House of Representatives
20 May 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session

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

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

page 2879

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 Baume, Mr Bourchier, Mr Braithwaite, Mr Bungey, Mr Cadman, Mr Kevin Cairns, Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Carlton, Mr Drummond, Dr Edwards, Mr Ellicott, Mr Falconer, Mr Fitzpatrick, Mr Fry, Mr Haslem, Mr Hodges, Mr Hyde, Mr Peter Johnson, Mr Jull, Mr Lusher, Mr McLean, Sir William McMahon, Mr Martyr, Mr Millar, Mr Moore, Mr Neil, Mr Sainsbury, Mr Shack, Mr Short, Mr Simon and Mr Wallis.

Petitions received.

Pensions

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

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred, Mr Bourchier, Mr Kevin Cairns, Mr Carlton, Dr Cass, Mr Dobie, Dr Edwards, Mr Falconer, Mr Fitzpatrick, Mr Holding, Mr Howe, Mr Hurford, Mr Innes, Mr Jacobi, Mr Jarman, Mr Keith Johnson, Mr Lynch, Mr MacKellar, Mr Morris, Mr Scholes, Mr Shipton, Mr Short, Mr Staley and Mr West.

Petitions 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 Dr Blewett, Mr Lionel Bowen, Mr John Brown, Mr Holding, Mr Hurford, Mr Innes, Mr James, Dr Jenkins, Mr Les Johnson, Mr Charles Jones, Mr Keating, Dr Klugman, Mr Martin, Mr Morris and Mr Young.

Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

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

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 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 Dr Blewett, Mr Burns and Mr Ellicott.

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 Shack.

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 percent 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 for 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 Bradfield, Mr Bungey, Mr Dobie and Mr Peter Johnson.

Petitions received.

Metric System

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

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-

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

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

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bradfield, Mr Jarman, Mr Keith Johnson and Mr Peter Johnson.

Petitions 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. by Mr Baume, Mr West and Mr Wilson.

Petitions received.

Labelling of Cosmetics

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 continued use of animal ingredients in cosmetic products, and the inhumane use of animals in scientific research for cosmetic products, is abhorrent and barbaric.

That the Industries Assistance Commission, because of the Commission’s terms of reference, seems unable to impose any regulation or recommend any regulation which might restrict the activities of Cosmetic Companies which produce cosmetics in which animal ingredients have been used, or for which animals were subjected to research.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will:

Legislate to require comprehensive labelling of perfumes, cosmetics and toilet preparations to indicate:

  1. 1 ) whether a product contains any animal derivative. If so, the ingredient and source should be indicated.
  2. whether the research and development of that product or any of its ingredients involved experimentation on animals.

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

Petitions 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 Ellicott and Mr Roger Johnston.

Petitions 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 showeth that despite repeated calls for taxation relief, charities which give expressly foreign aid are still not tax deductible, while donations to the National Party in Queensland through advertising in its magazine “Outlook” are an allowable tax deduction.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this House will see fit to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act by extending the number of charities, donations to which are allowable tax deductions, to include World Vision, UNICEF, Save the Children, Austcare, Foster Parents Plan of Australia, and other foreign aid charities in order to achieve taxation justice for these charities and assist them in their fund raising campaigns.

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

Petitions received.

Australian Rum: Excise Duty

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Export of Live Animals

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:

There is an urgent need that the Australian Government immediately upgrade the regulations concerning exportation of animals overseas for slaughter and that there is unnecessary suffering caused to the animals under the present system.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will amend the legislation to ensure that animals being exported be done so humanely and that until this is achieved a total ban be placed on the export of animals for slaughter.

Further it is requested that the export of horses be stopped.

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

Petition received.

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:

That contributions to Health Insurance Funds should be tax deductible as it is inequitable for some members of the community to be able to claim taxation relief for health care costs, whereas other taxpayers are denied the right to claim relief for the expenditure of income in the provision of insurance against similar costs. It is contended that it is imperative for incentive to be given by way of taxation deductibility to encourage membership of Health Insurance Funds on a long term basis or both they and the Public Health Sector will become subject to abuses which could seriously affect their ability to provide an economic and efficient service to the community.

We, as members of the Queensland Teachers’ Union Health Society, therefore seek early action by the Government to restore income tax deductions for contributions by taxpayers to Health Insurance Funds.

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

Petition received.

Sheltered Workshop: Invalid Pensioners

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

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

We present this petition to seek a fairer and better deal for handicapped persons.

We urge you to implement this request through your Minister for Social Security.

The signatories to this petition are pleased to acknowledge the action your Government has taken to reverse the Budget announcement and therefore exclude the invalid pension from taxable income.

We now urge you to act in another area of discrimination to handicapped persons by-

Increasing the $20.00 per week income allowed in a sheltered workshop to $40.00 per week, before that income begins to reduce pension benefits; and then tie the $40.00 per week level with CPI/pension adjustments in the future.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you act in this area of discrimination to handicapped persons by increasing the $2000 per week income allowed in a sheltered workshop to $40.00 per week, before that income begins to reduce pension benefits; and then tie the $40.00 per week level with CPI/pension adjustments in the future.

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

Petition received.

Olympic Games

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

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

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

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

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

We the undersigned sportsmen and women and citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this humble petition respectfully pray that the Australian Government do all in its power to ensure the participation of a full Australian contingent in the XXII Olympic Games to be held in Moscow, USSR, from 19 July to 3 August 1980.

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

Petition received.

Olympic Games

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

We the undersigned sportsmen and women and citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this humble petition respectfully pray that the Australian Government ensure the participation of a full Australian contingent in the XXII Olympic Games to be held in Moscow, USSR, from 19 July to 3 August 1980.

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

Petitions received.

Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Export of Live Animals

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

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

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

Petition received.

Rosemount Repatriation Hospital

To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens 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 will reverse its decision to close Rosemount Repatriation Hospital.

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

Petition received.

page 2883

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2883

QUESTION

TELEVISION STATIONS: OWNERSHIP

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I refer the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to my question of Thursday last regarding a letter sent to him by Sir Reginald Ansett. Has the Minister now consulted the records to which he referred? Will he table the letter and inform the House of any action that he took as a result of receiving it? Will he also inform the House whether or not he replied to Sir Reginald and, if he did, in what terms?

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

– I have been consulting the record. I am having a reply prepared and propose to write to the Leader of the Opposition on the matter. I hope to do so a little later today; if not, certainly by tomorrow. My communication will include both an account of the letter that I received and my reply to it.

page 2883

QUESTION

OLYMPIC GAMES: PROPOSED BOYCOTT

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for Home Affairs inform the House which countries propose to boycott the Olympic Games in Moscow?

Does the Minister regard this as representing an effective boycott of those Games?

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– According to the information that the Government has, at the moment at least 41 countries have either boycotted or are almost certain to boycott the Olympic Games. It is expected that the list will be added to. For the information of honourable members, I would be happy to include in Hansard a copy of the list. Admittedly, some of those countries are small in terms of athletic prowess, but others are very substantial. They include the United States of America, West Germany and Canada.

That represents a very significant part of the Olympic movement and of the competitive capacity in the world in many of the sports at the Olympic Games. That in itself makes the competition in Moscow much less effective. In fact, in Olympic terms, it makes that meeting a nonOlympics. It means that top athletes of the world will not be participating. Such participation was the purpose of the Olympics and still is.

Of particular relevance to Australia is not only that fact but also the fact that included amongst those countries are countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, PapuaNew Guinea, Thailand, China and Fiji, which are within our region. I believe they are countries alongside which Australia would want to stand in relation to a boycott of the Olympic Games.

Some 2 1 other countries will not be attending the Olympics for reasons other than political reasons. I will be happy to include in Hansard a list of those countries also. By the time the period for acceptance of the invitation to participate expires I would expect other countries to be added.

For my own part, I still believe the Australian Olympic Federation will decide to support the boycott and not go to the Olympics. I believe that our. athletics bodies- sports bodies- understand perfectly the reasons which the Government has given for boycotting the Olympics and that they will respond to those reasons when they meet next Friday. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the two lists to which I have referred.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

page 2883

COUNTRIES BOYCOTTING OLYMPIC GAMES ON POLITICAL GROUNDS

Antigua, Argentina, Barbados, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bermuda, Bolivia, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Djibouti, Egypt, Fiji, FRG, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Mauritius, Morocco, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Qatar, ROK, Saudi

Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Thailand, United States, Uruguay, Zaire

page 2884

COUNTRIES WHICH WILL NOT BE REPRESENTED AT OLYMPIC GAMES FOR OTHER THAN POLITICAL REASONS

Albania, Belize, Burma, Burundi, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, El Salvador, Eq. Guinea, Gambia, Malawi, Maldives, Monaco, Oman, Rwanda, St Lucia, St Vincent, Swaziland, UAE, Uganda, Virgin Is.

Mr ELLICOTT:
LP

– The longer list sets out those countries which will boycott the Games on political grounds and the other list is a list of those countries which will not be represented at the Games for other than political reasons.

page 2884

QUESTION

TELEVISION STATIONS: OWNERSHIP

Mr HAYDEN:

-I ask a question of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. It is supplementary to that which I asked him a few minutes ago. Is it a fact that Sir Reginald Ansett ‘s letter of 5 December 1979 to the Minister referred the Minister to facts which, Sir Reginald said, if they proved to be correct, would amount to a ‘flat contravention of the Broadcasting and Television Act’? Did the letter also call upon the Minister to ‘investigate this matter immediately and to enforce the law of the Commonwealth’? I ask the Minister what action he, as the Minister responsible for the administration of the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act, took as a result of having his attention drawn to these matters by Sir Reginald, and whether he replied to Sir Reginald and, if so, in what terms.

Mr STALEY:
LP

– As I have indicated, I will be answering the Leader of the Opposition. I will deal with that matter. Nothing will be held back. A reply is being prepared at the moment.

page 2884

QUESTION

NATURAL DISASTERS

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

-I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Do the present CommonwealthState arrangements under the natural disaster guidelines extend to the provision of emergency town water supplies from underground bores which have declined because of falling water tables in drought areas? If not, will the Commonwealth Government agree to any such proposals submitted by a State in order to ensure that local authorities have adequate town water supplies through sinking, developing and equipping new bores?

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

-The aspects which the honourable gentleman has mentioned are not included in the core group of measures which are agreed as a matter of course between the Commonwealth and the States. On the core group of measures the States know that they can go ahead and commit expenditure with the complete understanding that the joint arrangements will operate. So that honourable gentlemen may be reminded of those measures, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard one page of last year’s Budget Papers. It describes the core measures. They are extensive and instructive.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Extract from ‘Payments to or for the States, the Northern Territory and Local Government Authorities 1978-79’, 1 978-79 Budget Paper No. 7; pp 84, 85

page 2884

ASSISTANCE FOR NATURAL DISASTER RELIEF

When natural disasters causing damage and destruction occur in a State, the Commonwealth stands ready to join with the State Government concerned on a $ 1 for $ 1 basis in meeting expenditure on the immediate relief of personal hardship and distress, except where such expenditure is of a very minor nature. Such expenditures may cover provision of food, clothing, shelter and repair of homes to make them habitable and secure.

In respect of ‘major’ disasters, the Commonwealth also assists with expenditures on other agreed relief and restoration measures when it is considered beyond the capacity of the State concerned to meet these expenditures from its own resources. In 1977 arrangements were made to enable the States to assume automatic Commonwealth agreement to inclusion of certain ‘standard’ measures under the arrangements following specified major disasters. The States are required to seek Commonwealth approval if they wish to change the terms of previously applied standard measures (e.g. the size of concessional loans). It remains open to a State to request Commonwealth support for non-standard measures which it might wish to implement for a given disaster. The standard measures are as follows:

The financial arrangements which had applied since 1971 were modified in 1978-79. The Commonwealth previously met all expenditures by a State in a year on agreed measures necessitated by major disasters in excess of a base amount set for the State. Under the current arrangements above-base expenditures are financed on a $3 Commonwealth: $ 1 State basis. The State base contributions, which were doubled in 1978-79, are:

Major disasters are denned as those necessitating expenditures on agreed relief and restoration measures in excess of one tenth of a State’s base annual expenditure.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– If any State wishes to propose measures additional to those which are accepted as a matter of course, it may do so. In Western Australia, where some wheat producing areas were in the fourth year of drought, the Premier proposed certain specific and special measures. They have been substantially accepted. In addition, in New South Wales some additional measures have been agreed upon between the Commonwealth and the New South Wales Government, to include the provision of subsidies to councils and other organisations which are approved by the State and which are able to provide emergency water supplies, but such subsidies are to be based on existing facilities and on reasonable additional special costs incurred in providing emergency supplies to primary producers. Some additional support also will be given to primary producers to assist them in meeting special costs incurred in the transport of emergency water supplies to their properties. I mention those two matters because one is quite specifically related to provisions which could be made by local government, and which have been approved in recent weeks, in the drought areas in New South Wales. If the honourable gentleman believes that particular circumstances in relation to local government town water supplies arise out of the drought, that would be a matter for the Premier to put to us. The Premier has, in fact, proposed some additional measures which are now receiving urgent examination, but the matters raised by the honourable gentleman are not included in the matters about which the Premier wrote to me.

page 2885

QUESTION

TELEVISION STATIONS: OWNERSHIP

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I direct my question to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Is it a fact that by a letter dated 5 December 1 979 Mr W. Franklin, Secretary of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd, wrote on behalf of that company to the Secretary of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to advise him of facts which he alleged showed that Mr Rupert Murdoch and/or the News group of companies were purchasing shares in Ansett Transport Industries Ltd in breach of the various offence provisions of the

Broadcasting and Television Act relating to limitation of ownership of television stations? Is it a fact that in this letter Mr Franklin said that no doubt the Tribunal would initiate its own inquiry and would use its powers to prevent any contravention of the Act or other offences? Is it a fact that the Secretary of the Tribunal did not even reply to Mr Franklin’s letter? Will the Minister table the letter to the Tribunal from Mr Franklin?

Mr STALEY:
LP

– I will make inquiries about the matter raised by the honourable gentleman and give him an answer as soon as possible.

page 2885

QUESTION

CHRYSLER AUSTRALIA LTD

Mr CHAPMAN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which I direct to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, concerns the South Australian based company Chrysler Australia Ltd, which is located in my electorate. Can the Minister advise the House about Chrysler’s local content performance under the Passenger Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Plan? Furthermore, was Chrysler successful at the recent tender of passenger motor vehicle quotas? Will Chrysler have a further opportunity to secure additional passenger motor vehicle quota?

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

– I am aware of the interest that the honourable member has in the motor vehicle industry, in particular as it applies to South Australia. I will be announcing today the local content performance for 1979 of all five participants in the Passenger Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Plan. I am pleased to say that the recent local content performance of Chrysler Australia Ltd under the Plan has greatly improved. Chrysler, and some other companies, previously did experience difficulty in meeting local content commitments, mainly because of the appreciation of the yen up to the end of 1978. But in Chrysler’s case the problems were greater because it was required to achieve a relatively higher content in 1978 and 1979 and the yen’s appreciation was accompanied by a decline in the sales of Chrysler’s high content Valiant.

I understand that Chrysler is continuing to achieve in excess of its commitment under the Plan and is confident of meeting its obligations in 1980. Chrysler was successful in gaining a proportion of the 5,000 units of passenger motor vehicle quota allocated in March of this year. The Industries Assistance Commission, as the House has been advised, is presently inquiring into the quota allocation system to apply to passenger motor vehicles in 1981. 1 understand that the report will be received by 2 1 September this year.

page 2886

QUESTION

TELEVISION STATIONS: OWNERSHIP

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications whether the Secretary of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal wrote to Senator Button on 8 February 1 980 saying, inter alia:

page 2886

QUESTION

ATI -

That is, Ansett Transport Industries Ltd- wrote to the Tribunal on 5.12.79 stating that News Ltd and/or its associated companies may be beneficially entitled to more than 1 5 per cent of the share capital in ATI.

At page 37 of the transcript of the proceedings of the Tribunal’s inquiry into an application by Control Investments Pty Ltd to purchase up to 50 per cent of the paid capital of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd, did Mr Nicholson, Q.C., call upon the Tribunal to produce the ATI letter referred to by the Tribunal’s Secretary? Is it not a fact that the Chairman of the Broadcasting Tribunal misled counsel by stating that the ATI letter referred to was not a letter directed to the Tribunal but rather one directed to the Minister, and therefore did not form part of the Tribunal’s files?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Included in the question was a reflection upon an identified person; that is, the Chairman of the Tribunal. It is the practice of the House, when a question reflects upon a named or identifiable individual, that the question be treated as on notice.

Mr Hayden:

– I raise a point of order. This is an extraordinarily important matter. I do not believe it should be buried on the Notice Paper. It seems to me that, with suitable adjustment of one or two words, the question would be in order. Mr Speaker, I ask you to extend your indulgence to allow the honourable member for Burke to make that adjustment to the latter part of his question so that it can go to the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Burke will be entitled to the call if he stands later, although, as he has had one call today, he may not receive it today. It is a matter for the honourable gentleman himself to put his question in order. I call the honourable member for La Trobe.

page 2886

QUESTION

ANTARCTICA

Mr BAILLIEU:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe I can rephrase the question now.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have called the honourable member for La Trobe.

Mr BAILLIEU:

– I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: What was the outcome of the Conference on Antarctic Marine Living Resources which concluded in Canberra this morning? In particular, what is the significance of the outcome of that Conference for Australia?

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

-The Final Act of the Conference on Antarctic Marine Living Resources was signed in Canberra today by representatives of IS states participating in the Conference. The convention itself will be formally open for signature in Canberra on 1 August 1980. It is fair to say that the signing of the Final Act marks the culmination of over three years of extremely intensive negotiations to develop a regime for the conservation of the marine ecosystem of the entire area south of the Antarctic convergence. From the outset Australia has played a leading role in the negotiations. Australia acted as host at a special consultative meeting in 1978 which drew up the text which formed the basis for later negotiation. The honourable member for Hawker, from the moment of the convening of this Conference, played a leading role, together with the honourable member for La Trobe, who participated throughout in the delegation from this side, and other members of the Senate and of this place on both sides of the Parliament. I would like to say how much my officials appreciated the work that was done consistently by members on both sides.

Mr Jacobi:

– They did a first class job.

