for the Australian market.
  5. (a), (b), (c) and (d) The value of an energy source can be assessed on the basis of its opportunity cost, replacement value or by the value of the fuels for which it is a substitute. The price of LPG sold on the Australian market should reflect its value as a versatile fuel, suitable for automotive applications and as a petro-chemical feedstock. Natural gas, electricity, firewood and briquettes do not offer equivalent substitution for liquid petroleum fuels. Also there is no export market for electricity and firewood, natural gas must be liquefied before it can be exported and the export market of briquettes is very limited. A pricing policy which is relevant for LPG is not necessarily one which is relevant for these other fuels.
  6. (a) and (b) The import parity pricing policy provides that indigenous crude oil is sold to refiners at a price which reflects the cost of the imports which would otherwise be required. This policy is designed to encourage exploration, conservation and, the development of alternative sources of energy, in particular liquid fuels. The policy is necessary to reduce future demand, to ensure improved supply and to avoid the massive economic disruptions arising when inevitably higher energy costs are met by industry and the community. The import parity pricing policy coupled with the excise levy system ensures that an appropriate share of oil revenues is received by the community in the form of taxation. The returns to producers are not providing large windfall profits.
  7. (a) and (b) The Government has decided to assist country household users of reticulated and bottled LPG which are at a disadvantage compared to users of natural gas and electricity. The subsidy of $80 per tonne was announed on 24 January 1980. The PJT announced an increase in the justified price of refinery-produced butane of $105 per tonne on 1 February 1980. The Government did not in any way intervene in the operations of the PJT in its arriving at this decision.

Aerodrome Local Ownership Scheme (Question No. 5689)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 29 March, 1980:

  1. 1 ) Did his predecessor make statements indicating that grants would be made available to the South Australian Outback Development Trust under the Local Ownership Scheme for the development of all-weather airstrips at (a) Coober Pedy, South Australia, and (b) Marree, South Australia.
  2. If so, (a) what stage has been reached in the development of these projects and (b) when can it be anticipated that finance will be made available by the Federal Government for them.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. My predecessor, the Hon. P. J. Nixon, when Minister for Transport did make a statement indicating that grants would be made available for the development of allweather airstrips at Coober Pedy and Marree through Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan (ALOP) development grants to the South Australian Outback Development Trust. The statement was made with the proviso that the approval of funds be subject to my Department’s administrative requirements being met, as the SAODT does not meet the usual

ALOP requirements as a local authority, eligible to receive grants.

The acceptance of the SAODT as a local authority is presently under consideration between my Department and the Department of Finance and the authorisation of any development works must await the outcome of these negotiations.

  1. Funds have been set aside in the 1979-80 financial year for aerodrome works at Coober Pedy. Whilst every effort is being made for the earliest completion of work it is extremely unlikely that any works will be completed this financial year. However, it is proposed that works will be undertaken early in the 1980-81 financial year.

Works at Marree will not proceed in the 1980-8 1 financial year. In agreement with the SAODT my Department considers Marree to be of lower priority than Coober Pedy.

Taxation Deductions: Health Insurance Contributions (Question No. 5691)

Mr Armitage:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 March 1 980:

What is the estimated cost to revenue for a full year if medical and hospital benefit fund contributions were to be made a deduction for taxation purposes.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

The estimated cost to income tax revenue that would have resulted if contributions to medical and hospital benefit funds had been allowed as deductions in returns for the 1979-80 income year is an amount of the order of $500 m.

Commonwealth Property: Sydney Harbour Foreshores (Question No. 5713)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 26 March 1980:

  1. How much property is (a) owned and (b) rented by the Commonwealth Government around the harbour foreshores in the Electoral Division of Sydney.
  2. Which departments or instrumentalities are in possession of this land.
  3. How much of the land is (a) permanently occupied and (b) vacant.
Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3)-

Aircraft Cabin Materials (Question No. 5748)

Mr Morris:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) Which materials used in the interior construction and furnishings of aircraft in use with (a) major domestic airlines (b) commuter operators in Australia and (c) international aircraft operating to Australia (i) become and (ii) do not become lethal by the emission of poisonous gases in the event of their burning.
  2. ) Has his Department taken any action in recent years to require the use of safe cabin materials in aircraft construction; if so, what action was taken and what was the result.
  3. Is he able to provide any information on aircraft fires (a) in Australia and (b) overseas where persons have died as a result of poisonous gases emanating from fires in the cabins of aircraft.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) In the event of burning practically any material used or usable in interior construction and furnishings in aircraft will produce heat, smoke and gases that are inevitably hazardous to some degree in the enclosed space of an aircraft cabin.

In 1973 my Department had tests carried out by CSIRO on selected aircraft furnishing materials used in Australian aircraft and these tests did not reveal any material that could be regarded as especially dangerous.