Mr PEACOCK:

-I think the officials worked very persistently with one aim in mind, namely, to bring about the convention which was signed today. That is a tribute to the work not only of my departmental officers but also of parliamentarians on both sides of the House, for the successful conclusion represents a very significant new direction for the Antarctic Treaty system and its significance should not be underestimated. I well recall, in the weeks after I opened the Conference in 1978, reading review articles about how fruitless the endeavour would be. It has been proven to be quite the contrary. It demonstrates that the system is capable of adaptation to respond to increased international interest in resource issues. This has been achieved in a manner which is consistent with the responsibilities which the Antarctic Treaty partners have assumed for the protection of the Antarctic environment.

Finally, if there was a plethora of assistance so far as the convention itself was concerned, we can reduce that degree of assistance to a number of Tasmanian members and senators who worked so hard with me to convince other delegates that Hobart ought to be the site of the headquarters of the international commission. The decision to select Hobart, I think, is signal recognition of the role that Australia has played in these negotiations and will certainly provide a focus for continued Australian involvement in an important area of international activity affecting Antarctica.

page 2887

QUESTION

TELEVISION STATIONS: OWNERSHIP

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I believe the Minister for Post and Telecommunications has the gist of the first two-thirds of the question I asked previously. I now ask: Is it not a fact that counsel was misled by a statement that the Ansett Transport Industries Ltd letter referred to was directed not to the Tribunal but to the Minister and, therefore, did not form part of the Tribunal’s files?

Mr STALEY:
LP

-The honourable member is asking for still more information in this area. I am happy, of course, to have the record checked. I have rather more work to do than I anticipated. Therefore, while -

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. When the House comes to orderparticularly honourable members on the Opposition benches- I will call the Minister to resume his answer. I ask honourable members, particularly the honourable members for Chifley, Newcastle and Hunter, to remain silent. I call the Minister.

Mr Armitage:

-Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Minister said that he had more important things to do than answer questions in this Parliament. This is an insult to the Parliament. You, Mr Speaker, should uphold the dignity of this Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will uphold the dignity of the chamber. I will find it much easier to do so if the honourable member for Chifley does not take specious points of order. The Minister did not say what the honourable member for Chifley alleges he said. There is no point of order.

Mr STALEY:

– I have been asked serious questions by members of the Opposition. I propose to check the record carefully to ensure that proper answers are given. That is all that was implied in my reply.

Mr Holding:

– Before the election?

Mr STALEY:

– I shall do so.

page 2887

QUESTION

BUSH PILOTS AIRWAYS LTD

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister for Transport aware of the very substantial loss being incurred by Bush Pilots Airways Ltd on some inland air services? I give, as an example, the St GeorgeCunnamulla section of the south-west Queensland service. Does the Minister agree that towns such as Cunnamulla, servicing a large area of south-west Queensland, should be given some assistance to maintain this vital service? If so, can he give an assurance that the Government will accept some of the responsibility for maintaining inland trunk air services such as this by providing some subsidy, remembering that the total amount involved will not be very great in relation to the value of the justifiable service provided?

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

-I am well aware of the difficulty being experienced by Bush Pilots Airways Ltd and also by a number of other commuter operators servicing the needs of people living in remote parts of Queensland, the Northern Territory and also parts of the remote areas of Western Australia. I am well aware also of the representations that have been made by the honourable member for Maranoa and also by the honourable member for the Northern Territory and other honourable members representing these remote areas. The Government is conscious of the need to maintain services to people living in isolated areas because they depend on these commuter services for mail, stores, medical supplies, et cetera. Indeed, the Government has supported these services for many, many years. The Minister for Finance and I have a proposal before us at the present time. We hope to be in a position to make a favourable announcement in the not too distant future.

page 2887

QUESTION

TELEVISION STATIONS: OWNERSHIP

Mr KERIN:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I refer the Minister to the transcript of proceedings before the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in Adelaide on Tuesday, 18 December. This was an inquiry into an application from NBN Ltd for approval of a transaction for the purchase by Newcastle Video Productions Pty Ltd of all the issued capital of Southern Television Corporation Ltd, licensee of NWS9 Adelaide. I refer specifically to page 90, where the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, in response to the suggestion from Senator Button who was appearing as counsel for the Australian Labor Party, said that there were good grounds for suspecting that both News Ltd and Cruden Investments were in breach of section 92 of the

Broadcasting and Television Act at that time. He said:

There is no breach of section 92 provisions of the Act as regards Ansett Transport Industries because the shares have not been registered and cannot be registered until the Tribunal approves it; therefore there can be no breach of the Act.

Is it not a fact that in light of the letter of 5 December 1979 from ATI to the Tribunal, complaining of breaches of the Act by the News Ltd group, Senator Button was misled and denied the opportunity to present further argument regarding possible illegal acts by the News Ltd group?

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– ‘I will examine the question and I will give the honourable member a reply’.

Mr STALEY:
LP

-Mr Speaker, can I take the honourable member’s words and incorporate them in Hansard) He has stated the position impeccably. It is exactly what he would have done and it is exactly what I will do.

page 2888

QUESTION

OLYMPIC GAMES

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

-I direct to the Minister for Defence a question concerning the Moscow Olympic Games. Is he aware that in 1936 the French Cabinet, under Leon Blum, allocated one million French francs to go to the Berlin Olympic Games and 600,000 French francs to go to the Russian backed Barcelona Games? Does the Minister consider that this ability to look both ways at once helped the French national security and defence effort? If so, how? Does he consider that Australia’s defence and national security effort should receive similar leadership in 1980 to that proposed by France for itself in 1936 and 1980?

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

– The House and the country are, or should be, indebted to the honourable member for Lilley for drawing on history in this very sad and solemn business. History can be a good tutor, provided people will take notice of it. The fact is, as the honourable gentleman has stated, that Hitler used the Olympic Games for his own evil ends. Today, with the ugly apparatus of aggression by the Soviets in Afghanistan the world is being persuaded that there is something thoroughly respectable about the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union today, in the conduct of international affairs, is desperately seeking respectability. As the Prime Minister and my colleague the Minister for Home Affairs have said, there is slowly coming into existence a more emancipated view of what the Soviet Union is about.

I am wondering whether it would be an intolerable imposition upon the House if I were to read just one short paragraph from a recent debate in the House of Lords. The paragraph reads:

I do not know whether other noble Lords saw as I did … a letter in The Times a week or so ago from a Jewish German lady who was treated extremely harshly in one of Hitler’s prisons in 1936. She recorded very graphically and movingly in a few lines the impact made on her and those with her when they were told that the Olympics were being held in Berlin and that all of the Western countries were going there.

The paragraph goes on to state that to take part in the Games: would be to take part in an obscene farce.

The speaker was a former British Labour Foreign Secretary, Lord George-Brown.

page 2888

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

Dr JENKINS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– Being an optimist, I address my question to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I refer the Minister to the penultimate paragraph of the High Court’s decision in the case of Hardiman and others against the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, where the judges of the Court expressed their disapproval of the Tribunal’s somewhat unusual action- to use the words of the judges- in appearing to put substantive arguments in relation to the matters before it. Is it a fact that the advice from the Attorney-General’s Department to the Tribunal initially was that the Tribunal should not appear in this case to put substantive arguments. In reliance on this advice, was it the Tribunal’s initial inclination not to appear to put substantive arguments? Was the decision to reverse the Tribunal’s initial stance taken after consultation between the Attorney-General and /or the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and Tribunal members? Did the Attorney-General and /or the Minister argue in favour of the Tribunal appearing to put substantive arguments? If so, what were the reasons for the Minister and /or the Attorney-General commending this unusual course of action to the Tribunal? Did the Attorney-General and /or the Minister direct the Tribunal to appear to put substantive arguments?

Mr STALEY:
LP

-The Tribunal is not subject to direction by Ministers in these sorts of matters. The Tribunal made its own decision- it was not a decision which was based on particular advice- to appear before the High Court in its own way. I can assure honourable members that the Broadcasting Tribunal is very familiar with all that the High Court said in its judgment and will, of course, incorporate in its procedures and approaches all that flows out of the High Court decision.

page 2889

QUESTION

TOURISM: SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr GILES:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is responsible for tourism. The question refers to the increasing numbers of tourists entering Australia under enlightened Government policies. Is it the intention of the Government to negotiate with the States to disperse the increasing number of tourists to States such as South Australia and- if I might be parochial- to areas such as the Barossa Valley and the Riverland?

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

– As a consequence of the success of the Government’s civil aviation policies there has been a very significant lift in the number of tourists coming to Australia. The latest figures in fact reveal an increase of some 25 per cent in the number of visitor arrivals, against an increase of about 12 per cent in the number of tourists leaving Australia. These matters are subject to discussion with the States at regular intervals. The question of regional promotion of tourism, in which I know the honourable gentleman has a very firm interest is being very vigorously promoted by the Australian Tourist Commission in conjunction with State tourist departments. I will consult with my Department and I will consult with other departments that may have an interest in this matter. The House should understand the very keen interest that the honourable gentleman does take in the subject of tourism. I know that many of his electors are really hanging on the answer to this question. I thank the honourable gentleman for his question.

page 2889

QUESTION

TELEVISION STATIONS: OWNERSHIP

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I refer the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to page 37 of the transcript of the proceedings of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal’s inquiry into an application by Control Investments Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of News Corporation Ltd which wished to purchase up to 50 per cent of the paid capital of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. The Chairman of the Tribunal told Mr Nicholson, Q.C., for the Australian Labor Party:

  1. . and I further add that I believe on either the 22nd January or the 22nd February there was a letter from Ansett Transport Industries to the Minister also and to the Attorney-General advising that they -

That is, Ansett Transport Industries Ltd- no longer wished to proceed with that matter.

That is, the allegation of illegality against the News group. I ask the Minister: Will he table the letter to him from the Chairman which was referred to in the transcript? Is it not a fact that this letter was written after Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd and the News group had obtained control of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd?

Mr STALEY:
LP

– I will examine those matters also and give the honourable member a reply as soon as possible.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I raise a point of order. There were two parts to my question, one of which no doubt the Minister for Post and Telecommunications can inquire into. The first part does not require an inquiry. I just asked him whether he intended to table a letter. There does not need to be an inquiry into that.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order. The Minister, under the Standing Orders, is entitled to answer as he pleases, provided the answer is relevant.

page 2889

QUESTION

DOMESTIC AIR FARES

Mr SHACK:
TANGNEY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister for Transport seen the published results of a recent gallup poll which showed that 83 per cent of Australians want a full-scale, independent public inquiry into Australia’s domestic air fares? Is the Minister aware that in Western Australia support for such an inquiry is running at 9 1 per cent? The Minister will recall answering an earlier question of mine -

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable gentleman to direct his question.

Mr SHACK:

-Will the Minister inform the House of the reasons for the delay in announcing the terms of reference for the public inquiry into Australia’s domestic air fares?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– I am aware of the fact that a poll was undertaken throughout Australia, in which 91 per cent of Western Australians voted very strongly in favour of an independent inquiry into air fares throughout Australia. Neither the honourable member for Tangney nor the 91 per cent of people in Western Australia who share his view will be disappointed, because the Government has decided upon the terms of reference and also has decided who will conduct that independent inquiry. I will be making an announcement on this matter to the Parliament before it rises at the end of this week. In the meantime, I assure the honourable member that the Government has been most concerned to ensure that an independent inquiry is conducted. The result of that inquiry will be given to the Government in due course.

page 2890

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Mr Humphreys proceeding to address a question to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s question is out of order. He is not entitled to ask for a legal opinion.

page 2890

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF

Mr MacKENZIE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Science and the Environment. In view of recent uncertainties, will the Minister inform the House quite emphatically and categorically whether there will be any drilling on the Great Barrier Reef?

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

-Mr Speaker, there will be no drilling on the Great Barrier Reef.

page 2890

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Is it a fact that in July 1979 he was informed by a reporter from the Melbourne Herald that the wife of the then Australian Broadcasting Tribunal Chairman, Mr Bruce Gyngell, was working as a consultant for Australian Consolidated Press Ltd, the majority shareholder of television station Channel 9? Did the Minister tell the reporter that he knew that this was a fact? Did the Minister tell the then Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal that his wife’s employment with Australian Consolidated Press Ltd should cease? What was the response to the Minister by Mr Bruce Gyngell? Does the Minister consider that a situation such as this constitutes a breach of the pecuniary interest provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act? If so, what has the Minister done about the matter?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Before I call the Minister, I point out that I will allow the early part of that question to be answered- the question is in order- but the final part involves the Minister’s offering a legal opinion. He is not obliged to do that. I call the Minister to answer the early part of the question.

Mr STALEY:
LP

-The position relating to people on organisations such as the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is, of course, a sensitive and important one. I simply say, in answer to the honourable member, that my advice was that any involvement or interest which Mr Gyngell ‘s wife might have had in other organisations did not, in fact, put him in breach of the pecuniary interest provisions which applied to him. I make it quite plain that, notwithstanding any official legal position, I believe that people in his position and those sorts of positions must always exercise great caution in matters which could be regarded as putting them in breach of provisions in that general area. The position with respect to Mr Gyngell was that any involvement his wife had did not, as I am advised, put him in breach of the provisions.

page 2890

QUESTION

METRIC SYSTEM

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-With Oxford by my side, I direct a definite question without notice to the Minister for Science and the Environment. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the very recent decision of the much admired Thatcher Government to abandon, after 1 1 years, conversion from the imperial system to the metric system? Is the Minister aware that the United Kindom’s consideration of going metric commenced a century ago and it took but 1 1 years, following the creation of the Metrication Board, to recognise that it would not work? In view of the ancestral background of the majority of Australians and the continuing opposition in Australia to metrication, what makes the Minister think that he can succeed where the United Kingdom Government has failed? Finally -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will have to put his question in order. He is entitled to ask for information.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– What has the Minister in mind that will help Australia convert to the metric system? Finally, will he agree to both systems being allowed to work side by side without standing over, threatening or treating as criminals -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is not entitled to use that pejorative language. I call the Minister for Science and the Environment to answer the early part of the question.

Mr THOMSON:
NCP/NP

-My information is that the United Kingdom Government has not abandoned metrication. The Minister concerned recently announced in the House of Commons that metrication in the United Kingdom was almost complete and that the remaining parts of metrication would be handled by her Department. The Australian position is quite clear; that is, that our metrication process is almost complete. Some time next year the Metric Conversion Board will have completed its work and the matter will come under the responsibility of my Department.

page 2891

QUESTION

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I refer to the fact that, following a political party decision, the honourable gentleman was made Prime Minister in exchange for Supply, supported by unprecedented legal opinion from the Chief Justice together with an unprecedented action by the Governor-General. Is it a fact that at the same time an impecunious solicitor named Sankey commenced ill-founded conspiracy charges against four Labor Ministers, one of whom died in the course of the proceedings, such charges receiving the support of members of his Government and costing many hundreds of thousands of dollars to resolve, that the Government has declined to investigate who financed Mr Sankey ‘s prosecution, and that two counsel retained by Mr Sankey were then briefed by the Government to prosecute members of the Greek community in the social security frauds case at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars? Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking not to appoint any members of his Government and /or the counsel now retained in the social security conspiracy case to any judicial office before the forthcoming Federal election, in order to avoid further public outcry and confrontation in this very sensitive area?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– It is time the honourable gentleman tried to stop fighting battles which he has lost twice in major elections by public decision and by the judgment of the people of Australia. He was part of a government which acted with total dishonour in 1975 -

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked a question. It was a question which was certain to bring forward an answer which might not be pleasing to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. But he asked the question in silence. I ask that members of the Opposition hear the answer in silence. I call the Prime Minister.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Thank you for that, Mr Speaker. But I suppose it is not surprising that, when a political party by its own actions has been destroyed twice so devastatingly and completely as has occurred over the last two elections, the honourable gentleman would want to continue to try to defend what is totally indefensible.

We need to understand the central element of what happened in 1975 when the then Government tried to govern this country in defiance of this Parliament, because this Parliament had not passed money for the provisions of government. Not only that, but the present Leader of the Opposition, as the then Treasurer, sought to cajole or to force the banks to act illegally and improperly to finance the affairs of government. That Treasurer, now the Leader of the Opposition, acted in such a way as to try to force the trading banks of Australia to operate without the law, to put their shareholders’ funds at risk and to act totally in defiance of all normal procedures. If the honourable gentleman asks that kind of question, he will get the kind of answer he deserves.

page 2891

DECENTRALISATION ADVISORY BOARD

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

– For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Decentralisation Advisory Board 1978-79.

page 2891

WATER RESOURCES: AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

– Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978, I present an agreement with South Australia in respect of projects in connection with the development and management of water resources.

page 2891

WATER RESOURCES: AGREEMENT WITH NEW SOUTH WALES

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

– Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978, I present an agreement with New South Wales in respect of projects in connection with the development and management of water resources.

page 2891

WATER RESOURCES: AGREEMENT WITH TASMANIA

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

– Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978, I present an agreement with Tasmania in respect of projects in connection with the development and management of water resources.

page 2891

WATER RESOURCES: AGREEMENT WITH WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

– Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978, 1 present copies of the associated documents in support of the agreement with Western Australia for the development and management of water resources which was tabled in this House on 14 May 1980.

page 2892

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF ANIMAL HEALTH

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

– For the information of honourable members, I present a report of the Australian Bureau of Animal Health 1 978-79.

page 2892

AUSTRALIAN TOBACCO BOARD

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

– Pursuant to section 26 of the Tobacco Marketing Act 1965, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Tobacco Board 1979.

page 2892

AUSTRALIAN APPLE AND PEAR CORPORATION

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

– Pursuant to section 37 of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1973, I present the report of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation 1 979.

page 2892

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Foreign Affairs annual report 1979.

page 2892

DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND YOUTH AFFAIRS

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

– For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs annual report 1978-79.

page 2892

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

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

– Pursuant to section 22 of the Commonwealth Employment Service 1978, 1 present a report of the National Director of the Commonwealth Employment Service 1978-79.

page 2892

NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR THE HANDICAPPED

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

-For the information of honourable members I present the third report of the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) relating to the report.

page 2892

REGISTERED MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL BENEFITS ORGANISATIONS

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Health · Warringah · LP

– Pursuant to section 76a of the National Health Act 1953 I present the interim report on the operations of registered medical and hospital benefits organisations for 1978-79.

page 2892

SPECIAL BROADCASTING SERVICE

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

– Pursuant to section 79zh of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1977 I present the first annual report of the Special Broadcasting Service, for 1978-79.

page 2892

COMMONWEALTH TEACHING SERVICE

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Education · Farrer · LP

-Pursuant to section 52 of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972, 1 present the Commonwealth Teaching Service annual report for 1979.

page 2892

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

- Mr Speaker, I seek indulgence -

Mr SPEAKER:

– To make a correction, as I understand it?