  1. My Department requires that all materials used in aircraft cabins either be self-extinguishing or meet a specified level of resistance to burning. In addition my Department promulgated an Airworthiness Directive in 1974 which required that toilet areas of passenger carrying aircraft be modified to improve the Are containment capability of the waste disposals, thereby decreasing the chances of in-flight fires due to carelessness.
  2. (a) In respect of accidents in Australia there is no record of any death resulting from such effects.

    1. The statistical data held by my Department in respect of overseas accidents does not contain information of sufficient detail to enable a determination of whether deaths have resulted specifically from toxic gases.

Basic Nursing Education Programs (Question No. 5751)

Dr Blewett:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 27th March 1980:

Has there been a delay in the provision of funding for research studies on the College of Nursing, Australia, pilot study of basic nursing education programs; if so, what are the reasons for the delay.

Mr Fife:
LP

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

The College of Nursing, Australia, is participating in two Victorian studies of basic nurse education programs. These studies are funded under the evaluative studies program of the Tertiary Education Commission. There has been no delay in the provision of funds by the Commission for these studies, and none is expected.

The Commission has received further proposals for similar studies in each of the four States in which basic nurse education programs are provided in colleges of advanced education. The Commission has decided to defer its decisions on these proposals pending the completion of the Government’s consideration of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Nurse Education and Training.

Customs and Excise Duties on Sporting Equipment and Clothing (Question No. 5764)

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 3 1 March 1980:

  1. What rate of excise tariff is imposed on locally manufactured (a) sporting equipment including tennis racquets, balls, et cetera, and (b) sports clothing including football boots and jerseys, sandshoes, etcetera.
  2. What rate of customs duty is levied on imported (a) sporting equipment and (b) sports clothing.
  3. What was the total revenue from excise tariffs on locally manufactured sporting equipment and clothing in (a) 1975-76,(b) 1976-77,(c) 1977-78 and (d) 1978-79.
  4. What was the total revenue from customs duties on imported sporting equipment and clothing in (a) 1975-76, (b) 1976-77,(c) 1977-78 and (d) 1978-79.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. None.
  2. ) On 1 9 October 1 979 the Government implemented the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission in relation to sporting and recreational equipment. Customs duty at the rate of 25 per cent General and Preferential Tariffs was levied on imported sporting equipment with a few exceptions which were levied at 41 per cent General Tariff and 25 per cent General Tariff. The exceptions are exercise cycles, inflatable oval balls, golf balls, golf clubs, gymnastic appliances, apparatus, accessories and requisites, roller skates, squash and tennis racquets, tennis balls and underwater swimming appliances, apparatus, accessories and requisites. Various items of sporting equipment are eligible for entry under Customs By-laws at the rate of 2 per cent. These include archery equipment, soccer balls, water polo balls, fencing equipment, javelins, vaulting poles, skiing equipment, hockey sticks.

There is no separate provision in the Australian Customs Tariff for sports clothing. Clothing for sports is therefore dutiable at the same rate of Customs duty as clothing for other purposes.

  1. Nil.
  2. The Australian Statistician has advised me that the total revenue from Customs duties on imported sporting equipment is:

1975- 76- $3,177,083

1976- 77-$2,9 14,074

1 977- 78-53,248, 168

1978- 79-55,516,352

The tariff applied is for the purpose of protecting Australian industry and not for raising revenue as such.

The total revenue from Customs duties on imported sports clothing is not separately recorded.

Deaths Due to Illegal Use of Drugs (Question No. 5774)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 3 1 March 1 980:

How many deaths due to the illegal use of drugs (excluding deaths by suicide) occurred in Australia in the last 3 years for which details are available.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

Records are not kept, either at State or national level, which would readily enable an accurate answer to be given to this question.

My Department has been attempting to develop such statistics from collections available in the States and Territories. As a result it is possible to say that, in the States of

Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania, and in the Sydney Coroner’s District, deaths due to drug overdose totalled 536 in 1976, 540 in 1977 and 519 in 1978. These deaths involved a wide range of drugs of which narcotic drugs were implicated in 30 deaths in 1976, 50 in 1977 and 46 in 1978. It is not possible to group the available statistics into deaths involving drugs obtained illegally rather than legally, nor into those due to suicide and accidental overdose or misadventure.

Figures are not currently available, for the other States or the Northern Territory.

With regard to the Australian Capital Territory figures are available for 1978 and 1979, and these are set out below. Prior to 1978, the A.C.T. toxicological examinations were done by N.S.W. analytical laboratories. 1978- 14 deaths were attributed to drug usage. 1979- 12 deaths were attributed to drug usage.

Information is not available to indicate whether these deaths were due to suicide or whether the drugs concerned were obtained legally or illegally.

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Question No. 5796)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

What was the production of liquefied petroleum gas to which the production levy (1) applied and (2) did not apply in (a) 1978 and (b) 1979.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Production of liquefied petroleum gas to which the production levy (1) applied and (2) did not apply in (a) 1978 and (b) 1979 was as follows: 1 (a) 1,551,895 tonnes, (b) 1,410,367 tonnes; (2) (a) 161,384 tonnes, (b) 339,373 tonnes.

These figures refer only to production of naturally occurring Liquefied Petroleum Gas and do not include that produced at refineries.

Oil Exploration (Question No. 5799)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 2 April 1 980:

How many ( 1 ) on-shore and (2) off-shore oil drilling rigs were in operation in Australia in the periods (a) 1 January to 30 June 1976; (b) 1 July to 3 1 December 1976; (c) 1 January to 30 June 1977; (d) 1 July to 31 December 1977; (e) 1 January to 30 June 1978; (f) 1 July to 31 December 1978; (g) 1 January to 30 June 1979 and (h) 1 July to 31 December 1979.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) See the following issues of the Petroleum Newsletter (published by the Bureau of Mineral Resources) for the periods in question-

    1. No. 66, page 18;
    2. No. 68, page 15;
    3. No. 70, page 13;
    4. No. 72, page 14;
    5. No. 74, page 14;
    6. No. 76, page 16;
    7. No. 78, page 15.
    8. The final figures are not yet published but the preliminary figures for the period are:

Aluminium Smelters: Electricity Tariffs (Question No. 5800)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 2 April 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Does the Government have full details of the electricity tariffs applying to each aluminium smelter now operating in Australia; if so, what tariffs applied in each case as at 31 March 1980.
  2. Is the Government (a) involved in or (b) kept fully informed of negotiations in relation to the tariffs to be set for the supply of electricity to planned new aluminium smelters; if so, what stage had negotiations reached in each case by 3 1 March 1980.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) No. Tariff arrangements between State generating authorities and large electricity users such as aluminium smelters are generally of a confidential nature and in the normal course of events would not be known to the Commonwealth.
  2. No. However, in the case of the Alcoa smelter to be located at Portland, the tariff arrangements were announced by the Premier of Victoria on 25 March 1 980.

Well-head Values for Oil (Question No. 5803)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

Has the Government taken any action to assert its authority over oil production from offshore fields in order to establish appropriate well-head values for oil produced from the Gippsland Basin fields; if so, what action has been taken; if not, why not, in view of (a) recent comments of the Commonwealth Auditor-General and (b) the consequences for the Commonwealth ‘s revenue.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

See the amendments to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) legislation currently before Parliament.

Investment in Petroleum Industry (Question No. 5808)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Which companies invested in (a) off-shore and (b) onshore petroleum (i) exploration, (ii) development or (iii) productions in Australia in 1978.
  2. Is this information confidential; if so, (a) why and (b) is it withheld at the (i) request of companies concerned or (ii) initiative of the Government.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) The companies which had interests in offshore and on-shore petroleum titles in Australia in 1978 are listed in the Key accompanying the Petroleum Exploration and Development Titles Map (showing petroleum titles in force at 1 January 1979) published by the Bureau of Mineral Resources. A copy of the Key and map is available in the Parliamentary Library.

Crude Oil Production (Question No. 5811)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 2 April 1 980:

What was the production of (1) import parity and (2) non-import parity crude oil from (a) small, (b) medium and (c) large Barrow Island oil fields in the period 1 July to 3 1 December 1979.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Production of ( 1 ) import parity and (2) non-import parity crude oil from (a) small, (b) medium and (c) large Barrow Island oil fields in the period 1 July to 31 December 1979 was as follows: (l)(a) 68,894 kilolitres (b) 479,317 kilolitres (c) nil; (2) (a) nil (b) 85,262 kilolitres (c) nil.

These figures should be regarded as provisional, since categorization of areas into small, medium and large is dependent on the level of production in the twelve months ending 30 June 1980.

Crude Oil Production (Question No. 5812)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

What was the production of (1) import parity and (2) non-import parity crude oil from (a) small, (b) medium and (c) large Bass Strait oil fields in the period 1 July to 31 December 1979.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Production of ( 1 ) import parity and (2) non-import parity crude oil from (a) small, (b) medium and (c) large Bass

Strait oil fields in the period I July to 3 1 December 1 979 was as follows: (l)(a) 132,030 kilolitres (b) 596,070 kilolitres (c) 4,055,841 kilolitres; (2) (a) nil (b) nil (c) 7,532,277 kilolitres.

These figures should be regarded as provisional, since final categorization of areas into small, medium and large is dependent on the level of production in the twelve months ending 30 June 1980.

Crude Oil Production (Question No. 5813)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

What was the production of (1) import parity and (2) non-import parity crude oil from (a) small, (b) medium and (c) large Queensland oil fields in the period 1 July to 3 1 December 1979.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Production of ( 1 ) import parity and (2) non-import parity crude oil from (a) small, (b) medium and (c) large Queensland oil fields in the period 1 July to 3 1 December 1979 is as follows: (l)(a) 38,553 kilolitres (b) nil (c) nil; (2) (a) nil (b) nil (c) nil.

These figures should be regarded as provisional.