Mr HAYDEN:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr HAYDEN:

-On 12 May 1980 I spoke in Brisbane to the Australian Colleges of Advanced Education Computing Science Conference. Among the things that I said was:

I notice that another distinguished Australian, the Governor-General, Sir Zelman Cowen, was reported in the Press last week as saying that fears about the loss of employment through the introduction of new technology have been shown to be unfounded.

I continued:

I am not sure why Sir Zelman has chosen to enter this particular argument or what is the basis for his assertion.

I concluded in this regard, by saying:

Not even the silicon chip could have any impact on the traditional duties of the Governor-General, but I wish I could share Sir Zelman ‘s confidence about the impact of technology on the general work force.

That statement was based on an article in the Melbourne Age of Thursday 8 May which, inter alia, under a photograph of the GovernorGeneral, attributed to him the following comment:

  1. . fears about the loss of employment through the introduction of new technology had been demonstrated to be unfounded.

My attention has been drawn to the actual speech that was delivered by Sir Zelman Cowen- the 1980 Meredith Memorial lecture- at La Trobe University on Wednesday 7 May. The relevant part of which- it is relatively short- reads:

In the past, apprehensions of loss of employment in the face of technical progress and what for long was called automation have been demonstrated to be unfounded. I do not have time to explore the reasons for this; and the question is whether it is likely to be the same with the new technology with its applications in computer control and robotics. The further question is whether such employment problems are likely to be long term. I don’t know how broad the terms of today’s subject are, but it seems to me that such issues are central to a consideration of Austraiian science and technology in the decades ahead.

At the time I delivered my address, on Friday, 9 May, I was not aware of a correction or report in the Age on that date headed: ‘Computers a worry says Cowen’. It included the full quotation which I have just given. To the extent that there has been a misrepresentation, I apologise.

page 2893

SCIENCE STATEMENT 1979-80

Ministerial Statement

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

– I have pleasure in presenting the Science Statement for 1979-80 and seek leave to make certain remarks relating thereto.

Leave granted.

Mr THOMSON:

-This statement is a report on Commonwealth funding of research and development over the past four years. It is the first such statement. It is a pilot document which I hope will be repeated and expanded annually. It is in accordance with the Government’s stated policy of advising Parliament and Australia on trends in the nation’s research and development. It is a step towards what I hope will be a wideranging discussion, perhaps leading to changes in the future. The statement could not have been produced without the co-operation of my ministerial colleagues and their officers. To all of these, I express my appreciation.

The statement is a post-Budget analysis of research expenditure of all Government departments and provides information is essential for those inside and outside government who are concerned that research activities should be linked to national needs. Research priorities need to be adjusted from time to time to meet new demands brought about by such realities as changing population patterns, changing community expectations, changing world industrial and trade patterns and changing energy requirements. It is of critical importance that the policy makers, responsible for the adjustments, have up-to-date information on the allocation of the resources of both the Government and the community. We should all be concerned about research priorities because research today is the basis of the science and technology that affect the community tomorrow. The Government sees science and technology playing a central role in contributing to national economic health. It is a key to the solution of many of the problems confronting our society. Science and technology now pervade all aspects of our lives. They enhance our lifestyles and provide employment and investment opportunities. In Australia, more than 70 per cent of research expenditure is provided by governments. The effective and efficient utilisation of science and technology resources is therefore a major responsibility of government. This Government has consistently accepted that responsibility.

Some points should be borne in mind when interpreting the statement. It is in part an experiment. The treatment of data has naturally varied according to the source of information. That, however, does not detract from its usefulness. The basic aim has been to present total Commonwealth payments for research. The statement shows that Commonwealth funding of research rose substantially between 1968-69 and 1973-74 and was then maintained in real terms until 1976-77. There was a slight drop in 1977-78 and since then it has been increased to about the previous level in real terms. The statement also shows that private enterprise research and development declined substantially between 1974 and 1977. Preliminary results of the latest survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that this decline has been arrested, and indicate an upturn of 6 per cent in real terms.

Government priorities for energy and manufacturing industry have been reflected in substantial rises in research and development funding. For example, expenditure on energy research and development rose from $ 12.9m in 1 976-77 to an estimated $30m this financial year. Manufacturing industry research and development support rose from $39. lm in 1976-77 to an estimated $66. 8m. These rises are reflected in the trends in research and development funded by my colleagues the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) and the

Minister for Productivity (Mr Newman). Research and development in the areas of health and environment have been well supported in real terms. In welfare research there has been a large relative increase from a low base. Over the four years covered by the statement, the total of capital and other funds available to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has not been reduced in real terms but in fact has been slightly increased. Some activities have been reduced and new ones commenced. In particular the construction of the new Australian National Animal Health Laboratory is now progressing rapidly. In the same period, support for university research provided through the Australian Research Grants Committee has been maintained substantially at a uniform level in real terms.

In supporting research we must ensure that the work is directed towards national economic and social goals. We must also ensure that resources are used efficiently. In Australia we believe that these requirements can be best achieved through a pluralist pattern which facilitates different approaches for different sectors. Only CSIRO has a wide charter for its research and development interests. This pluralist system has worked well. It works, I believe, much better than a centralised, bureaucratic approach. Our system must place special emphasis on co-ordination and on assigning priorities among sectors. This is a basic tenet of our science and technology policy. We have mechanisms to provide co-ordination, to identify gaps and to recommend on priorities. A wide range of bodies provide scientific and technological policy advice to the Government. The principal independent advisory body is the Australian Science and Technology Council. The Parliament itself has a significant role in this process. The Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment and other committees are important sources of advice.

Given this pluralistic approach, information on resources devoted to research in each sector is critical. I see that as the value of this statement. It informs the Parliament on the allocation of public funds. It provides the various advisory and coordinating bodies with information necessary for their deliberations. Above all, it informs members of the public of the nature and extent of the research and development they are supporting. Having compiled the information, we must look at the effectiveness of our use of the resources. A fundamental four-fold plan is required, firstly, to develop our capability in basic research to provide a store of knowledge and expertise for the future; secondly, to develop our capability in applied research; thirdly, to transfer research achievements, through development, into the market place; and fourthly, to ensure that any undesirable social and environmental impacts of technology are minimised.

It seems to me that insufficient attention is being paid at present to the fourth element of the plan- the assessment of the possible impacts of science and its applications. I believe that, if this situation is to be corrected, governments should give a lead. They should have a greater involvement in the transfer of research achievements, through development, into the market place. In my view, the promotion of applied science would include assessment and the solution of social as well as scientific and technological problems. CSIRO is already heavily involved in the business of getting research results into the market place. I also intend that my Department shall examine what contribution it can make in this area.

Those concerned with science and technology should have a pre-occupation with the future and a concern not only for what is, but also for what can be. The aim is to harness professional skills of prediction to the goals and aspirations of the people in the society in which scientists work and live. Thus we can combine what is and what can be with what our society considers ought to be. The public expects science and technology to improve the future. We are experiencing the benefits of space research in new materials and in applications to meteorology, communications and earth resources management. In the not too distant future we may see the use of space’s low gravity extreme vacuum environment to enable us to produce new alloys and other materials. We may see energy beamed from space. Biotechnology, the science of creating new organisms to perform industrial processes, offers exciting prospects.

The public also expects science and technology to contribute to the solution of our problems. I am concerned about our changing population distribution and the decline in some centres west of the Great Dividing Range. I was therefore impressed to learn of research in the United States into small scale industrial technology and rural revitalisation. Such projects could be of great value to a country such as Australia. We are already beginning to see the usefulness of solar energy in remote locations. The growing technological complexity, indicated in my previous remarks, does bring with it the danger of polarisation and conflict. Society is already dividing into those who are familiar with science and those who are fearful of it. There is a rising disquiet in the community about some aspects of science. The possible effect of new technologies on employment is one such issue. There are others. We need to explain the benefits of science. We need to lessen misunderstandings which can arise all too easily. Greater understanding will lessen the potential for conflict over the application of science.

Science policy should emphasise public education to ensure effective public participation in debate on issues which have profound social effects. I believe this science statement will contribute to this public understanding and improve the capacity of people to make informed judgments about science and technology. I commend it as one step in a continuing effort to make the best use of science and technology for the benefit of Australia and Australians. I present the following paper:

Science Statement 1979-80- Ministerial Statement, 20 May 1980.

Motion (by Mr Street) proposed:

That the House take note of the papers.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– It is not easy for me to reply quickly to a science statement which contains nearly 70 pages of figures and which was given to the Opposition only in the last couple of hours. I am not complaining about that. I am just explaining why I will not go into detail to any large extent in respect of the actual scientific content of the paper. It is impossible to deal with such a statement in detail now. I hope that when honourable members have had a chance to have a good look at the paper they will be given an opportunity of dealing with it in greater detail.

I think it would be fair to say- and I do not want to be too aggressive about this-that the statement of the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson) is a complacent review of the state of scientific research in Australia. The Minister is quite happy with the way things are going. I refer to an article which appeared in the Australian Financial Review of 9 May 1980 which quotes Sir Geoffrey Badger, the Chairman of the Australian Science and Technology Council. It states:

Australian reliance on imported technology will make it more difficult for governments to regulate the pace at and extent to which it is introduced, according to a leading technologist.

Sir Geoffrey Badger, chairman of the Australian Science and Technology Council, called for a Government science policy to oversee technological change.

We perform about 2 per cent of the world’s research and development as measured by the number of scientific publications, ‘ Sir Geoffrey said.

On the other hand we have a substantial deficit in our technological balance of payments.

Our receipts from overseas for patents, licences and royalties amount to only 1 1 per cent of the payments we have to make to overseas companies.

The technology we use is mainly imported and cannot be subject to regulation by governments in terms of the pace and extent of its introduction, at least in business enterprises. ‘

Delivering a keynote paper at Melbourne’s La Trobe University Meridith Memorial Lectures this week, he described the low level of industrial research in Australia compared with other developed countries.

Figures for 1973-74 showed industrial research and development was 37 per cent of all R and D but by 1 976-77 it had fallen to 2 9 per cent of the total.

Compared with other OECD countries, that figure was less than half the level for every other member country with the exception of Canada.

Surely that is depressing. If we look at the figures- and as I mentioned earlier I have looked at only the first few pages- we see that estimated Commonwealth Government funds expended on research and development in 1978-79 as compared with 1973-74 have decreased in real terms by 18 per cent. Secondly, and in some ways even more depressingly- it ought to be more depressing for honourable members opposite- although private enterprise contributed some 33 per cent of total expenditure on research and development in 1968-69, its contribution was down to 1 8 per cent by 1976-77. The Minister said today in his ministerial statement on science that there has been a slight upturn- I think a 6 per cent upturn- in private business expenditure. However, it is important to remember that this contribution has reached a very, very low level- a depressingly low level.

Let us look at the research position in Australia. I speak with some feeling on this because I started off my adult life as a researcher in science. I graduated with honours in physical chemistry at the University of Sydney in the year that the atomic bomb was dropped. I was then on the staff of the Department of Chemistry at the University for two years before I decided to change over to medicine and start a completely new career. The situation even then was depressing in terms of the sort of research facilities which were provided in universities. I was involved in work on spectrophotometers. I knew that it took some two or three months to get a number of figures and a number of results that people in the United States could get within hours with better equipment. I could not see any future in continuing that work. Maybe I was easily dissuaded from doing my work, but I think this is probably an indication of the sort of thing which faced other people interested in scientific research in Australia.

I think it is true to say that Australia ‘s research effort in our academic institutions is very small in terms of international comparison. Under the present Government it has declined to dangerously restricted levels. Considering our long term national interests, it should be much higher. I know that pleas are made by people who are involved in research just as pleas are made by people who are involved in anything else. This applies to politicians when they go before the Remuneration Tribunal and to people who come to Canberra for Budget discussions. Farmers might speak to the Minister for Science and the Environment, who is at the table, in his capacity as their local member. A lot of special pleading goes on and as politicians we are aware of this. But I think that generally speaking there is agreement among authoritative bodies and persons in Australia that Australia is not expending adequate funds on research in general and on research in academic institutions in particular.

In recent years the Government has ignored the call for increased funding for research by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development examiners in science and technology, the Australian Science and Technology Council, the Universities Council, the Tertiary Education Commission, the Australian Academy of Science, the Industries Assistance Commission, academic staff associations, the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training and the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment. Whilst each body emphasises particular benefits to be accrued from increased funding for research, the range of arguments for increased research funding usually includes economic well-being and material progress. Research contributes to industrial development, mastery of technological innovation, improved use of resources, energy self-sufficiency and an increased standard of living. In the case of social and public welfare research, benefits include improved insight into the working of our society and the hope of improved services and better social mechanisms for coping with such issues as the social ramifications of technological change itself. Finally, the extension of knowledge is used as an argument in favour of increased research. It is generally argued that it is necessary as a matter of national prestige that we participate meaningfully in the extension of knowledge, particularly in matters related to the Australian skies, sea and land mass, and of course areas of the Antarctic under our care. Such activities contribute to the intellectual and teaching vitality of our academic institutions and may form the basis of practical applications.

However, there is evidence of neglect in research funding. Adequate funding levels have not been maintained through recurrent expenditure, special research grants, allocations by research funding committees or the granting of Commonwealth post-graduate awards. Firstly, under the present Government’s announced programs, recurrent funding for universities and colleges of advanced education during 1980 and 1981 will be held in constant prices at the 1979 level which was about $12m below the needs recommended by the Tertiary Education Commission. The Commission has protested, saying:

One particular area of concern to the Commission is the impact of these funding restrictions on research activities. The proportion of universities’ recurrent expenditure devoted to research activities has steadily declined.

The Australian Research Grants Committee was allocated $ 13.9m in the 1979-80 Budget. In real terms this represents a cut of 8 per cent compared with the amount allocated in 1976-77. The National Health and Medical Research Council was allocated $14m for the current year which represents no change in real terms. That sum is equal to 0.2 per cent of the total health budgetonefifth of one per cent- compared with 0.4 per cent four years ago. The Council has been able to fund only 37 per cent of grant applications for the next year. I think there is a depressing future in relation to grants given by the National Health and Medical Research Council. An important aspect is the post-graduate studentship awards. I have been in contact with post-graduate students in my capacity as a representative of this House on the Council of the Australian National University. I think they have an excellent case; and I am not often persuaded by cases presented by people. The Commonwealth Postgraduate Award Scheme allocation of $8.9m in 1979-80 represents a 9. 1 per cent cut in real terms in overall funding. The number of new Commonwealth post-graduate awards decreased from 725 in 1974 to 555 in 1979. Following the anomalous decision to tax only post-graduate studentships awarded by the Commonwealth, it is estimated that the real value of each award has declined by 50 per cent over the five year period. Compared with average weekly earnings, the award is at its lowest level for at least 10 years. Many of our ablest students of mature age with dependants are being forced to live in conditions close to poverty.

Finally, I wish to quote, with regard to fundamental and applied research, from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development examiners’ reports on science and technology in Australia. It reads: . . in Australia a disproportion exists between academic research and I.R. & D. Furthermore, we suffer … a timidity in investing innovative projects. As a result, little science flows into indigenous development, because it is insufficiently concentrated.

I think that is an important point for those of us who are also interested in manufacturing industry. The quotation continues:

Little fragments of information and expertise are not enough to start a development, build an export program, or calculate multi-million dollar risks.

Last year the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment said:

At present no clear national policy for science and technology exists in Australia. In consequence there can be little coherence, sense of purpose or direction in government support for industrial research and development.

In the first volume of the ASTEC report entitled Science and Technology in Australia 1977-78 ‘ it was stated:

The long term survival of manufacturing in Australia requires a high level of modern technology and of technological innovation.

I think that is very important. On the general philosophical argument I agree with the Minister when he talks in his statement about the growing technological complexity which brings with it danger of polarisation and conflict. Society, as he put it, is already dividing into those who are familiar with science and those who are fearful of it. There is a rising disquiet in the community about some aspects of science. The possible effect of new technologies on employment is one such issue. There are others. Nuclear energy is a very important issue for this country. In many cases there is a lack of understanding on both sides about the benefits or dangers of nuclear energy.

If we want to compete in the world of the 1980s, the 1990s and 2000 and beyond it is terribly important that we have an intelligent and educated community which is able to take advantage of technological advances and a significant proportion of which is not terribly scared of the disbenefits of science. I am one of those who are optimistic about science. I believe science will solve most of the problems which face us, as it has in the past. I think it is important for the Government and for scientists as a whole to continue to try to persuade the community at large that huge threats are really not involved and for those arguing for and against to put on the platforms not extremists who take only one point of view but people who are obviously able to see both sides of the issue and are able to provide us with intelligent leadership in the future.

Debate (on motion by Mr Young) adjourned.

page 2897

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1980.

WoolTax(Nos. 1 to 5) Amendment Bills 1980.

Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1980.

Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3 ) 1980.

Distillation Amendment Bill 1980.

Excise Amendment Bill 1980.

Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No.2) 1980.

Liquefied Gas (Road Vehicle Use) Tax (Repeal) Bill 1980.

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1979-80.

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1979-80.

Diesel Fuel Taxation (Administration) Amendment Bill 1980.

page 2897

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE FAMILY LAW ACT

Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that it concurs in the resolution of the House varying the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act.

page 2897

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Report on Zimbabwe

Mr DOBIE:
Cook

-On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence I present the Committee’s report on Zimbabwe, together with the transcript of evidence.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr DOBIE (Cook)-by leave-The problems of southern Africa are complex and interrelated. Central to these problems are issues of race and black nationalism- the struggle by blacks for an end to white domination of their lives and for the opportunity to achieve social, political and economic equality with whites. Because Zimbabwe was the focus of the struggle at the time that the Sub-Committee on Southern Africa began its investigation, the Sub-Committee decided to concentrate its inquiry initially on that country. This first report is the result of that inquiry. The SubCommittee considered that a detailed examination of the Zimbabwe situation was important not only in its own right but also for its implication for the region. However, the issues of racialism and nationalism are not the only issues of southern Africa. Its economic development, its strategically important geographic position and mineral resources and existing and possible EastWest confrontation in the region are also important issues. The Sub-Committee intends to examine these in a subsequent report or reports together with their implications for Australia.