Bureau of Mineral Resources (Question No. 5819)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 2 April 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to comments by Dr David Denham published in Search (page 7, January/February 1980 issue) that as a result of a decline in staff numbers since 1974 and a decline in its budget in real terms since 1972-73, the operational activities ofthe Bureau of Mineral Resources (B.M.R.) have seriously declined.
  2. Is it a fact, as claimed by Dr Denham that (a) 1 of the B.M.R. ‘s 2 aircraft dedicated to magnetic and radiometric mapping has been mothballed, (b) only 1 of the B.M.R. ‘s 2 seismic crews can go into the field, and then only for less than 6 months each year and (c) the B.M.R. ‘s marine group has not been able to go to sea in its own right since 1 973.
  3. If the situation is as claimed in pan (2), in what ways has each of these restrictions on the operations of the B.M.R. limited its effectiveness as the primary national geological and geophysical research organisation.
  4. Has the Government taken any action, following its decision to improve the status and role of the B.M.R., to increase its capability to engage in (a) air-borne magnetic and radiometric mapping; (b) seismic surveys and (c) marine research; if so, what action has been taken.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. (a) Yes.

    1. The number of seismic crews assembled and the period of field activity are determined according to specific projects included in the overall program of the Bureau. In each of the past ten years, one seismic crew has operated in the field for periods ranging from VA to 5¼ months.
    2. B.M.R. ‘s Marine Geology Group has made a number of minor cruises in its own right since 1 973.
  3. As indicated, the situation is not wholly as claimed in part (2) of the question. The effectiveness of the B.M.R. has been widely acknowledged over a long period and I invite the Honourable Member’s attention to paragraphs 2. 1 1 and 2. 12 of the report to the Prime Minister on the B.M.R. by the Australian Science and Technology Council of October 1978.
  4. Following the Government’s decision on the future role ofthe B.M.R., the position of Director has been raised in status and applications invited for appointment. Concurrently with the appointment of the Director, which it is anticipated will be announced in the near future, a Committee will be established to advise the B.M.R. in the formulation of its research and assessment programs. The overall program ofthe Bureau and its capacity to undertake the more sophisticated research required of it will be progressively reviewed.

Crude Oil Allocation and Absorption Policy (Question No. 5820)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 2 April 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Have discussions commenced with the oil industry in relation to the crude oil allocation and absorption policy; if so, which parties have been consulted.
  2. Have persons from outside the oil industry been involved in any similar discussions; if so, who has been consulted.
  3. If persons outside the oil industry have not been consulted, why not.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) Discussions have commenced with the oil industry in relation to the crude oil allocation and absorption policy. The producers and refiner/marketers have been consulted and their views expressed in response to a letter from the Department of National Development in July 1 979.
  2. Persons outside the oil industry have not been involved in any similar discussions.
  3. The allocation scheme is a voluntary arrangement between the producers and refiner/marketers. It is, therefore, not considered appropriate, nor necessary to include other parties in the discussion.

Motor Spirit (Question No. 5838)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

In view of the answer provided by his predecessor to question No. 4081 (Hansard, 22 August 1979, page 500) in relation to the interruption of production from Australian oil refineries, which periods in either (a) 1978 or (b) 1979 in which motor spirit consumption declined in relation to consumption in preceding years coincided with periods of restriction in motor spirit supply.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

As indicated in my predecessor’s answer to Question No. 4081, this information is not readily available and staff resources are not available to undertake the extensive research exercise required to provide the details sought.

I can confirm, however, that the largest monthly reduction in motor spirit consumption during 1979 (13.8 per cent in New South Wales in June) coincided with a major industrial dispute at the Kurnell refinery. 1 would note, on the other hand, that significant reductions in March and September 1979 were not associated with general supply restrictions.

Energy Research (Question No. 5869)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 2 April 1 980:

  1. What sums were (a) allocated for or (b) expended on energy research by (i) the Federal Government, (ii) each of the State Governments, (iii) other governments or semigovernment authorities and (iv) private sources during (A) 1977- 78 and (B) 1978-79.
  2. Will he provide (a) a breakdown of the areas where this research was undertaken and the sums allocated to each area and (b) the total expenditure for the research on a per capita basis for each year.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) and (2) The answer to Question Number 3258 (House of Representatives Hansard, 22 November 1979, page 3447) provided the details requested in respect of the major sources of expenditure by Commonwealth Departments and Authorities in 1977-78 and estimated expenditure in 1978- 79.

In that reply it was stated that no national survey had been conducted nor was one proposed to ascertain details of expenditure for other sectors in 1977-78. However, in respect of 1978-79 it was pointed out that the Project SCORE Survey of R and D activity in Australia being undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics will cover energy R and D expenditure by the Commonwealth, State, Tertiary and Private Sectors. The results are expected to be published in the second half of 1980.