Although much of the evidence taken by the Sub-Committee was on the Zimbabwe situation, considerable evidence was also taken on the broader aspects of the inquiry. To date the SubCommittee has taken some 2,500 pages of evidence from 80 witnesses, most of it in public session, and considered in excess of 300 submissions. Formal hearings commenced in October 1978 and the volume and extent of the evidence indicate considerable interest in the community concerning events in Southern Africa. As well as submissions and oral evidence the Sub-Committee considered a wide range of documentary source material, some of which is cited in end notes at the conclusion of each chapter of the report. This material came from a wide range of sources.

In the course of its inquiry into events in Zimbabwe the Sub-Committee was faced with two problems in particular. The first was the difficulty of preparing a report and formulating conclusions in a situation where major developments were regularly changing the course of events. The Sub-Committee began its inquiry some six months after the Internal Settlement Agreement of 3 March 1978. This was followed in April 1979 by the election of the Government of Bishop Muzorewa, by the Lusaka Agreement in August 1979, the Lancaster House conference in September-December, the ceasefire and return to legality in December, new elections in February 1980 which brought Mr Mugabe’s Government to power, and official independence on 18 April 1980. This marked the end of a British colonial presence in Africa as Rhodesia had been Britain’s last colony on the African continent.

It would be fair to say that Rhodesia had attracted world attention in recent times for two inter-related reasons. The first was the struggle by whites for independence from Britain and the second was the struggle by blacks for an end to white domination and racial inequality. Although a settlement of both issues was achieved eventually through negotiations, it is unlikely that those negotiations would have taken place had it not been for three major influences: The pressure exerted by the black nationalists through a guerrilla warfare of increasing intensity; pressure on the economy of Rhodesia as a result of sanctions and on the economies of neighbouring Zambia and

Mozambique through their implementation of sanctions; and the election of a black majority government in April 1979.

The Muzorewa Government was Rhodesia’s first black majority rule government. But its ability to institute major social and economic reforms was limited, to some extent, by constitutionally entrenched white safeguards. The Muzorewa Government was also hampered by the fact that it had been elected at an election in which the two major external national parties in the Patriotic Front had refused to participate, basically because they had not been involved in drawing up the 1979 Constitution, but also, and equally importantly, because they did not believe the elections under transitional government control would be impartial. In the event, most international observers at the 1979 and 1980 elections did consider them to have been impartially conducted and administered.

While the achievement of majority rule in 1980 resolved the political and constitutional aspects of racial inequality in Rhodesia, it did not resolve the economic or social aspects. These remain a problem and a challenge to both blacks and whites. The problem includes an economy built on institutionalised discrimination, separate and unequal ownership of land, white control of industry, commerce, mining and commercial agriculture, a white near monopoly of skilled and better paid jobs and inequalities in housing, education and health services.

To reorganise the economy without disrupting it and to reallocate resources so that inequalities are minimised and no longer based on race will take time. But the time available to Mr Mugabe ‘s Government may be limited because the achievement of majority rule and the promises of two election campaigns have created expectations of rapid change among blacks. Mr Mugabe will be able to improve the position of the worst affected blacks in the short term, particularly with international financial assistance. But in the Committee’s view, in the longer term, he will need to resolve the crisis of expectation while retaining black confidence, retain the cooperation and confidence of whites, increase or at least maintain the overall productivity of the economy and cope with the immense problems of reconstruction.

With the example of countries such as Mozambique, Prime Minister Mugabe would be well aware of the need to avoid an exodus of expertise and would be unlikely to precipitate a radical redistribution of resources which would force out whites and their expertise, cause the economy to decline and worsen the position of blacks. Additionally, Mr Mugabe would be aware that the size and structure of the present economy is not such that everyone can enjoy the fruits of the modern sector. Nevertheless some redistribution of resources will be necessary to meet minimum black expectations. Land will have to be reallocated on a large scale; black minimum wages will need to be raised; and greater resources will need to be devoted to black education, housing, health facilities and infrastructure such as water supplies, roads and power.

The white minority cannot expect to maintain its previous share of the limited resources of Zimbabwe at the expense of the black majority. The Committee’s assessment is that whites in the less skilled positions will gradually leave Zimbabwe as their standard of living is eroded below an acceptable level. But I believe that the numbers of whites who will leave Rhodesia cannot be predicted because of the large number of variables involved. The important fact for this House to note is that, despite a seven-year guerrilla war, Rhodesia became Zimbabwe through elections which peacefully produced a black government. If this government can successfully run Zimbabwe, reconcile its white minority to black rule and social equality with blacks and achieve a narrowing of economic inequalities, then Zimbabwe should prove a crucial stabilising force on the economies of the front-line states of Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Botswana, Tanzania and Angola. Progress by Mr Mugabe’s Government will also bring pressure to bear on the Republic of South Africa in relation to its internal racial problems and for an early determination of the future of Namibia.

The Committee made few recommendations but it did believe that there was an urgent need for aid in Zimbabwe and that it should be within the first two years of its independence. The Committee was pleased to note an Australian aid grant of $5m, to be provided over the next two years, was offered by the Australian Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) at the Independence Day celebrations on 18 April 1980 and that $ 1 .5m of it had been allocated for the immediate rehabilitation and expansion of facilities such as schools and hospitals and for veterinary work and agricultural rehabilitation. The Committee welcomes these initiatives and urges the Government to keep the needs of Zimbabwe under review. If requests for additional aid are received from Zimbabwe, the Committee urges that they be considered sympathetically so that the hardwon independence of that country is not jeopardised.

The Committee also urges the Australian Government and governments around the world to offer what assistance, expertise and facilities they can to assist in alleviating the hardships of rural poverty in Zimbabwe. The Committee also urges the Australian Government to contribute financially to any schemes established to finance land redistribution and agricultural development in an independent Zimbabwe and to provide what other assistance it can such as the provision of experts, technical assistance, training, et cetera.

I pay my own tribute to the work done by our own Prime Minister at the Lusaka Conference and in the following London Lancaster House talks. As honourable members will observe, this is not a short report. We are confident that it will be regarded as a good report. It is the hope of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and, particularly the members of the SubCommittee on Southern Africa that this report, in bringing together all the current information on Zimbabwe, will become a point of reference for an historical understanding of events that have led up to the independent emergence of Zimbabwe this year and a background to assist in understanding the problems that will continue to face the government of that country. There can be no doubt that Prime Minister Mugabe is fully aware of the massive social and economic problems that he has inherited and the even greater aspirations of his people which will fully test his ability to govern. I wish him well in the gargantuan task ahead of him and his Government. May God guide him to continuing peace and new prosperity for all Zimbabweans.

I conclude by thanking all those who have assisted the Committee to date, either by presenting oral and/or written evidence or by providing documentary source material. The Committee would particularly like to thank the staff of the Parliamentary Library and the National Library for their assistance in locating- a task in itselfand obtaining resource material, the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff for the transcripts of evidence and the Committee secretariat, Mr John Vander Wyk who is the Secretary and Mrs Jill Chorazy who is the research officer, for their outstanding efforts and assistance. We would like to thank also Mrs Trudy Watson, who was the stenographer on our SubCommittee, Miss Linda Rutter and Miss Robyn

Graham for facilitating the bringing of this report to the House before the conclusion of this session.

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

-by leave-I am happy to second the remarks of the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence Sub-Committee on Southern Africa particularly in relation to the staff members who supported the work of the Sub-Committee. One is always amazed, given the extremely limited staff resources that are provided for these committees, that members of the staff are able to achieve in many ways, distinguished and painstaking work in a very short period. I would like to congratulate members of the support staff for the work that they have done in this very comprehensive report.

In a sense, as was pointed out by the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, the speed of events in Zimbabwe, tended, if anything, to outpace the Committee. After something like 10 years of a rather frozen situation in Zimbabwe, in recent years things have moved at an accelerated rate. Firstly, there was the internal settlement in March 1978, followed a year later by the April 1979 election. A few months later, this was followed by the Lancaster House Conference from September to December 1979; the February 1980 election; and the coming to power of the Mugabe Government in April 1980. The result of this very rapid movement of events in Zimbabwe has meant that in many ways our report is an immediate report on a rapid pattern of events in southern Africa. One might say that it is a contemporary assessment of complex and quick moving events. It will be interesting to see how history judges such a report.

As the Chairman pointed out, majority rule in 1980 resolved the political and constitutional aspects of racial inequality in Zimbabwe. It did not resolve the social and economic aspects of that inequality. The economy in Zimbabwe remains built on institutionalised discrimination. It is based on a separate and unequal ownership of land; something like S per cent of the population own 50 per cent of the land and the other 95 per cent of the population own the other 50 per cent of the land. In Zimbabwe white control of industry, commerce, mining and commercial agriculture is a fact of life. One has also the white monopoly of the skilled and better paid jobs in the society. Flowing through from these facts there are clear inequalities between the races in housing, education and health services.

The challenge to the new Government in facing and seeking solutions to these deep seated problems are further compounded by the fact that today Zimbabwe is an armed society. Firstly, on all sides there is a superfluity of guns. Secondly, there are very high black expectations raised by the fact of two elections in two years and the promises made at those elections. Thirdly, as the elections themselves revealed, the problems are further compounded by a significant tribal division within Zimbabwe. Therefore, there is a formidable task before Mr Mugabe and his Government. Let it be said now that it is a task in which all who desire evolutionary change in southern Africa have a vested interest. If Zimbabwe should descend into chaos and bloodshed the prospects for evolutionary change in southern Africa are practically nil. A successful transition in Zimbabwe is a necessity if South Africa is to have any chance of resolving its multiple dilemmas. It is not a sufficient condition. I am afraid that for every year South Africa’s problems remain unresolved the prospect for violent revolutionary change in the republic becomes more likely.

Nevertheless, unless Zimbabwe manages the present transition with success, for all of us, for the prospects South Africa and southern Africa generally will be unutterably bleak. Thus it is in the interests of the whole international community to support in every possible way the transition now taking place in Zimbabwe. The need for international aid is great, but it should be noted that that aid is really only a short term need. As our report points out, the natural resources of Zimbabwe; the fact that it is a developed modern economy; that it has a communications network second only to that of South Africa; that it has potential as a food exporter in the continent; and that it occupies a pivotal position in the transport networks of southern Africa, all mean that the long term economic prospects for Zimbabwe are good. The problems then are immediate. The immediate need lies primarily in the reconstruction of the agricutural infrastructure which was gravely damaged by the guerrilla war and affected by the last two years of drought.

The guerrilla war and the conflict that took place, for instance, led to the destruction of cattle dips over much of Zimbabwe. Therefore, cattle diseases are now rife; anthrax particularly. There has been a deterioration in the crops partly because of the isolation forced through the policies of the protected villages. There has been a breakdown of veterinary services; in fact, a general breakdown of the scientific support for agriculture in Zimbabwe, as a result of the seven-year guerrilla warfare. One obvious feature of this is the re-emergence of the tsetse fly in parts of western Zimbabwe. In the last two years drought has compounded these problems. In a country basically and potentially a food exporter there are now severe problems of malnutrition particularly amongst the children.

Australia can make an immediate and major contribution to the re-creation of the agricultural infrastructure of Zimbabwe. We possess expertise in most of the agricultural fields. We should be able to offer training facilities, personal expertise and financial asistance. One is glad to note that the Government has already taken steps in this direction. When we ask for these kinds of commitments by Australia we should note that in carrying through an aid program in this transition period we are not merely helping Zimbabwe over its immediate difficulties, but we are contributing to a peaceful resolution of the daunting problems confronting southern Africa. Perhaps that is the fundamental reason why people in this society and in other societies should make a major contribution in this difficult transition period. By contributing support for Zimbabwe we are not helping Zimbabwe alone; we are ensuring an evolutionary solution to the grave problems facing southern Africa.

Mr MARTYR:
Swan

-by leave-I suppose people justifiably wonder why the member for Swan, a Western Australian metropolitan electorate, should be interested in the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence Sub-Committee on Southern Africa. Whilst my electors talk about other things they are concerned about our nearest neighbour on the western flank. Even though there is a vast distance across the Indian Ocean between ourselves and the continent of Africa, it is our neighbour to the west. People in the metropolitan area of Swan and other areas in Western Australia are vitally aware that southern Africa is our nearest neighbour. It has a great strategic influence on the future of Australia. We have to be concerned because the entrance from the Atlantic Ocean is around the Cape.

It has been my pleasure to be associated with the Committee. It has afforded me an opportunity of learning more about southern Africa. I certainly have taken the opportunity to learn more. If people listening do not understand the importance of the Committee, it is a committee comprised of members from both sides of both Houses of Parliament. Indeed, it is one of the few areas where members of Parliament not only coexist but also arrive at much the same sorts of conclusions based on the reasonable evidence that is given. It is one of those areas where generally there is not much scope for very strong ideological differences on the basis of the evidence. I think people are somewhat surprised to see the unanimity between the Chairman of the SubCommittee and the Opposition spokesman. There is no need to be surprised. We make our decisions on the basis of the evidence. It is most important for us, as the Chairman did, to convey the good wishes of this Parliament to the new Government of Zimbabwe. I had considerable reservations when our Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) exercised his influence and helped to bring about a situation different from that which I thought ought to prevail. In the long run that may be for the good. Certainly there was no unanimity on this side of the Parliament when that influence was exercised.

As I say, I hope that in future things will work out and that there will be peace in Zimbabwe, as indeed we hope there will be in all of the countries in southern Africa. One of the real privileges of being associated with the Committee is to see just what developments are taking place and what the prospects are for peace in the future in Zimbabwe and other countries in southern Africa. I am very glad to have been associated with the Committee. I hope that in our next areas of investigation we can reach the same unanimity and come to the same general harmonious conclusions.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-by leave-I am afraid that most of the information which we are receiving from Zimbabwe at present tends to be pessimistic because pessimistic reporting is what makes the headlines in the modern Press. A more than disheartening attitude was expressed in some of the speeches made in here this afternoon by honourable members who pointed to the great disadvantages and difficulties that Zimbabwe faces. That is true enough, but I want to say something about what I see as the heartening side of it all. In the last few years there have been some democratic developments in a world of trouble. Spain and Portugal have entered into what might be called political democracy. Spain has returned to democracy after 40 to 50 years but I do not know whether Portugal ever had democracy.

Events in two or three other African countries are heartening, but I think Zimbabwe offers the greatest hope of all, given the goodwill of the rest of the world, such as has been shown by the vigor with which the previous Government of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia was pursued by the United Nations and other countries. We now have to ask that people’s interests, which in the past were expressed so vehemently about the situation in Zimbabwe, be directed to constructive assistance in a country which has a lot going for it, including the fact that oyer the last two years there has been a dramatic, almost dynamic development in that country. The internal agreement and the elections in 1979 and 1980 were dramatic advances in human affairs by which a country that was torn by strife, which had an active white minority suppressing a very large black majority, has been changed so that it now has what on paper is a democratic government, democratically elected. I hope that people will start to look upon the future of Zimbabwe more with optimism than with pessimism, given that there are difficulties for every country.

I want to speak principally about what I see as Australia’s duty. Firstly, we ought to be able to do more financially that to offer Zimbabwe $5m over two years. I speak as a respresentative of Australia south of the River Murray. Every week in that area a prize of $ 1 m is offered in a lottery. Perhaps we should supply tickets to everybody in the world to see whether they can all get on in on this. It seems to me that we live in a country where nobody seems surprised by sums of money such as that flowing around the country, but if the Australian nation as a whole offers Zimbabwe $5m over two years we pat ourselves on the back. We have to do better than that. There will be some limits to trade with Zimbabwe because it is similar to us in many ways, but on the technical and administrative side we ought to be able to give that country a lot of support.

Zimbabwe is a country that has much going for it in the form of its people. Many highly skilled and highly educated black Africans who have not lived in that country for some years, ought to be able to go back there and obtain reasonable employment. Many white Africans and many overseas people who have gone to settle in that country ought to be encouraged, by whatever means, to stay. I think we should offer Zimbabwe a great deal of administrative and technical assistance. There may well be some room in Australian universities, technical colleges and tertiary institutions of all kinds for many of Zimbabwe’s people while the infrastructure in education there catches up.

Zimbabwe looks very much like a great deal of New South Wales. It is a country with a good deal of mineral resources at its disposal. It has established a very strong infrastructure in communication, roads and so on. The capital, Salisbury, is as well kept as almost any other city in the world. It was so even at the height of the troubles. A group of which I was a member went there in 1979 when the whole place was an armed camp. It is a country in which the Prime Minister has expressed a dedication to the democratic processes.

I would think that one of the weaknesses of the situation in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia as has been pointed out here, is the domination of the economy by the white minority, external forces, the big banking systems and so on. I would suggest that we should assist Zimbabwe in the development of a base for public enterprise based upon the African ownership. There are very few African capitalists who would vote for my colleagues opposite. Zimbabwe does not have the capital to invest in large enterprises. Therefore, there is very little chance that the country will buy out existing institutions. As I understand it, Zimbabwe has no public bank in the sense in which we have a public banking system. We could offer a good deal of advice on a large number of public enterprises in this country; many of which are successful, some of which are not. Therefore, I have taken it upon myself to write to the Prime Minister and set out some of the things we do in this country on which we could offer advice to Zimbabwe. The biggest bank of this country is the Commonwealth Banking Corporation of Australia. I think the biggest mining operation in Australia is ran by the Electricity Commission of Victoria. The most ubiquitous communication system is that of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Scattered throughout the country are abba.toirs which are owned by some of the municipalities and enormous publicly owned communication networks, shipping lines and so on. There are even small enterprises which the Labor Government was responsible for establishing such as the publicly owned bakery at Yarrabah in northern Queensland.

Therefore, I hope that instead of spending our time pondering the great value of the $5m we are to give to give Zimbabwe over two years we concentrate on the whole subject. The other heartening feature is that it has been demonstrated that the world can interfere in the internal misgovernment of a country and demand change. That is one of the world’s greatest needs. When we start on all the rest of the villains that run the world and turn their countries into democracies that will be progress indeed.