Ticket Dispensing Machines (Question No. 5880)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 15 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Where are the ticket dispensing machines to be purchased under contract NS62 notified on page 69 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 25 March 1980 to be located.
  2. When are they to be introduced.
  3. How many machines are to be purchased.
  4. What is the cost per machine.
  5. What is the purpose of the tickets to be issued.
  6. Are these tickets issued at present; if so, by what means.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) In three public parking areas, Canberra airport.
  2. I will be making an announcement about the introduction of these machines at the appropriate time.
  3. Three.
  4. $4,609.
  5. Tickets issued will be receipts for parking fees paid, and will be required to be displayed in the vehicle while it is in the parking area.
  6. No fees are payable at present for use of these parking areas.

Entech Associates Pty Ltd (Question No. 5883)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 5 April 1 980:

  1. 1 ) What specific tasks are to be performed by Entech Associates Pty Ltd, at a cost of $80,760, under contract 5/1/356 notified on page 96 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of26 February 1980.
  2. To what purpose will any information produced be utilised.
  3. Will he make the results of the contractor’s tasks available to the Parliament.
  4. When is it expected the contractor will complete duties.
  5. ) Who were the unsuccessful tenderers for the contract.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) To provide technical staff who will assist in the Australian Motor Vehicle Emission Survey- Sydney 1 980. This survey is a testing program being undertaken by my Department in conjunction with the New South Wales State Pollution Control Commission to measure the exhaust emissions and fuel consumption of a representative sample consisting of 330 motor cars chosen from peak hour traffic in the Sydney area.
  2. The Australian Transport Advisory Council requested the survey to obtain authoritative data on emissions, fuel consumption and vehicle servicing standards so as to assess the basis for any future action necessary to protect the environment and conserve energy resources.
  3. As stated in ( 1 ), the contractor’s tasks are to assist the test program but it is expected that a report will be published by my Department and the New South Wales State Pollution Control Commission on the outcome of the survey.
  4. The contracting company will complete its duties at the end of the test program; this is expected to be towards the end of September 1 980.
  5. (i) CDS Testing Services, (ii) Analgas Australia Pty Ltd.

Purchases of Periodicals and Publications (Question No. 5884)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 15 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) What periodicals and publications are to be provided under contract EPS444 notified on page 95 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 26 February 1 980.
  2. What (a) periods are covered and (b) costs are involved.
  3. ) What is the total amount of the contract.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Various legal periodicals and publications.
  2. (a) Approximately one year. The contract will expire when approved funds of $2,000 have been exhausted through progressive purchases, (b) Costs are limited to the $2,000 reserved under this contract.
  3. $2,000.

Beef Cattle Transport Study (Question No. 5886)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 15 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) What are the objectives of the beef cattle transport study being undertaken by Hassal and Associates, at a cost of $25,000 referred to in contract BTE 115 notified on page 95 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 26 February 1980.
  2. What specific tasks will be carried out by the contractors and when is it expected that the study will be completed.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) As part of the follow-up to the PJT Inquiry relating to charges and margins applying to beef marketing and processing, the Bureau of Transport Economics was directed to undertake an examination of the factors associated with intrastate and interstate road transport of cattle. The object of the study to be carried out by Hassal and Associates is to provide the Bureau of Transport Economics with basic data relating to the movement by road transport of cattle intended for slaughter in all States of mainland Australia.
  2. The consultant is required to establish estimates of the intra and inter-regional movements of cattle from farm gate to saleyards, from saleyards to abattoirs, and from farm gate direct to abattoirs. The task involved the consultant contacting 70 transport firms, 65 abattoirs, 135 saleyards, various stock and station agents as well as government instrumentalities. The study is expected to be completed by 16 May 1980.

Agricultural Chemicals (Question No. 5913)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 16 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) In view (a) of increased public concern over the high toxicity of many agricultural chemicals, (b) of the fact that mistakes in proportions used could cause serious health and environmental hazards and (c) of the fact that spraying equipment made to imperial measures is still being widely used and may have a working life of up to 20 years, will he consider the dual use of metric and imperial measurements in all labelling and instructions on agricultural chemicals for as long as may be necessary or useful in minimising hazards consequent upon errors in conversion.
  2. 2 ) In view of the fact that errors in conversion could affect not only the health of the handler but that of numerous innocent citizens, will he reconsider his predecessor’s firm refusal to consider the use of dual measurements in this particular case (Senate Hansard, 2 1 August 1 979, page 8 1 ).
Mr Thomson:
Minister for Science and the Environment · LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) No. I am aware of the increased public concern over the high toxicity of agricultural chemicals and the potential hazards that they represent, if used improperly. I am not aware however of any changes in the levels of toxicity of agricultural chemicals or new developments in their use. There is no evidence of any mishaps resulting from errors in the metric conversion of agricultural chemicals. The labels on packages have been in sole metric for over a year and the difficulties of the transitional period when dual markings were permitted have been overcome. Most spray vats and other tanks have been recalibrated in metric units of measurement and tanks without calibrations are provided with metric graduated dip sucks.
  2. 1 have reconsidered this matter and reiterate the original reply provided by my predecessor in office (Senate Hansard, 21 August 1979). It would be unjustifiable and a retrograde step to re-introduce dual markings in labelling agricultural chemicals.

Sandy Hollow- Maryvale Railway (Question No. 5976)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 22 April 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Was the Bureau of Transport Economics Report Sandy Hollow-Maryvale Railway: Economic Evaluation of Proposed Completion (presented to the House on 26 February 1980) compiled as a result of a specific request; if so, from whom did this request come.
  2. Was the report prepared for the guidance of the (a) Australian or ( b) New South Wales Government.
  3. Has the Australian Government forwarded the recommendations of this report to the New South Wales Government.
  4. Will the Australian Government provide financial support for the construction of the line; if not, what action is to be taken by it on the recommendations of the report.
  5. Are further reports to be compiled by the Bureau into intrastate rail connections; if so, which rail proposals are scheduled for study.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) In 1973, the then Minister for Shipping and Transport, the Hon. C. K. Jones, directed that a report be prepared on this railway.
  2. The report was presented to the Commonwealth Minister for Transport who made it available to the New South Wales Minister for Transport prior to its public release.
  3. Yes.
  4. Any proposal for the construction of this railway is considered to be the responsibility of the New South Wales Government. In February 1980 the New South Wales Premier announced that Ulan Mines Ltd would arrange finance for the construction ofthe line from Sandy Hollow to Ulan. The Commonwealth has received no request from the New South Wales Government for assistance in respect of any part of a proposed railway from Sandy Hollow to Maryvale.
  5. There are no such proposals currently scheduled, but I am in touch with the New South Wales Government about a study of a rail link from Inverell to a Clarence River port.

Motor Vehicle Emission Controls

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-On 4 March 1980 Mr Goodluck asked a question without notice concerning a publication by Practical Data Research entitled Fuel Economy and Emission Control Secrets. I undertook to call for a report on the booklet.

My Department has examined the booklet and has reported to me. The author purports to provide a layman’s guide to better fuel economy and, inter aha, describes the means for disabling emission controls. He also asserts that the Australian motor industry should have adopted newer technological developments, but makes no mention of the relationship between these technologies, the level of emission control required, the existing infrastructure and the overall product cost. There is no supporting argument for many of the claims and there are a number of technical errors in relation to the effects of fuel octane rating on engines, the influence of exhaust gas re-circulation on fuel consumption and emission control technology. In short, this booklet recognises the need for emission controls, disputes the methods employed by motor vehicle manufacturers to achieve the prescribed emission levels by sacrificing fuel economy, and recommends the methods that should be employed to obtain optimum fuel economy without regard to the emission levels.

The booklet does contain some useful information on driving for fuel economy which accords with the Government’s program to conserve fuel and to reduce fuel consumption. I am most concerned, however, at the obvious encouragement to interfere with the emission control systems designed to achieve specified emission levels. As noted in the booklet, interfering with emission controls frequently leads to not only an increase in emission levels but a further increase in fuel consumption and a deterioration in operating performance. These modifications are illegal in most States and have consequent penalties.

The Government is of the opinion that pursuing the ADR 27A approach any further than the second stage will be counter productive. ADR 27A has reduced emissions since its implementation in 1976 and, although fuel consumption did increase as a result, there have been technological developments in emission control systems which, to an extent, have reduced this increase. The Commonwealth Government is working with the States and Territories through the Australian Transport Advisory Council to develop a long term national emissions strategy which, as well as being cost effective, meets health and environment objectives and conserves our fuel resources. I am hopeful that we will be able to make the necessary decisions by early next year for implementation by the middle 1 980s.

Agent Orange

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

-On 31 March 1980 (Hansard, page 1419) the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) asked me a question without notice concerning inquiries of the Vietnamese Government on its investigations into agent orange.

The following is in answer to the honourable member’s question:

The epidemiological study announced by the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs in his Statement to the House on 3 1 March (Hansard, page 1423) is a scientific study to gather medical statistics from which conclusions on the possible effect of herbicides and other chemicals on the health of Vietnam veterans and their children can be made. As the study is based on a statistical comparison of Australian servicemen who may have been exposed with servicemen who were not exposed, research into the effects of agent orange on the Vietnamese population would not be relevant to the study.

However while the study is being undertaken, claims for benefits by veterans who believe they have been affected are being considered through the Repatriation system. The Department of Veterans’ Affairs is, therefore, keen to receive any information on the effects on humans of the herbicides and chemicals used in Vietnam. To this end, I understand our Embassy in Hanoi has been requested to approach medical researchers in Vietnam to obtain any material they may have on the effects of herbicides.