Mr SHIPTON:
Higgins

-by leave-The report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on Zimbabwe will be a valuable resource document for politicians, diplomats, interested observers and scholars alike. It is an excellent general historical record which also records Australia’s interests in events in southern Africa. The Mugabe Government which is now in control of Zimbabwe has enormous difficulties ahead of it. It must meet the aspirations of the black electorate so as not to have a crisis of expectations whilst retaining the co-operation and confidence of the white people. My message to the whites in Zimbabwe- I have been there on two occasions- is that they should understand that Mugabe could well have a crisis of expectations and that they must expect change.

One of the good points which has not been referred to in today’s debate is that there has been, I think, a victory for the West. Certainly it has been a victory for the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth, if it has done nothing else in its existence, has justified its existence by the peace that has been achieved in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. I think that needs to be stated. I refer to the role played by the Thatcher Government, Lord Carrington and above all the role played by Australia’s Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) at the Lusaka Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. There is no doubt that the Australian Prime Minister and the Australian Government at that Meeting played a very important part in getting the parties together to sign the Lancaster House agreement. Behind the scenes Australia played a very important role in the Lancaster House agreement which led to the solution and the peace in Zimbabwe. It is a credit to Australia. I think it has enhanced its reputation in capitals around the world.

The new Mugabe Government in Zimbabwe is an anti-Soviet government. That is something that is not often recorded. It is a government which is not friendly to the Soviet bloc. The East Germans were denied an invitation to attend the Zimbabwe independence celebrations. The events in Zimbabwe which have led to peace create a precedent for South Africa itself and its involvement in Namibia. Last week the Council for Namibia, a United Nations body which is concerned with Namibia, visited Australia. It held talks with the Committee whose report was presented today. Those talks were very useful for the members of the Committee, and I hope, for the Council for Namibia. Namibia- previously, the South West Africa mandated League of Nations mandated territory- will have an opportunity for a peaceful change to majority rule elections. South Africans on the one hand and the South West Africa People’s Organisation on the other hand can learn lessons from the way in which Zimbabwe has solved its problems. South Africans must realise that they will not be able to conduct internal elections. Similarly, the South West Africa People’s Organisation must realise that it cannot be the only party which contests those elections. It must have the confidence that the Patriotic Front had to face the people. If it wants a majority vote it must put it to the test at the ballot box.

Similarly, the South African Government must pay attention. The South African Government does not have the time available that it thinks it has to adjust to change in that country. The aspirations of the majority in South Africa must be met. There have been recent acts of urban terrorism and today there were reports of an incident in the Carlton Hotel in Johannesburg. There will be more occurrences of this kind. The South African Government must realise that it cannot tread on the majority in that country in the way that it has done in the past. The South African Government must meet the aspirations of the majority of people in that country. It should encourage the people to play an active role in an endeavour to stop separate development. All South Africans must be given a chance to have a say in the running of the country.

I think that a strong black middle class should be developed. That has happened in Zimbabwe and is one of its strengths. It has large numbers of university graduates from all faculties across the board and it has a strong and active middle class in the business sector. It behoves that country well for the future and provides an example for the South Africans to follow. The South African Government must abolish apartheid. Effectively, no apartheid policy existed in Zimbabwe, which has been one of its strengths. There are lessons to be learned by the South African Government from the solution in Zimbabwe. There are encouraging signs in statements from Prime Minister Botha. I hope that those statements are met by reality in political action in that country in the future.

Mr SIMON:
McMillan

-by leave-As one of the members of the Sub-Committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence I wish to speak for only a few minutes to make a couple of points which perhaps have not been made by other members. Before doing so, I commend the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) who was chairman of the SubCommittee until he was forced to retire for health reasons, and the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) who then became chairman of the Sub-Committee. I record the indebtedness of the Committee to the respective chairmen who led what was otherwise a fairly tortuous and complicated inquiry to the stage we have reached today of presenting a report to this Parliament. I think the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) correctly stated that events raced away from the Committee. Often evidence taken from witnesses one day would be out of date the following day.

I think it is necessary also to record our appreciation in relation to the many people who gave written submissions to the Committee and to witnesses who appeared before the Committee. It was not uncommon to have before the same hearing, whether in Melbourne, Canberra or Sydney, representatives of the Zimbabwe African National Union sitting alongside members from the Australian Rhodesian Association waiting to give evidence- two groups diametrically opposed in their views on the future outcome of the Zimbabwe position. It was a compliment to the staff and to the chairman that those proceedings were handled in a dignified and democratic way, and that the best evidence was obtained from those disparate witnesses.

The other point which needs to be recorded is that there was a view, and perhaps there still is a minority view, in Australia that anybody who opposed the Smith regime was espousing a procommunist or pro-socialist cause. I think most people realise that that is absolutely absurd. The solution which is being achieved peacefully and avoiding an enormous amount of bloodshed should be applauded by all who are concerned about international events and about the future of the people of Zimbabwe. Another point which I would like to mention, which has already been stated by other honourable members but which I think should be recorded again, is the work of the Secretary, Mr John Vander Wyk and the research assistant, Mrs Jill Chorazy. I think they were almost put in a situation where they wished they had never started to write the report. This long and valuable resource document will be appreciated by all members of this Parliament and by people outside the Parliament.

There are a number of aspects in the report. In the brief time available to me I should like to refer to the question of sanctions and the way in which the international community was able to use sanctions against Rhodesia effectively. Very few occasions arise when penalties can be imposed, other than military-type penalties. The use of sanctions is one of the few peaceful means by which the international community can state an opinion that another country should not be acting in a certain way. One chapter of the report clearly states that in the long term those sanctions were reasonably successful. I think it is worth while stating for the benefit of honourable members that on this occasion the sanctions were able to put pressure on Rhodesia at a time when other factors were adversely affecting Rhodesia. The sanctions helped in applying pressure which was also being exerted on Rhodesia by the Patriotic Front and other organisations which were trying to attain what we now regard as basic rights for the majority of people in that country.

Reference was made to Namibia by the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton). The Sub-Committee, of course, has not completed its work. This was only one small part of a general reference given to it by the full Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. This morning the Committee resolved to proceed to examine the situation of Namibia. It is hoped that the example of a peaceful settlement of the difficulties in Zimbabwe will be recognised by the South African Government and by others and that they will help solve the difficulties presently being experienced in Namibia. Recently, of course, representatives from the United Nations Council for Namibia advised members of this Parliament of the difficulties being experienced in obtaining majority independent rule in Namibia. I thank the House for the opportunity of making those few remarks.

page 2904

COMMONWEALTH LAW COURTS, HOBART, TASMANIA

Report of Public Works Committee

Mr BUNGEY:
Canning

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, 1 present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Commonwealth Law Courts, Hobart, Tasmania.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave not granted.

Mr Hodgman:

– The honourable member for Prospect said that there was no objection to my speaking. Who is running the Labor Party? Why will the Opposition not let members speak on the Commonwealth Law Courts?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Order! The honourable member for Denison will remain silent or I will have to deal with him.

Mr Hodgman:

– Opposition members hate Tasmania; that is their problem.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Now you know how it feels.

Mr Hodgman:

– You keep quiet too.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I warn the honourable member for Denison.

page 2905

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr BURR:
Wilmot

-I move:

This Bill, introduced into the Senate by Senator Rae, passed that chamber last Friday. It is a simple proposal for an amendment to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905. It is to correct what is, ostensibly, an injustice. The Act was introduced and passed at a time when wireless telegraphy was in its infancy. That system, so much a part of our every daylife, was not even in operation in Australia when the original Act became law. The new Parliament of the Commonwealth, then only four years from its first sitting, decided to support and, in fact, strengthen the approach proposed by the then Governmentthat is, that like posts and telegraphs, this aspect of the communications system should be a government monopoly.

Accordingly, the Wireless Telegraphy Act contains provisions which were designed to ensure and protect a government monopoly. It contains a total prohibition against the use of radio. It contains a penalty of five years’ imprisonment for the unlawful use of radio. It contains a provision for the automatic forfeiture of any equipment unlawfully used. Those provisions were, in 1905, seen as appropriate to protect not only what was then intended to be a government monopoly but also what was feared as a means by which would-be traitors could provide information to an enemy.

Today the wheel has totally turned. Today sections of the community are required by law to install and use two-way radio. Fishermen, aircraft operators and others are required to purchase, install, licence and use two-way radio. The Wireless Telegraphy Act is now the basis of a licensing system to control community use- in some cases it is compulsory use- of wireless telegraphy. However, the anachronistic and draconian provisions for heavy penalties and automatic forfeiture now apply to citizens whose only offence is to fail to pay a licence fee upon the due date.

Two-way radios of the type fitted to many fishing boats in Australian waters cost anywhere between $2,000 and $ 10,000. Yet, if a fisherman forgets, omits or otherwise fails to pay his $25 of $50 licence fee on the due date, he is not only liable to imprisonment for five years but also incurs the automatic forfeiture of his radio equipment. A court is powerless to permit, or direct, the return of the equipment. Neither is there any power for the Minister to direct, after an offender has been dealt with by the court, that the equipment be returned. That situation is recognised as both harsh and unconscionable and the result of a classical anachronism.

This Bill, therefore, proposes an amendment to the Wireless Telegraphy Act to give to the Minister a discretion to direct the return of otherwise forfeited equipment to the owner. The passage of the Bill will not only correct an anomalous situation but will also enable a particular injustice to be rectified. A fisherman will not only have been fined by a court for his failure to pay his licence fee upon the due date and have suffered a loss of many thousands of dollars of income for the period during which he could not use his boat because it was not equipped with the legally required radio equipment, but also will, unless this Bill is approved, suffer a loss of forfeiture of about $4,500 worth of radio equipment.

I ask honourable members to join with me in correcting a particular injustice and providing for the elimination of other potential injustices which will occur unless the anachronism is corrected. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr Hodgman:

– I second the motion and reserve my right to speak later.

Debate (on motion by Dr Klugman) adjourned.

page 2905

STANDARD OF LIVING OF PENSIONERS

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

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

The Government’s failure to protect the standard of living of pensioners.

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

More than the number of members required by t h e

Standing Orders having risen in their places-

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-Mr Deputy Speaker, last week -

Motion ( by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the business of the day be called on.

Dr Klugman:

– The Government lets people talk about the law courts and so on, yet it will not let people talk about the pensioners. There were hundreds of them here last week and it will not let us discuss the problems facing them.

Mr Young:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-I will take the honourable member’s point of order when the House comes to order.

Mr Young:

– My point of order is that the Government has allowed six speakers on Zimbabwe and now we are refused the right to discuss the plight of pensioners in Australia. This is an utterly disgraceful action by the Government to refuse to discuss the plight of pensioners in Australia.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. The question is that the business of the day be called on.

Mr Hurford:

– I rise on a point of order. The Opposition has not been allowed a matter of public importance for 10 days now. Can you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have some independence in the Chair to make sure that this motion cannot be put?

Mr Viner:

– I wish to speak to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is clearly no point of order. I simply point out to the House that on neither Tuesday nor Thursday of last week did the Opposition submit a matter of public importance. On Wednesday of last week the Speaker himself chose the matter of public importance.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order. There is no point of order. The matter is one for the House itself.

Question put.

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

AYES: 74

NOES: 35

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2906

QUESTION

PROPOSED 35-HOUR WORKING WEEK

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

– I move:

The present bid by the metal trades unions for a 35-hour week poses a serious threat to the economy and to the employment prospects of Australians. Indeed, it is probably the most serious threat to the economy and employment prospects that we have had in the last five years. Unfortunately, most of the demands of unions in this country over recent years have had an air of unreality about them. The disruption proposed in pursuit of a 35-hour week is yet another folly. But this time it is a most dangerous folly which, if successful, would have dire consequences for employment.

My concern, as Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, is for the harm which a 35-hour week will do to the employment prospects of future Australians and those presently seeking work. It is of great concern that unions base their case for the snorter week on the simplistic argument that it will help create extra jobs. Yet, when the proposal is analysed more closely, it will be seen that the exact opposite will be the case. The arguments about extra jobs are cynical. They are a cynical attempt by unions to gain wider community support for their own selfish ends. Let me make it clear: The unions’ claim will not create jobs. It will both destroy today’s jobs and deny jobs to future Australians. Let me re-emphasise recent comments by my colleague the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) that the Government is not fooled by the unions’ case. Private enterprise is not fooled and the wider community is quickly recognising the unions’ transparent self-interest. Even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), who is at the table for this debate, has publicly opposed, if not destroyed, the arguments put forward by the unions in support of their case.

The unions’ position and its employment consequences are worth examining in some detail. The metal trades unions want to work a 35-hour week- a reduction of five hours on present award arrangements. However, whilst they propose to reduce hours worked by 1216 per cent they do not propose to accept a reduction in pay of the same magnitude. Far from it; they do not propose to accept a wage reduction at all. No doubt the unions think that maintaining the same weekly payment for working 1214 per cent less hours is a clever way to disguise a massive wages claim. The unions argue that the reduction in hours will lead to more jobs. On the basis of one of their leader’s claims, the 400,000 or so unionists involved would, by working five hours less a week, help create another 250,000 jobs. That is their assertion. What startling economic logic is behind that claim is not clear at all. It is even more wild-eyed than the claims made in favour of the Labor Opposition’s employment creation schemes which we have shown would be at the expense of the taxpayer to the tune of $ 1 ,000m a year. The real fact of the matter is not that a 35-hour week would create jobs but rather that it would reduce job opportunities on a large scale. Working less hours for the same pay and lowering the threshold for overtime payments would boost industry’s labour costs by a significant margin at the very time when the economy is showing a greatly improved capacity to absorb an additional 181,000 people in employment over the last 12 months. What timing on the part of the unions to seek to introduce a 3 5 -hour week at the very time when the economy is showing that kind of strength!

The Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia has calculated that the shorter week would add some 14 per cent to normal hourly labour costs and 2 1 per cent if the five hours’ reduction were taken up in overtime. Taking on extra employees to try to avoid higher overtime payments would not be a solution either. They would still have to be paid the higher hourly wage rate and overheads would also be unnecessarily increased. It is small wonder that industry representatives have labelled the proposal as suicidal and as directly threatening some 70,000 jobs.

Mr Holding:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Sir, having refused the Opposition time to talk about the plight of pensioners so that the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs can engage in an exercise in union-bashing, I suggest that the Government ought to maintain a quorum in the House and I draw your attention to the state of the House. (Quorum formed).

Mr VINER:

– This motion is no exercise in union bashing. It is an exercise in economic common sense. It is an exercise and an argument that is recognised by the Leader of the Opposition, so I have no hesitation on behalf of the Government in moving this motion. I repeat, it is small wonder that industry representatives have labelled the proposal for a 35-hour week as suicidal and as directly threatening some 70,000 jobs. Small wonder that the Australian Financial Review of 1 3 May of this year stated:

The economic case against the 33-hour week is so formidable, that it is surprising the campaign should even have been considered in the first place.

We do not have to look back far to be reminded of the volatile relationship between wages and employment. In fact, we have to look back only as far as the regime of which the Leader of the Opposition was a member and in 1975 Treasurer- the ill-fated Whitlam Government. I remind the House that in the year to December 1974 the minimum award wage of adult males increased by 36 per cent and average weekly earnings by 28 per cent.

Mr Baillieu:

– What happened to employment?

Mr VINER:

– There was pace-setting by the Government of the day and the unrestrained rise in wages devastated employment. As my colleague the honourable member for La Trobe highlights, it was a time not of job creation but of job destruction. As these huge increases- 36 per cent in the award wage of adult males and 28 per cent in average weekly earnings- permeated industry in 1974-75 the result was catastrophic. Employment in the private sector fell by over 150,000. In the manufacturing sector more than 120,000 jobs vanished.

The metal trades unions have such short memories that they can ignore recent economic history. Can they really have such a callous disregard for the health of the Australian economy and the security of employment of their fellow workers? Does the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Bob Hawke, have such a short memory that he does not recall his own words at a union conference in 1979, in bringing home to trade union leaders the fact that when they press for higher real wages they ought to be concerned at the plight of the children of their own members who cannot get jobs. I recall Mr Hawke, the President of the ACTU, flirting fleetingly with humanity and the realities of the proposition that ever-increasing demands for higher real wages would destroy the job prospects of the members of those unions who were demanding them.

A 35-hour week would be a great blow to the Australian manufacturing industry. Our manufacturing sector remains a cornerstone of the economy and is engaged in a process of revitalisation, better to meet the international competitive pressures of the coming decade. Manufacturing employment, after suffering a loss of 170,000 jobs over the last five years, has now turned the corner. Recent months have shown an increase in employment. This welcome trend must be sustained. It cannot be destroyed, but it will be if a 35-hour week is introduced. The direct consequences of a 35-hour week, bad as they would be for the cost structure and the metal trades industry would be only the start of the decline in employment opportunities. Our international competitiveness would be adversely affected and manufacturing exports would suffer. Domestic consumers would be dissuaded by higher prices from buying goods using metal products. Spin-off effects would reduce jobs in other supplying industries. No doubt other unions would also engage in the crazy pursuit of the success- if one could call it that- of the metal trades unions if they secured a 35-hour week. Labour costs would be pushed up further and inflation accelerated. The hard-won gains in employment growth that I have mentioned- 181,000 jobs in the last year- would evaporate and Australia’s economy would be headed for what might be termed properly banana republic status. This is a frightening scenario but one with the real possibility of being foisted upon us if this campaign for a 35-hour week were to succeed. It shows why the unions’ claim must be resisted at all costs.

At this point I commend the judgment of the Leader of the Opposition, who is seated at the table, in identifying the 35-hour week as being so damaging to the economy. I hope, and the Government certainly hopes, that he will play his part in ensuring that sense and reason prevail within the union movement. I do not make that request of him lightly, because I propose to quote directly from his statements which have appeared recently in a number of newspapers. I turn firstly to the Sydney Morning Herald of 9 May 1 980, in which he is reported to have said: 1 have got to say frankly, that as an economist, not only in terms of being an academic but also as an experienced administrator and a former Treasurer, and recognising as a Government we have to administer the affairs of this country with economic sense, I would not support a 35-hour week at this time.

Those are the words of the Leader of the Opposition, with which apparently his colleague the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) violently disagrees. The Leader of the Opposition went on:

In my view, it would have damaging consequences to many industries and I see a much greater need at this point to use resources that are available to generate more jobs, to get the economy fully employed rather than moving to a 35-hour week.

I remind honourable members of the terms of my motion: That there should not be a general 35-hour week in Australian industry because, firstly, a shorter working week will have damaging consequences for it, especially in export markets. In other words, I am asking the House to agree not only with the Government but also the Leader of the Opposition. My motion goes on that the resources of the nation, including our work force, should be used to generate more jobs and get the economy fully employed, rather than in trying to force Australian industry into a shorter working week. Again, I ask that the House agree with both the Government’s view and that of the Leader of the Opposition on this issue. Perhaps it will be one of those occasions upon which a bipartisan policy can be adopted by the two parties.

I turn now to the transcript of another statement made by the Leader of” the Opposition on an Australian Broadcasting Commission program on 12 May. The transcript states:

Mr Hayden: The fact is that shorter working hours will not resolve the unemployment problem but rather intensify it.

We are asking by this motion that the Leader of the Opposition stand up and be counted in favour of those people who are presently looking for a job and in favour of the children of union members and others who in the future will be seeking employment. It is indeed a great pity that the metal trades unions have not put the time and resources that they are wasting on a 35-hour week claim into the training area. We must learn as a nation to adjust positively to change in production techniques and its impact on the structure of employment. This will require greater flexibility in manpower policies and training methods, which should be directed to increasing the number of skilled tradesmen produced by Australia and to improving the productivity of Australian industry. The interests of the rank and file members of the unions would be far better served through creative union participation in the necessary restructuring of trade training practices to meet the challenges of the 1980s than by mounting this damaging 35-hour week campaign. The Government would be glad of union assistance and would look forward to the opportunity to co-operate with the union movement in bringing about the necessary changes in trade training.

As a government we have made great strides towards laying the foundations for sustained and dynamic employment development through the decade. Our objective is to establish a high growth economy with minimal inflation and ready adaptability to the latest technology. With healthy and sustained employment growth in prospect, now is surely not the time to turn back the clock by again pricing labour out of the market. In my statement to the House on employment prospects in the 1 980s on 29 April I noted:

The only sure way of expanding employment is to keep costs down. Private enterprise- not least the export and import competing sectors- is thereby enabled to become more competitive and to expand production and investment, lt is no coincidence that the past 12 months have witnessed not only a pick up in employment but also further strengthening in output.

I can only emphasise that view in the present context and in the present debate. Australian union leaders too often indulge in acts of industrial stupidity, I very much regret to say, which, I would also add, their own rank and file members really do not want to follow. The bid for a 35-hour week in present economic circumstances is the most reckless act that we have seen for some time. I hope that the metal trades unions and their leaders will recognise before further unnecessary industrial disruption takes place their obligation to their fellow workers and to all job seekers.

I notice that the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) is sitting alongside the honourable member for Hunter. I presume by that that the honourable member for Port Adelaide disagrees with his leader, who has condemned this claim for a 35-hour week. I can assure the community that this Government will be doing all that it can to stop this madness before it develops much further. Let Mr Hawke give the leadership to which he aspires by calling off this 35-hour week claim. Let the Leader of the Opposition display the influence which he claims to have within the labour movement. Let members of the Opposition rally behind their leader and behind this Government on this motion. By doing that the Leader of the Opposition will be standing in this House by the words that he has been prepared to utter publiclywords with which we agree. One clear conclusion is to be drawn from this 35-hour week campaign- that is, that it will create great damage, great harm, to the economy and will destroy employment prospects for the future. I therefore have no hesitation in strongly commending this motion to the whole of the House.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner), by his performance, has retained his reputation for chronicling small beer, just as his presence here is testimony to the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) prefers to suckle fools. I am nattered that the -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition be a little more restrained in his descriptive passages.

Mr HAYDEN:

– My remark has classic parentage, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought you would have applauded it through instant recognition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable gentleman to be a little more restrained in his descriptive passages.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I am nattered that the Minister should seek to serve his time so productively as to devote himself to reading what I have been saying on economic matters in recent times. He would be well served if he understood what he read; unfortunately he does not. I dilute in no way at all comments that I have made on this subject. I would regard it as being most undesirable should there be immediately or in the very near future the universal introduction of a 35-hour week- that is, something brought in suddenly and disruptively. I can state quite categorically- I will give the source in a few minutes- that that is a view shared by the trade union movement essentially and has been expressed as recently as last night and this morning by the Australian Council of Trade Unions.

I thought when I entered this debate that I might well find myself in the happy situation of supporting the proposition which was put by the Minister. After all, he stated:

  1. . this House is of the opinion that there should not be a general 35 hour week in Australian industry because -

He said:

  1. . there should not be a general . . .

The operative word is ‘general’. The Oxford Dictionary states that ‘general’ means ‘completely or approximately universal’. My view has been put in terms of that meaning and in terms of the sudden implementation of such a proposition. However, what the Minister sought to develop today in this debate was not an argument about the implementation of a universal, sudden 35-hour week in industry, but was total opposition to the introduction of a 35-hour week in any pan of industry at any time. That is nonsense on two scores. It is nonsense first on the score that already a substantial proportion of the work force works less than 40 hours a week and very many of that proportion work a 35-hour week. It may be that the Minister is asserting that by implication he excluded that group of people. If so, he ought to declare that. As his arguments stood, as he presented them, he did not exclude those people. Accordingly, he showed the prejudiced approach that he has to this subject and, even more, the ill-informed way in which he adopts his attitudes to it. If, however, he is arguing that that group is excluded and that he was referring essentially to those who do not have a working week of less than 40 hours at present, he simplifies too greatly what is an enormously complex and difficult situation.

The fact is that working hours in this country are a matter of considerable tension within the community, not just amongst the people at the work benches and in the offices but also amongst their families. This tension provides the genesis for considerable social and economic discord in the future unless there are sensible responses to the way in which the Government develops its economic policies to respond to varying approaches on this matter. I refer to different concepts of justice and need and the capacity of industry to respond to people’s expectations. This is an area of rampant inconsistency and injustice. It bristles, I repeat, with difficulties. Let us look at some of the difficulties. For instance, powerhouse workers in Australia except those in Victoria work a 35-hour or 37Vi-hour week. The powerhouse workers in Queensland, as recently as two months ago, obtained a 37’/4-hour week through the generosity of the Queensland Country Party Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen. That seems to me to demolish much of the conservative proposition which was put without any exceptions at all by the conservative Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs.

Again, I remind the House that 40 per cent of Australian workers- 40 per cent of Australians who are in the work place- are working less than 40 hours a week and a substantial number of that proportion are working 35 hours a week already. Other aspects have to be considered. If they are not attended to sensibly and sensitively by government they will generate a lot of industrial tension with concomitant costs for the rest of the community. The obvious consequence of this will be industrial discord because mostly, the people who are working less than 40 hours per week are people in the more comfortable, more attractive and more fulfilling occupations in the white collar section of industry. That means that those with the less attractive, more unpleasant, most burdensome and least fulfilling jobs are those who are working the longest hours. They are working the hardest and getting the least pay for it. I repeat that the implementation immediately or in the near future of a universal 35-hour week would have devastating consequences. But it would be just as devastating to ignore these factors which I have been outlining and the growing sense of the injustice which is developing in the community. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in fact has set the way on this matter. The Commission said at paragraph 6, page 37 of its national wage decision on 28 March this year:

Each year the Commission will consider what increase in total wage or changes in conditions of employment should be awarded nationally on account of productivity.

That is, the Commission has signalled that it is not just there to consider the matter of wages; it is there also to consider the matters of changes in conditions of employment which include, inter alia, the issue of working hours, and that there could be a trade off in terms of productivity. That is a matter I want to come to in a minute because it is generating an enormous sense of aggrievement in the work force at present. There has not been a settlement for productivity through the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission hearings since May 1974. That is a substantial level of discrimination and a massive disadvantage for these people.

What are the unions talking about? What is the Australian Council of Trade Unions talking about? They are talking about approaching this matter through the proper courses available in the community. They are not talking about going out and holding up employers or closing down industry in the way in which the Minister claimed. They are talking about using the proper processes of conciliation and arbitration, of lodging claims before the industrial court process and having those claims weighed up and, on the facts presented, a judgment made. If it is the view of the court that no case stands, the claims will be rejected. If it is the view of the court that perhaps in particular industries a case does stand, the court will conclude that the claim should be met. But that is a matter for the courts to conclude, not a matter for this Parliament which is a totally inappropriate forum for this matter to be discussed in. Discussion in this place will generate considerable heat, not a little tension and no illumination at all.

The Minister has sought to polarise and to harden attitudes in this institution, as he will effectively do outside it, on a highly sensitive issue where there was room for greater mutual understanding.

The ACTU has said this, among other things:

The executive recognising the policy of the ACTU calls for an effective campaign to reduce working time should be conducted having regard to:

The ACTU lists five points. Point (D) states:

The reality that such a campaign will not be won overnight; and

Point (E) states:

That responses of industry will necessarily be variable.

It goes without saying that the ACTU is also talking about lodging those claims through the industrial court processes. I cannot see any room for cavilling over such a proposition, that is, that there should be fair and impartial adjudication on the facts which are presented. I know that honourable members on the Government side would regard that as the least desirable thing. After all, they spend a great deal of time trying to bluff, bully and bluster at the arbitration system and obstruct the Arbitration Commission. The ACTU also said:

The campaign for reduced working time has to be seen in its proper context that a substantial part of our workforce already work less than forty hours per week. The standards which already apply to clerical and administrative employees, coal, oil, electricity generating, stevedoring workers and the existing pattern of employment demonstrate the clear discrimination which applies to working hours in our society.

That tension, that sense of injustice, is not going to go away because of a hortatory speech by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs in the House today. It will grow; it will well up into considerable industrial tension and spill out into industrial discord. There are clear economic costs in that just as there are clear economic costs in moving in the direction about which I have spoken too extensively, too quickly. Those are the things which must be weighed up.

Let us look at some of the sense of frustration is the work force at present. I refer to the declining living standards and the massive tax rip off from which the average employee is suffering at present. The average employee- that is, the man on average weekly earnings supporting a wife and two children- would have to have an increase in his pay after tax of more than $16 a week to have the same real purchasing power that he had four years ago. Every Australian household is paying $800 now in petrol tax to keep the Government going- this Government with its rapacious taxation policies. The social wage- that is, the additions to people’s living standards which are derived through enlightened welfare policies- has been enormously diminished since this Government came into office. For instance, the cost of basic health insurance has gone up from 1 . 1 per cent of average weekly earnings to 6.4 per cent of average weekly earnings. In terms of medical service costs, the people of Australia are paying directly from their pockets $700m more this year as a result of the changes in health insurance than would have been the case if the original Medibank proposals, which the Government guaranteed to preserve, had been retained. The people are getting no more; they are paying that much more taxation.

If we look at areas such as housing, welfare benefits for dependant children and education we see this erosion taking place with dramatic effect. A family with two dependent children who are living away from home and who are in receipt of benefits from the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme, today is $20 a week worse off in real terms than five years ago in spite of a promise to preserve the real spending power of those payments. Welfare spending for Aboriginals has been reduced in real terms by 3 1 per cent or some $35m in spite of grim health problems, deplorable housing needs, educational disadvantage and the worst unemployment rate in Australia. A former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is sitting at the table at the moment; Mr Viner and his silence convicts his negligence in his approach.

Let me make it clear what has been happening as a result of the rip-off going on at the expense of Australian people- families. In the Fraser Government’s first four Budgets some $2, 500m was handed out to business in tax concessions. To these concessions must be added another $ 1,680m paid directly as subsidies and assistance grants to industry generally since the end of 1975. The full extent of the Government’s generosity to business, to industry, has totalled almost $4.2 billion in four years. This has been paid for by increased taxes. Subsidies have been provided to the large corporate sector by reducing welfare benefits and depressing the living standards of Australian families. Let me go on.

Mr Viner:

– Companies pay high taxes.

Mr HAYDEN:

-The Minister said that companies pay high taxes. Let us get this on the record: Between 1975-76 and 1978-79 the rate of pay-as-you-earn income tax that is the tax paid by the bulk of the families of this country increased by 48 per cent but their wages, salaries and supplements increased by only 35 per cent. In the same period company tax increased by a little over 20 per cent. However, the income of incorporated enterprises increased by well over 32 per cent. That is, taxes increased faster than wages for people but for companies profits increased faster than taxation.

Let us look at productivity. There has not been an increase and a settlement in respect of productivity since 1974. In spite of that, productivity has gone up 9’/4 per cent. In the same period there has been an increase in average minimum award wages of 59.3 per cent as against a consumer price index increase of 69 per cent. So there has been a loss in real terms in the average minimum award wage of 10 per cent in that period, to which must be added a loss of payment for a 9Vi per cent productivity increase, which means very clearly a loss of nearly $2 1 a week in the spending power of someone on average minimum award rates.

The attitude of the Government in terms of wages is one of implacable and invariable hostility. But in terms of profit there is always an explanation, always a justification and profits have been soaring in recent times. Again, there have been no proposals by this Government to respond to technology in spite of the finding of the Crawford Committee of Inquiry. These things have devastating consequences for people in the work force. Inadequate provision has been made to attend to these great processes of change which are taking place in the work force. In that situation there will be resistance to these processes of change and individuals in the community will seek to bring about the redistribution that government is failing to achieve whether through changed hours, wages or other conditions of work.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr NEIL:
St George

– What a dismal, confused, vacillating and incoherent speech we have just heard from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden).

Honourable members interjecting;

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Order!

Mr NEIL:

– The only members who cheered him when he finished his worthless contribution were the left wing of the Australian Labor Party.

Honourable members interjecting;

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr NEIL:

-I cannot hear you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because of this rabble.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask honourable gentlemen to maintain the decorum of the House and the honourable member for St George not to -

Mr Cohen:

– A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Robertson will resume his seat. He will not rise to his feet while the Chair is -

Mr Cohen:

-What about the -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Cohen:

– You allowed them to disrupt the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. We will do the same thing if you are going to allow that to go on in this place.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Robertson will resume his seat, as will the honourable member for St George who has not yet been recalled. The honourable member for Hunter perhaps requires medical attention. I suggest that he seek it. The Chair elects not to have heard the reflective remarks of the honourable member for Robertson. The Chair was in the process of urging honourable gentlemen to afford honourable members who have been called the opportunity to address the House in silence. This may be a vain ambition in most situations, but I certainly request that honourable gentlemen observe it to the greatest extent possible. I call the honourable member for St George.

Mr Ruddock:

– On a point of order, I ask: In view of the disruption that has occurred in the time for the honourable member’s speech can the clock be turned back?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Dundas has made his point. As I consider that all members of the House contributed to the situation, the entire House can bear the consequence. The clocks will not be adjusted.

Mr NEIL:

– As I said, it was a dismal, a confused, a vacillating and an incoherent speech by the Leader of the Opposition and it shows him to be a weak leader unfit to hold the high office in this land of Leader of the Opposition because he refuses to give -

Mr Morris:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr NEIL:

– Any political leadership to his own party, let alone to join in -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Motion (by Mr Morris) negatived:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

Mr NEIL:

– What are they scared of? It is extraordinary that we have to show the splits in the ranks of the Labor Party from the mouths of its members. We have been trying for more than a week to find out whether members of the Opposition agree on the policy of the 35-hour week. They cannot even agree on the tactic of one of their number, to disrupt debate in this House and to prevent an honourable member who has been called from speaking. They have just split on the floor of the House on a procedural matter. We know that they are completely and utterly split on the question of the 3 5 -hour week. All the Leader of the Opposition had to do was to say in his speech that he acknowledged that this motion was in his words; that it was framed in the words which he used and which were reported to the Australian people last week. All he had to do was to say: ‘I will vote for this motion’. He refused to do so and the reason he refused -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I request the honourable member for St George to be relevant to the motion.

Mr NEIL:

– He refused to say that he will vote for the motion. I think, without canvassing anything you might say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that is relevant to this matter. The essence of this motion is to ensure that the public of Australia know where the Labor Party stands on this important question of a 35-hour week. The people know where the Government stands. We thought, when the Leader of the Opposition made statements last week, that we knew where the Labor Party stood. The public are entitled to bipartisanship on this extremely vital matter and they are entitled to political leadership from the Leader of the Opposition. He should stick to his words and he should vote with the Government on this matter. If he is not prepared to vote with the Government on this motion, he ought to have the decency to resign from the Parliament and from public life. He should stand by the words that he used last week. If he votes with the Government- and on the presumption that the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) seeks to vote against this motion- he should resign his position as Leader of the Opposition because he cannot carry his party with him.

The facts are that we have waited for more than a week to find out the official policy of the Labor Party. Last week there were two brilliant speeches, by the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) and by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). Throughout their speeches, in which they set out the serious economic problems facing this country from a general application of the 35-hour week in competitive industries in particular, they called time and again for the Labor Party to state its policy. The two speakers for the Labor Party on that day refused to say whether they agreed with the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that a 35-hour week should not be introduced at this time. We know on good authority that the Leader of the Opposition, during recent meetings of the Labor Party Executive, threatened to resign over this issue.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker-

Mr NEIL:

– He was not prepared to say that in his own Caucus. He was not prepared to say that there.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the State of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-A quorum is required. Ring the bells.

The bells being rung-

Mr Hayden:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for St George claimed that I threatened to resign in certain circumstances. I have never on any occasion in 19 years made such a threat. That would be the characterless behaviour of someone like the honourable member for St George, but not of me. (Quorum formed).

Mr NEIL:

-It is my information that the Leader of the Opposition threatened to resign. He has not sought to use the proper Forms of the House on this matter. He has sought to take the time of the House.

Mr Young:

– Stop telling lies.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr NEIL:

– The Labor Party, firstly, during this debate-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for St George will resume his seat. The honourable member for Port Adelaide will withdraw promptly.

Mr Young:

– I withdraw.