Liquefied Petroleum Gas

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-On 31 March 1980 Mr Fitzpatrick asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy the following question without notice:

Having regard to the crippling burden that the price of refinery produced liquefied petroleum gas is placing on our primary producers, can the Minister say what steps the Government will take to adjust the misunderstanding between the Prices Justification Tribunal and the Government on parity pricing of liquefied petroleum gas that was reported on the front page of last week’s Australian Financial Review”! If the Federal Government is now opposed to parity pricing of liquefied petroleum gas, when can our primary producers expect a reduction in price?

The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Details of the Government’s pricing policy for LPG are set out in my press statement of 8 April 1980. Accordingly the maximum wholesale price of LPG is now reduced to $205 per tonne.

Behaviour of Aircraft Passengers

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-On 29 April 1980, Dr Klugman asked me a question without notice concerning the behaviour of Qantas passengers. The answer to the honourable member’s question is:

I have asked Qantas to report to me on recent reports in. the press regarding passenger violence on Qantas aircraft, and have also asked my Department to examine the incidence of such behaviour on domestic services.

Qantas have responded by indicating that the incidents reported by the newspapers appear to be based on incidents reported to the Company by the cabin crew on certain flights in question. The incidents, however, as reported in the newspapers, have been subject to certain interpretations and embellishments.

Qantas indicate that there are no accurate figures available on how many incidents are related to alcohol abuse. In the 12 months to the end of March 1980, there were 127 reports by the Qantas cabin crew relating to the handling of difficult passengers onboard flights. This represents one incident for every 15,800 passengers carried. This can be compared with the Qantas experience for the 12 months to March 1979 of 167 incidents reported, which represents one report for every 11,300 passengers carried. This is not a unique situation to Qantas as similar experiences are being faced by other international carriers.

Qantas has indicated that it has developed some strategies to minimise the reported abuse to passengers and crew. These are to be discussed and developed with the Flight Stewards Association on I May, and will also involve participation of the Qantas technical crew and Flight Hostesses Association.

The Air Navigation Regulations provide that a person shall not, whilst in the state of intoxication, enter any aircraft. However, in view of the reports of drinking of alcohol, I intend to have the whole matter examined further to assess the true extent of the problem and what action may need to be taken to overcome any problem that might exist.

In respect of Ansett and TAA, the incidence of drunken and unruly behaviour onboard their aircraft is extremely uncommon. This is mainly because the majority of domestic trips are less than one hours duration.

Both airlines have a policy of prohibiting from travelling any passenger who, prior to boarding, appears inebriated. Also, neither airline permits passengers to consume alcohol inflight other than that purchased from the bar service.

Representatives of sporting groups are formally advised on booking of tickets that a reasonable and proper standard of conduct is expected during the course of the flight. In the event of unruly behaviour, a representative of the airline involved approaches the organisers after completion of the trip regarding behaviour during the flight. 1 am satisfied that drunken behaviour onboard domestic flights is extremely rare and, therefore, I do not intend to seek changes to present arrangements concerning the consumption of alcohol on Ansett and TAA flights.

Ministry: Cost of Overseas Travel (Question No. 4189)

Mr Morris:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 6 June 1979:

When will he provide detailed information to the Parliament of the costs of overseas travel and associated expenditure by himself and each Minister of his Government since 1 1 November 1975 on a similar basis to the information he has provided in respect of overseas travel by Prime Minister Whitlam.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer given by Senator Carrick to a question without notice on 23 April 1 980 (Senate Hansard, pages 1 703- 1 2 ).

Prime Minister: Overseas Visits (Question No. 4190)

Mr Morris:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 6 June 1979:

  1. What was the purpose of his visits (a) to India in January 1979 and (b) to the Philippines from 8 to 1 1 May 1979.
  2. What was the name, classification and salary of each person who accompanied him.
  3. What was the (a) cost of travel, (b) cost of accommodation, (c) other expenditure and (d) total costs incurred in respect of himself and each person who travelled with him.
  4. Which airlines and/or other means of transport were utilised during each journey.
  5. In the course of his duties (a) what places were visited and (b) with whom were consultations held.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) I refer the honourable member to my press statement of 29 January 1979.

    1. I refer the honourable member to my statement in the House on 22 May 1 979 (Hansard, pages 2 1 85-9 1 ).
  2. In respect of my visit to India, I refer the honourable member to part (2 ) of my reply to Senate Question No. 1 2 74 (Senate Hansard, 1 May 1979, page 1515).

In respect of my visit to the Philippines I refer the honourable member to the details of special flights by the Royal Australian Air Force for the period 1 January 1979 to 30 June 1979, presented by the Minister for Defence on 30 August 1979 (Hansard, page 804).

  1. and (4) I refer the honourable member to the answer given by Senator Carrick to a question without notice on 23 April 1980 (Senate Hansard, pages 1703-12).
  2. 5 ) See my answer to part ( 1 ).