Mr NEIL:

– Every attempt has been made to disrupt this debate. Firstly, the Labor Party tried to take points of order which you overruled, Mr Deputy Speaker, and then attempted to prevent me from speaking. Then its members walked out of the House and it had the gall to call for a quorum. Members of the Opposition realise that they are hoist on their own petard. They just do not know whether they can support this matter if it has to be decided in this House today on a vote. They do not believe in supporting the Leader of the Opposition. He will not say which way he will vote on the issue. They are completely and utterly split. We know from media reports that the honourable member for Reid described the statement of the Leader of the Opposition on the 35-hour week as pompous and warned that it would be used by the Government. We know from media statements that that was followed by a statement from the honourable member for

Port Adelaide (Mr Young) who took a strong stand against the Leader of the Opposition. We know from media reports that quite a number of other honourable members, although conceding in private that the Leader of the Opposition had a point, stated that they questioned the wisdom of his taking such a stand publicly in the week that the unions had brought their claim. In other words, they are not interested in the truth of the substance of the matter. They are interested only in political advantage and in hiding their true thoughts on the position. They are interested only in misleading the Australian public.

Would any member in the House believe that it was not a misleading of the Australian public to say, as the Leader of the Opposition did, that the unions are not threatening to go on strike? They have said that every fourth week they will run their own 35-hour week, will have a 41/2-day week and will go on strike for half a day a week. That decision was confirmed again at a meeting of unionists in Sydney today. They passed a resolution to go on strike from now on every fourth week in support of this claim. For the Leader of the Opposition to say that they are not threatening strike action is absolute rubbish. The fact is that all that members of the Opposition have to do is to say how they will vote and what is their policy. There has been no attempt to do that. The honourable member for Port Adelaide, who spoke last week, spent the whole of his time wriggling on the hook in the same way that the Leader of the Opposition did today.

Let us briefly get rid of a number of the points that the Opposition seems to think matter in this debate. Firstly, it does not matter that 40 per cent of the Australian work force is already on less than a 40-hour working week. It does not matter for the simple fact that that was the position last week when the Leader of the Opposition made his statement that a general move to a 35-hour working week would damage the economy. We say that the move to a 35-hour week generally, and in particular in the metal trades industry, will have serious consequences for Australia, particularly for the export market. There occurs another split in the Labor ranks because the Leader of the Opposition said that this would have serious effects on our export markets. The honourable member for Port Adelaide denied that claim completely. He said, as did the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson), that the metal trades had hardly any export factor and therefore it was not a relevant factor. The Labor Party is split even on the arguments that it is using.

They talk about the word ‘general’ appears in the motion. The Leader of the Opposition decided that he could hide behind the fact that the word ‘general’ is in the motion. He started off by saying: ‘I thought I was going to be able to support the Leader of the House on this motion until I realised that the word “general” was in the motion’. The reason why that word is in the motion is that that is what this issue is about. We know that some members of the work force today work less than 40 hours a week. We know that that occurred on the day when the Leader of the Opposition spoke. We are concerned about any immediate movement to a general 35-hour week. That is why the word ‘general’ is included in the motion. That is exactly why the Leader of the Opposition ought to vote for it. It is not the reason why he should be wriggling on the hook trying to hide behind words, facades and incoherent mumblings.

The reason why he would not say exactly where he wanted to stand today was that, as he stood to speak, the left wing of the Labor Party tramped into this House, sat down behind him and gave him every possible form of black stare. He had to stand on his tightrope, he had to juggle all the balls, he had to juggle with his integrity, to try to find a formula that would enable him to retain his position as Leader of the Opposition and yet still retain some credibility in the eyes of the Australian public. It did not work. He has failed the Australian people because this is the House of Parliament where he should reinforce his statements. The Parliament is the place where he should get up and, when a motion is on the Notice Paper, in general terms and using his words, he must vote for that motion or be forever discredited in the eyes of the public. Alternatively, if he is not prepared to get his party to vote with him- in other words, if he cannot carry the support of his party- he has to resign as Leader of the Opposition. We want him to stand up and to be counted. We want the rest of the Labor Party to stand up and to be counted.

Let us take the integrity issue further down the line. Let the honourable member for Reid come into this House, call for a division and oppose this motion. Let him call for a division. Let us see him put his own leader to the sword on this issue. Let us see him put his leader to the test. That is what this debate is all about. The arguments that were produced in an attempt to wriggle off the hook simply will not work. We want a vote on this matter and we want a vote as soon as possible. Today we are dealing with the question of a 35-hour working week. We do not want any vacillation about the future. We do not want any argument based on the claim that one day there will be a 30-hour week and then a 25-hour week. The honourable member for Port Adelaide stood in the House the other day and said that one day, there will be a 35-hour week. He said that then there will be a 30-hour week and then a claim for a 25-hour working week. That is an argument of reduction to absolute absurdity. If his argument is followed we will end up with a 5-hour working week.

The fact of life is that the left wing of the Labor Party is forcing the Leader of the Opposition into an absolutely untenable position. Unless he votes for this motion today and carries his Party with him, he retains no credit in this country. The left wing of the Labor Party and the trade union movement are pushing this campaign for a 35-hour working week. The left wing leaders of the unions are leading the industrial lemmings’ movement to kill the economic prospects of the workers. One man’s pay increase is another man’s job, as we know. One man’s reduction in hours means another machine or a computer. The public wants to know where both the major parties stand. They know where the Government stands. They want to know where the Leader of the Opposition stands. I ask the honourable member for Gellibrand: ‘How will you vote?’ We have waited for one week and we have not been told how any of the members of the Opposition will vote on this issue. We want a vote. We want all members of the Labor Party to support the motion. Then they can hold their heads up. If they do not vote for this motion, they had better hang their heads in shame in front of the whole of the Australian people and fight it out in their caucus cavern. They will never again have any credibility in the minds of the Australian public.

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

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-The Government has sought to put the Opposition on trial in this debate. But let us make it absolutely clear that we are in no way on trial. If anyone is on trial in this country it is this Government which is responsible for the highest unemployment we have had for the last 40 years. It is this Government which is on trial. Government members are on trial and will have to answer to the electorate at the end of this year for their mistakes over the last four and a half years. Let there be no doubt about that.

The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) has talked about a banana republic. He wants a country in which there is high unemployment and banana republic wages. That is what he and this Government want because the Government in the time it has been in office has set out to reduce the living standards of the Australian people. It has sought by alb sorts of policy initiatives to reduce their standards of living so that it can, as it says, try to overcome the inflationary problem at the same time as it is increasing inflation hand over fist by its own policies. It is this Government which is now the greatest factor in inflation in this country. Government-induced inflation is the major inflationary factor at the present time.

I make those comments by way of introduction. We do not feel in any way on trial in this matter. Our position is quite clear. To make our position absolutely clear, I wish to move an amendment to the motion. I move:

I move that amendment as a prelude to talking in more detail about the proposal for reduced working time which is the subject of this debate. That amendment makes it absolutely clear that we believe that there is a right of employees to share in increased national productivity. What this Government has said from the very time it gained office- not beforehand but since it came to office- is that there is no right of working people in this country to share in increased productivity in any way. In the period in which it has been in office it has sought to deny the working people of this country one element of sharing in productivity. More than that, it has sought to take away from the people the real living standard which they had at the time when this Government was elected. It has done that through its wages policy. The result of that policy, which denied wage indexation in most of the wage cases which have been heard since the Fraser Government has been in office, is that the real purchasing power of wages has declined.

In December 1979, the average weekly earn.ing were 4.5 per cent less in real terms than they were in December 1975. In terms of gross wages, real living standards have declined as a result of that policy of not only denying any productivity increase but also reducing the real value of wages as they were when this Government took office. So all the benefits of increased productivity have gone to profits. This Government says this is a very good thing to have happened. It wants to see it continue. There is no end to this process, as we see it, from the way this Government formulates its policies.

In the current national wage case, the Government is arguing for a reduction of real wages by 5.3 per cent because it is asking that there be no increase whatever in wages to make up for the 5.3 per cent increase in prices in the December and March quarters of this financial year. So, quite clearly, it says that real wages have not declined enough. It says: ‘We want them to decline by at least another 5.3 per cent because we need to do something to offset all this inflation which we keep building into the economy through our oil pricing policies and so on’. That is what this Government is about. The very important basis on which we started this whole debate is that this Government wants to deny any right of working people to share in increased productivity either by way of increased real wages -

Mr Neil:
Mr WILLIS:

– It is not rubbish; it is absolute fact. It is the wages policy of the Government. That wages policy denies any wage and salary earners the right to share in productivity. Let me make it absolutely clear that we strongly assert the right of working people to share in increased productivity. If that right is not granted there will be a completely divided society where there are more and more have-nots and where a small group of people who own the industry of this country will become richer and richer. That is precisely what this Government wants to achieve. Since this Government came to power its policies have been devoted to that not only in respect of wages and pricing policies but also in . respect of taxation policies, family allowance policies and so on. I have not time to go into those matters now. The living standards of people have been affected not only by the reduction in real wages but also by the taxation policies and other policies implemented by this Government.

The Opposition strongly supports the right of people to have some share in productivity. It is important to bear in mind that this right is also supported by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in its guidelines for wage indexation, where it provides for employees to get the benefit of increased productivity. Principle 6 states:

Each year the Commission will consider what increase in total wage or changes in conditions of employment should be awarded nationally on account of productivity.

At least it is part of the wage indexation guidelines that there can be a claim for increases in real wages or some other improvement in working conditions in line with productivity. Of course the unions have not sought a productivity increase since the Fraser Government came to office. They have not done so because they have been battling to maintain their real wages through the normal half yearly- or previously quarterly- cases where they were trying to get adjustment of wages for the movements in the consumer price index. They have not succeeded in doing that. The fact remains, therefore, that there has not been in any way an adjustment of wages for productivity over that period.

The reduction in working time, as a means of passing on productivity increases to wage and salary earners, is a feasible approach. It is a socially responsible approach if it is conducted in the right way. We believe the trade union movement has the right not only to share in productivity but also to obtain that share of productivity by way of increased leisure rather than by increased real wages if that is what the unions prefer to pursue. This is a work-sharing concept which can take various forms. It can take the form of reduced hours each week, reduced weeks each year, or reduced years for a working lifetime. There are a whole variety of ways in which working time can be reduced. If workers are prepared to take the benefits of increased productivity by way of work sharing rather than by increasing real wages for those who currently have jobs, that is a socially responsible approach; not socially irresponsible as the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs would have us believe.

Indeed, to follow up that point about social responsibility, I would like to quote from a source which I believe is reasonably impartial in all of this. It is not a left wing source, a Labor Party source, or an academic source in Australia. It is from the Director-General of the International Labour Organisation. The Director-General made a report to the Third European Regional Conference in Geneva in October last year. This report was titled: ‘Growth, structural change and manpower policy- The challenge of the 1980s’. On page 45 of that document the DirectorGeneral had this to say:

In the light of such considerations, a trend towards work sharing may be viewed as a healthy and natural development, in line with the formally established long-term goal of reducing working time in the industrial world which is also reflected in specific ILO standards, such as the Reduction of Hours of Work Recommendation, 1962 (no. 116). The phenomenal levels of living and productivity, together with the unparalleled systems for income security now prevailing in northern and western Europe, make it possible to give priority to reducing working time over further general increases in material incomes, even when it remains necessary to improve the condition of underprivileged groups. Such a trend also seems desirable, inasmuch as it creates opportunities to improve the quality of life in many ways. Furthermore, -

I ask the House to take particular note of this- in the immediate future, progress in this direction could be very helpful in dealing with some of the hardship caused by current unemployment and in adjusting to an economic environment marked by slower growth than in the past.

That was quoted from the Director-General of the International Labour Organisation, a man who should know something about this whole business of reducing working hours and its likely impact on the economy and unemployment. He said that the reduction in working hours can make a positive contribution towards relieving the hardships created by unemployment. That should be put against what this Government is saying, that it will be socially damaging and will send us back to the ice age or whatever. It is absolutely absurd to take the attitude which this Government has taken to the 35-hour week or to reductions in working time in one form or another. If workers are prepared to seek reduced working time rather than increased real wages, that is a responsible attitude and one which gets the endorsement of the Director-General of the International Labour Organisation. The people of Australia should be aware that that is the situation; that a person with that kind of prestige has said that this is a responsible approach, one which can help to solve the unemployment situation in the Western developed world. Of course, it is an extremely important point. It is only fair to note that he goes on to argue, as I have virtually said, that because profit margins cannot be squeezed without adverse effects regarding investment such reduction of hours must be at the expense of forgoing real wage increases that would otherwise have been possible. That is reasonable enough.

I make the point also in respect of squeezing profit margins that in this country there has been a pernicious attempt by this Government to hide the fact that the profitability of companies is rather greater than appears on the surface. The national accounts, as we understand them, are now hiding something like $2.1 billion of company profits. They do not show up in the national accounts but, in fact, are earned by companies and are the basis on which those companies are taxed by this Government. An amount of $2. 1 billion is hidden away from the national accounts because of a stock valuation adjustment which is taken from the gross operating surplus of trading and financial enterprises before they are shown in the national accounts and, therefore, do not show up as company profits. If one were to add in that $2. 1 billion of hidden company profits one would see that there is a far better company profit situation in this country than this Government is prepared to let on.

Mr Neil:

– What is wrong with that?

Mr WILLIS:

– The honourable member asks: What is wrong with that?’ The argument is continually used against giving any increase in real wages. The reason to reduce real wages is that company profits share is far below its trend level. In fact, if we add in that $2. 1 billion it is much closer to the trend level. Those points are extraordinarily important.

Mr Viner:

– You are saying that a 35-hour week is a substitute for higher wages?

Mr WILLIS:

– The Minister would not know the first thing about it. He is a moron. Therefore, the social responsibility for the reduction of hours is undoubted. It is endorsed by the Director-General of the ILO. If it is dealt with in the proper way it can make a significant impact upon reducing unemployment in this country. This fact is very important for this country, a country of very high unemployment, because it is facing the prospect of much higher unemployment in the future, not only because of” the ghastly macro-economic policies of this Government but also because of the technological change factor which, as we all know, is increasingly developing and poses the possibility of very high rates of productivity growth in the future. In this situation we may face extraordinarily high levels of unemployment unless we do something different to try to bring about changes in the organisation of our style of life to spread the work around rather than just take the benefits of increased productivity by way of higher material income, in the words of the Director-General of the ILO.

We do not share the confidence of Government members who say that there is no unemployment problem arising out of technology and that we can simply rest assured that other jobs will be created for those replaced by technological change. We believe the faster the rate of growth of technological change the less likely that is to happen and, therefore, the greater the unemployment problem. One way of overcoming that problem is to indulge in these worksharing techniques by reducing working hours and taking the benefits of increased productivity in that way rather than by increasing real wages. That is not to say that there cannot be any increase in real wages at any time. It depends on the rapidity with which working hours are reduced as against the rate of productivity change which is incurred. Obviously, there has to be a balancing off between the two.

Finally, I want to say that we are not trying to say in any way that reduced working hours is a panacea for unemployment. Of course it is not. It can alleviate the problem, but obviously, if we are to overcome unemployment in this country we also need a drastic change in our macroeconomic and monetary policies so that we can get growth going in this country.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Keating:

– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak at a later hour.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Willis’s amendment) stand pan of the question.

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

AYES: 73

NOES: 35

Majority…… 38

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put.

A division having been called for and the bells being rung-

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

AYES: 74

NOES: 36

Majority……. 38

AYES

NOES

In Division

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Before calling the honourable member for St George on a point of order I suggest that he seriously consider whether it constitutes a specious or a responsible point of order. I am prepared to hear the honourable member for St George.

Mr Neil:

– My point of order is that the honourable member for Gellibrand claimed that we put the Labor Party on trial. That is true and it is guilty.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! That is not a point of order. I warn the honourable member for St George.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

page 2920

TASMANIAN NATIVE FORESTRY AGREEMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 April, on motion by Mr Nixon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Tasmania Agreement (Launceston Precision Tool Annexe) Bill as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these two measures? As there is no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-Both Bills in this cognate debate, the Tasmanian Agreement (Launceston Precision Tool Annexe) Bill and the Tasmanian Native Forestry Agreement Bill relate to the granting of limited financial assistance to Tasmania on the part of the Commonwealth Government. The Opposition welcomes the measures contained in both these Bills, though they are long overdue. The levels of assistance are miniscule compared with the needs of Tasmania and with the promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) before the last Federal election. It is interesting to note that the Fraser Government has been promising all sorts of assistance to Tasmania for years but only in an election year is any of it forthcoming.

The Callaghan report on the Structure of Industry and the Employment Situation in Tasmania recommended 22 items for Commonwealth assistance. The Government’s response to this report in November 1977 was to draw up a 10 point plan. The other 12 points made by the inquiry were ignored. It is now 2Vi years since this plan was announced and it is disturbing how little progress has been made upon its implementation. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) will be speaking in this debate. I am sure he will fabricate a basis of assistance given to Tasmania by the Fraser Government, but still an analysis of the record in this respect is revealing, particularly in relation to the 10 point plan.

The first of the promises in this plan was to increase defence activity, probably by the establishment of an infantry battalion in that State. The Prime Minister has since ruled out this possibility on the grounds that Tasmania has a low strategic priority. So the first point in the plan proposed by the Liberal Party is the first casualty after the election. The Government has started dismantling its own promise. The second promise was to ensure that the Government’s Australia-made goods preference would apply, to the fullest extent, to goods made in Tasmania. That has also been ruled out as being unconstitutional. This means that two out of 10 priorities have fallen within a couple of months of the election taking place. No action has been forthcoming by way of increased specialist courses at the local College of Advanced Education.

We should examine the assistance that has been forthcoming. I make the point that all assistance provided to Tasmania is very welcome by the Opposition, but the Government cannot take credit for much of it. The shifting of the Antarctic Division of the Department of Science and the Environment in Hobart was begun by the former Labor Government, as was the establishment of the Australian Maritime College in Launceston. Similarly, the freight equalisation scheme introduced in 1976 followed the recommendations of the Nimmo Commission, the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Transport to and from Tasmania, set up by the Whitlam Labor Government. I commend the Government for following up these policies. To be fair to all concerned, the Government has to share these initiatives with the former Government, the present Opposition.