Ministry: Overseas Travel (Question No. 4542)

Mr James:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a report in Clancy’s column in the National Times of 12 July 1979, entitled Traveller’s Tales,’ concerning his Government’s overseas travel.
  2. If so, do the figures he issued on 30 May 1979 include only travel costs for (a) himself, (b) his wife, (c) his personal staff and (d) his physician, but not the costs for accompanying public servants.
  3. Do the figures issued for travel undertaken by the Whitlam Government include not only the details in part (2 ) but also the costs of accompanying public servants.
  4. Why was the policy on costing changed.
  5. Will he now release the costs in real terms of his Government’s overseas travel for each year from 1975 to date.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer given by Senator Carrick to a question without notice on 23 April 1 980 (Senate Hansard, pages 1 703- 12 ).

Non-official Postmasters (Question No. S5SS)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Post and ‘ Telecommunications, upon notice, on 28 February 1980:

  1. Have discussions taken place between Australia Post and the Non-Official Postmasters Association regarding rates and conditions of non-official postmasters.
  2. If so, have these discussions resulted in any improvement in rates and conditions applicable to these operators.
  3. If no improvements have resulted, when can it be anticipated that an adjustment will be made to the rates and conditions of non-official postmasters.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. There has been an increase in the rate of payment to non-official postmasters for the collection of some payments on behalf of other Government Departments/ Authorities. In addition, conditions which apply to nonofficial postmasters whose offices are closed or are converted to official post offices have been improved, in relation to the commencing salary for full time non-official postmasters who seek to be employed at official post offices.
  3. Not applicable.

Prime Minister: Overseas Visit (Question No. 5690)

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 March 1 980:

  1. 1 ) How many persons, travelling at the expense of the Commonwealth, accompanied him on his visit to the United States of America and Europe in February 1980.
  2. How many press representatives travelled with him.
  3. Were press representatives charged as passengers on the aircraft.
  4. What was the cost to the Commonwealth for (a) accommodation for himself and Mrs Fraser, (b) accommodation for the remainder of the entourage and (c) the total amount of fuel used for the journey, including the second visit to the USA.
  5. What was the overall cost to the Commonwealth for the visit, including all wages and salaries of staff members, both (a) in the air and (b) on the ground.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Thirty persons (excluding press representatives) on all or part of the visit.
  2. Seventeen press representatives on all or part of the visit.
  3. I am advised that recovery action has been initiated.
  4. and (5) The total cost of the visit is currently estimated by the Department of Administrative Services to be of the order of $260,000. This is a preliminary figure only as accounts for overseas travel can take many months to finalise. I am not prepared to authorise the considerable expenditure of time and money which would be required to separate out the estimated costs of the individual items requested by the honourable member.

Television Services to Remote Areas (Question No. 5772)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 31 March 1980:

Has any progress been made in the announced program to provide television services to remote areas in the Electoral Division of Grey by use of the Intelsat satellite; if so, (a) what progress has been made and (b) when can it be anticipated that these areas will receive television services.

Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. and (b) Telecom Australia, the authority responsible for the construction of facilities in the remote areas television program, is not yet in a position to give a clearer indication of the timing for the projects in the Grey Electorate than is provided hereunder

Television stations for Quorn and Hawker are still being considered by the Government. They are 2 of the 20 stations in the remote areas television program for which funds are now being sought.

Budget Rent-a-Car Advertisements (Question No. 5849)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affiairs, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to recent advertisements in the national press by Budget Rent-a-Car.
  2. If so, are allegations of false advertising made in respect of Avis ‘ so-called ‘Super Saver ‘ rentals.
  3. If the position is as stated, will he refer the advertisement to the Trade Practices Commission for investigation.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The advertisements by Budget Rent-a-Car claim that the Avis Super Saver advertisements are confusing about the cost of short term rentals.
  3. The Trade Practices Commission investigated the matter following an approach on 1 1 March 1980 by Budget Rent-a-Car. The Commission contacted Avis and pointed out that the Super Saver promotional material could be in contravention of the consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act. Avis has proposed alterations to its Super Saver advertising, to the satisfaction of the Commission. In the circumstances the Commission does not propose to pursue the matter any further.

Hazardous Chemical Wastes (Question No. 5850)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to an article in the November edition of the CAI News entitled ‘CAI Study of Hazardous Chemical Wastes’.
  2. If so, does this article indicate that the broad object of the study is to develop in a national context a waste management stategy for disposal of hazardous chemical wastes.
  3. In view of the importance to the whole community of this matter and the increasing incidence of unsatisfactory disposal methods in the past which are now becoming known, will he request the confederation to make available to his Depanment the evidence which was collected during the course of the study and the completed report, or alternatively, will he request the confederation to invite a representative from his Department to participate in the study.
Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. As the article indicates, the study is being conducted jointly by the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Australian Environment Council (AEC). It is being managed by a steering committee comprising industry representatives and representatives of the New South Wales, Victorian and Commonwealth Governments. The Commonwealth Government is represented by an officer of my Depanment. As a member of the AEC, the Commonwealth will receive a copy ofthe report when it is completed.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 May 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1980/19800514_reps_31_hor118/>.