These two Bills also relate to the 10 point plan. The Tasmanian Agreement (Launceston Precision Tool Annexe) Bill provides for a loan of up to $343,000 to the State Government for acquisition of equipment for the annexe. This assistance is now only forthcoming after the State Government was forced at its own expense to relocate the annexe. This annexe was built in 1939 for the manufacture of products needed for the war effort. After the war it was handed back to the State. With the taking over by the Commonwealth of the States railways, it was agreed that the annexe be relocated. The Callaghan report suggested that the Commonwealth Government make a grant for re-establishment. This has never eventuated. In late 1977, the Tasmanian Government purchased appropriate premises and moved the annexe at its own expense. The

Federal Government is now coming across with a relatively small loan. It was not prepared to make a grant of the money. Again, that is another promise which has been made and broken.

The second Bill, the Tasmanian Native Forestry Agreement Bill, provides for an increase in the maximum amount of funds to be lent to Tasmania for forestry programs. The amount available is to be increased from $136,000 to $236,000 through the remaining four years of the program. The increase of $100,000 over four years is miniscule. It is an increase of $25,000- not $25m-to the State. Again there is no spendthrift approach by the Fraser Government with respect to Tasmania.

While we believe this support for the Native Forestry Agreement is inadequate, we, nevertheless, support what money is being offered to Tasmania by way of assistance even though it fails to satisfy the recommendations of the Callaghan inquiry. The Callaghan report recommended that funding for these schemes be allocated, not on a dollar for dollar basis, but on the basis of the current equivalent rating for financial aid to the State. Relativity between States in terms of assistance from Canberra should be reflected in agreements such as this and such assistance should not be on a dollar for dollar basis. In the case of Tasmania, funds should be allocated on about a two for one basis with the Commonwealth picking up every two which is matched by the State.

This loan is also to be capitalised over a 20-year period with interest repayable after this every six months over 40 years. Under these terms, total repayments will be very much greater than the original loan. So the Commonwealth again does very nicely out of this. To embark on this measure, there will be no skin off the noses of the Commonwealth, the Treasury or the Fraser Government. Both of these measures combined with the others outlined in the last Budget represent a total expenditure of only $ 1 . 3m, over half of which is in the form of repayable loans. So much for the massive efforts of the Fraser Government in Tasmania! This is particularly disturbing because of the disadvantages suffered by Tasmania as a result of its island status. This status has given rise to economic disadvantages which have had inevitable social consequences.

Tasmania has one of the highest unemployment rates of all the States, but Commonwealth assistance to improve this situation has been very inadequate. One decision which has been heralded as a great employment boost is that to build a marine research centre for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Hobart, but the total number of permanent jobs which will be created will be about only 150 and even these will not be forthcoming for five to seven years. Again we see no relief of the urgent unemployment problem in that State. The Callaghan report pointed out that 5,000 new jobs have to be created if the Tasmanian unemployment situation is to be eased, yet the Government is talking about 150 in five to seven years from now. Under the Fraser Government, this will get worse, not better, Tasmania will suffer even further under Fraser federalism. The loss of the Whitlam formula for State funding will affect Tasmania much more than any other State concerned. This financial year Commonwealth funding to the State will decrease by about $ 18m in real terms. At a time when Federal Government revenue is increasing, particularly with the crude oil levy- the petrol tax; $2, 500m of tax- which the Commonwealth was not collecting two years ago, the Government will disadvantage Tasmania by $18m. What a paltry deal for that State.

Funds to all the States are generally being cut back; not just funds to Tasmania. The Fraser Government has agreed that State funds will be maintained in real terms in 1980-81. This will still mean a lower level of funding than in the last financial year. All that has been promised after 1980-81 is maintenance of funding in money terms. Well, it will not take long for inflation to cut the heart out of that. If Tasmania is forced to levy an income tax surcharge because of that, it will have to raise more funds than any other State on a per capita basis. Tasmanians should just ponder that prospect, the prospect of a second tax- double taxation- in Tasmania thanks to Mr Fraser ‘s federalism.

Mr Roger Johnston:

-Who has proposed that?

Mr KEATING:

– It is not a matter of who is proposing it. The services of government in Tasmania will need to be maintained and if the Commonwealth Government does not lend its weight financially, moneys will need to be raised in Tasmania itself.

The Fraser Government came to office in 1975 proclaiming its dedication to States’ rights and its determination to reverse the policies of the Whitlam Government. It reversed them all right. It is bleeding the States white. It advertised new federalism as the means by which the States would be advantaged. The implementation of new federalism is now opposed by all State governments, conservative and Labor alike. That point needs to be well and truly understood. Let us get away from the general funding formulas to the question of roads. My colleague the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris), the shadow Minister for Transport, pointed out that the Government has failed to allocate adequate road funds for 1980-81 which will cause further deterioration of Australian roads and, of course, will increase the level of unemployment. He went on that one of the worst States affected will be Tasmania which is to receive $27. 7m compared with the $38m it should have been allocated to maintain its 1974-75 grant in real terms. So again, to maintain the value of the spending it would need to have received about another $1 lm. We hear all this trumpeting from the Government about the $1.5m it will spend over a number of years, half of which is in loans anyway.

So what is the Government giving Tasmania? First of all, it is taking this sort of money back. It is not giving the money it should be givinganother $llm. It is dropping State funding by about $ 18m in real terms. It is really squeezing Tasmania dry, and all in the face of the fact that, as I said earlier, not only has there been a massive increase in personal income tax this year under the Fraser Government but also there has been a dramatic increase in the petrol tax- $2,500m. This year alone the Commonwealth will collect $3.4 billion- that is, $3,400m- from petroleum products, taxes, excises, levies, et cetera. This does not include company tax on, say, the Bass Strait producers. Despite this growth in revenues we get this mean, vicious treatment of Tasmania. I was talking about this question of a general cost to Tasmania. The doubling of bitumen prices in the past year will also add to the difficulties of road construction. So, not only do we have a declining commitment of money but also we have rising costs. This is a feature of the way in which Tasmania is treated.

We hear the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), like Bib and Bub, up and down in this chamber, talking about Tasmania. What have they produced? They have not produced anything of substance. The State still has massive unemployment and in particular, social problems. It is removed from the mainland. It has all those cost disadvantages and the Fraser Government just is not producing the goods. The Tasmanian public has to understand very clearly that the members it is sending to this House-the honourable member for Bass (Mr

Newman), the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr), the honourable member for Franklin and the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) and the others- are just not doing anything for that State. In fact, Tasmanians will suffer massive hardship compared with the kind of funding they were getting from the Whitlam Government. They should well understand that despite the kind of populous politics that these honourable members engage in, as if they themselves were the sole defenders and owners of the interests of Tasmania, in fact that is not the case, and the record of the Fraser Government just does not stand up to scrutiny.

In contrast, the Labor Party has outlined on many occasions the ways in which it could assist Tasmania. A Labor government would designate Tasmania as a development region thus making it eligible for a range of selective assistance programs. The sorts of problems faced by Tasmania cannot be dealt with purely by broad brush macro-policies. Attention must be given to the regional consequences of such policies whether they be to do with monetary policy, manufacturing adjustment policy, or whatever. In addition, there is need to have policies which are designed specifically to favour a developing region.

I will briefly outline some of the specific policies which will be implemented by a future Labor government. There will be a more equitable sharing of Federal Public Service jobs among the States. This will mean the creation of many additional jobs in Tasmania. Employers who create new and permanent jobs will be subsidised by the payment of a standard unemployment benefit for each new employee. A development fund will be created, funded jointly by the Federal and State governments to promote industrial development. Designated growth industries will qualify for a 50 per cent investment allowance and negotiated flexible depreciation allowances. The desirability of a new fare structure to encourage air travel to Tasmania will also be explored. Subsidies will be made available for some freight carried within Tasmania to encourage development of designated industries.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! I have extended some latitude to the honourable member and I would appreciate it if his remarks were more specifically relevant to the legislation before the House.

Mr KEATING:

– Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, we will also provide structural adjustment assistance on a $2 for $1 basis. I have been over a range of issues, admittedly a little wide of the

Bill, but the Bill is about assistance to Tasmania no matter how one looks at it. I made the point very clearly in the earlier part of my remarks that both these measures are related to the 10-point plan, that piece of phoney electioneering devised by the Government in the 1977 election campaign to try to dupe the Tasmanian people about all the feverish activity they were going to see, and this has been the belated effort which the Government has proposed from that. To show that effort in context one has to paint the picture, the economic backdrop, of the way in which Tasmania was funded under the Labor Government and the way it is funded now, on a whole range of things. Quite frankly, no intelligent and honest assessment of the situation would find in favour of the present Government.

We in the Opposition support any measure which will support Tasmania. It does have special difficulties such as its distance from the mainland; the sea; and the fact that its industries have cost disadvantages. In fact, the community generally is disadvantaged in so many ways. Tasmania must be treated as a special case by the national Government. I do not believe that is happening. Even in this small sense, token as the Bills may be, the Opposition supports them whole-heartedly and urges upon the Government a much more favourable and ambitious policy towards assistance to Tasmania.

Mr ROGER JOHNSTON:
Hotham

-I intend to speak only on the Tasmania Agreement (Launceston Precision Tool Annexe) Bill 1980. 1 will confine myself to the Bill and not do what the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) has just done; that is, speak all around the subject. Sir Bede Callaghan reported to this Government some two years ago on the structure of industry and the employment situation in Tasmania. Following consideration of his report by the Government, it was decided to give financial assistance to that State and this assistance was announced in the 1979-80 Budget. This Bill, which authorises the payment of a loan of $343,000 to Tasmania to help meet the reequipment costs associated with the reestablishment of the Launceston Precision Tool Annexe, gives effect to that announcement.

One might ask why the banks or, more particularly, the State Government does not lend this small amount of money. In fact, one might ask why the Federal Government is taking the important time of this Parliament to discuss such a small item. Basically, it comes down to the fact that the State Labor Government of Tasmania has little or no interest in its industry and that the Federal Government has had to fill the gap, helping with this and a number of other such projects. All Government supporters appreciate Tasmania’s needs and are prepared to stand up and say how we would help meet them. In contrast, the socialist Opposition’s interest in Tasmania is now dead. It realised how poorly it was doing there and made the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) shadow Minister responsible for that State. I am not sure what he was shadowing. I suppose that he was trying to shadow the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and all of the members of the Cabinet, who have shown their interest in Tasmania, especially our two Tasmanian Ministers, as well as the five honourable members- of course, all Liberal who come from that State. I need hardly mention the other honourable members on this side who are prepared to be involved in other aspects of Tasmania for that State’s good. It is interesting to note that the socialist Opposition has now moved the honourable member for Blaxland to other shadows and has wiped Tasmania from its books. I am sure that Tasmanians will have noted that and will vote accordingly.

In helping Tasmania we help all Australia. Without going through the whole economic exercise, I say that Australia’s continued financial health will depend upon the expansion of industry, by way of technology, for export purposes. We must have our exports of wool and wheat, of minerals and coal, but Australia’s employment and balance of payments depend to a very large extent on industry and its ability to expand. The only avenue for expansion, given Australia’s small population, is to be found overseas. Thus, the proposed loan to the State of Tasmania can be seen in a much wider context.

The history of the Launceston Precision Tool Annexe began with its establishment by the Commonwealth during World War II as part of the new aircraft industry. This involved the manufacture of precision jigs, gauges, dies and tools. After the war, the annexe was transferred and was later operated as the railways workshops under the control of the Tasmanian Transport Commission. Its role will continue to be that of a provider of precision items to industry, with perhaps more emphasis being placed on the heavy industries of mining and paper manufacture. The role is demonstrated by the details given in the Schedule of equipment. An examination of that Schedule reveals that the most expensive tool is a universal mill of the Huron type, which is to cost of the order of $70,000. The third item on the Schedule is a universal. A universal what is not clear. One might guess that it might be a lathe. Perhaps the Minister for Science and the Enviroment (Mr Thomson) could provide that information. It is of interest to note that the Schedule calls for the provision of computer facilities, to cost up to $60,000 for time-keeping, job costing, pay roll management, and sales and inventory record-keeping. They will also be used, with the four numerically controlled machine tools, to prepare programs and, of course, more easily to revise and store such programs. Also listed in the Schedule are three small universal milling machines and three centre lathes, to cost a total of $120,000. Besides being useful as production machines, they are at the heart of apprentice training. Apprentices and their training represent an absolutely essential ingredient of the expansion of industry to which I have referred, and the ability to train apprentices weighed heavily in making the decision to grant the loan.

I am sure that there is a very good reason for the Bill’s consisting of only four small clauses, without accompanying information, and all of the details being given in the attached schedules. Perhaps this is a new way of drafting legislation, but it is awkward if for no other reason that that it lacks headings. I ask the Minister why such an arrangement has been used. The First Schedule, which sets out the form of the agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Tasmania, gives details of the financial arrangements. It states the maximum amount of the loan as being $343,000 for the purchase and installation of certain machines listed. It authorises advances and the procedure of payments and repayments. The latter are to take the form of 20 equal half-yearly payments, to begin on 15 January 1981. The interest rate payable is to be that for long term bonds and, for this purpose, is described as ‘the rate of yield to maturity of the loan of the longer or longest term of the last loan raising by the Commonwealth … for public subscription prior to the date upon which the advance or payment was made’. Perhaps the Minister can also explain how that will be affected by the new tap system loans.

The Schedule includes the requirements that one regularly expects with such loans. However, if this Parliament is to debate such Bills as this and not just leave them to the Executive it should have the means to do so. Honourable members should be considering the proposed loan as would a board of directors. That requires the presentation of a complete set of financial statements and an analysis of expected benefits. Although I am sure the responsible Minister has made his assessment on the basis of such figures and analysis, to make the debate complete we should all have access to the same material.

Here again we see the Government giving to Tasmania assistance that the socialist Government of that State will not give. We see a visionary approach which will help not only Tasmania but also the whole of Australia, as this nation expands its industrial base to ensure its future, for the good of all Australians.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I wish to confine my remarks in this cognate debate to the Tasmanian Native Forestry Agreement Bill and say at the outset that the Opposition supports the measure. However, I must be honest and say that that support is not exactly unqualified. The Opposition takes exception to the manner in which finance is to be made available to the State of Tasmania for the project in question. I will discuss that matter a little later. At this point I would like to precis the original Act and put the legislation into perspective. «

The existing agreement, under the Tasmanian Native Forestry Agreement Act 1979, set up a forestry program whereby the Commonwealth matched, on a dollar for dollar basis, funds provided by the Tasmanian Government to establish a eucalypt plantation on land acquired by the State. The loan was for an amount of up to $136,000 a year- not a great deal of money in total budgetary terms. The financial assistance for the program was to be given over a five-year period commencing July 1978 and extending to June 1983. Briefly, repayments were to be deferred for 20 years. The loan was to be repaid in equal six-monthly instalments over the next 40 years. The catch comes when we consider interest. During the 20-year deferment the loan is to accrue interest at the long term bond rate. This added to the capital sum amounts to a hefty amount for Tasmanians eventually to repay. One might say that the Federal Government is being something of an Indian giver. It is anything but generous in the repayment terms. That is where the Opposition differs from the Government in respect of this measure.

We claim that it would have been more effective and, in fact, more practical to have given Tasmania a special purpose grant- that is, a section 96 grant- and to let it get on with the business of forestation without this sword of Damocles hanging over its head. Now, as it stands, it is looking at an enormous loan repaymentadmittedly, 20 years off. But the question is: Will there be anything left out of the profits for Tasmanians after the Commonwealth has extracted its pound of flesh? I sometimes doubt it. What use is this forestry scheme if its overheads are so high? After all, the giving of aid for such projects as this is as a result of the recommendations of Sir Bede Callaghan in his committee’s report which was tabled in September 1 977. That committee was set up by the Tasmanian Premier in 1976 to study the structure of industry and employment opportunities in Tasmania with a view to overcoming the high unemployment situation. I might say in retrospect four years later that despite the Government’s attempts, albeit fairly weak attempts as they always are, that unemployment situation still persists. The Commonwealth agreed with the findings and suggestions that were put forward as a means of assisting Tasmania with its special problems, which of course are not quite so apparent on the mainland. The report left no doubt in anybody’s mind that Tasmania requires special Government consideration. One is tempted to rub this in for the advocates of the free market economy. Without assistance to the public sector Tasmania would sink without trace. In his speech last year when introducing the original Bill the then Minister for Primary Industry stated:

  1. . the Government has agreed that it would adopt a considerate attitude to policy-making affecting Tasmania.

That was the first time that I had heard the euphemism ‘considerate attitude’ used to describe basic Keynesian economic principles. No doubt there is a Freudian mental block that inhibits the coalition Government when it comes to stimulation of the public sector. However, a rose by any other name smells just as sweet. In this case, a eucalypt forest by any other name will smell just as sweet no matter how we describe the Government’s assistance for the plan. It is a vital necessity, as the Callaghan report makes clear, that Tasmania be assisted with an infusion of Government finance in order to improve industry and eventually to improve employment prospects.

I would not be so ungenerous as the present Government was when in opposition when we as a government were trying to introduce legislation to assist Tasmania. Its members always used to accuse us of pork-barrelling. That was absolutely ridiculous. I will not sink to that level. 1 think that we in this Parliament are all aware of the problems of the less populated States. We would all like to see them overcome their problems. The amendments foreshadowed in this Bill will increase the original grant of $136,000 per annum. This legislation allows for the provision of a further $100,000 per annum for the next four financial years to supplement the original amount. The repayment terms are just the same; that is, they are just as absurd, just as meanfisted, just as miserable. There is to be a twentyyear deferment period during which the interest will accrue at the long term rate. The total amount is to be repaid in six-monthly instalments over 40 years. The Tasmanian Government and the Tasmanian people will have this debt around their necks for a total of 60 years. Compare that situation with the alternative of a section 96 grant. The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) who spoke earlier in this debate, pointed out that the Government has money running out of its ears. Of course it could have afforded to make such a grant. The Labor Government was accused by the then Opposition of being too centralist and too inclined towards, big government.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– Of course you were.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-That was the slander that honourable members opposite put around. Yet, I ask the House: Would it not be just and right, given that we all agree with the Callaghan proposals to assist Tasmania in a big way, to expedite that financial assistance in the most effective way, not with this messy 60 year contract, for God’s sake? The present Government accused us of being inclined towards big government. Consider the bureaucracy that will grow up around the servicing of this loan. Fraser federalism creates more problems than it solves. Under a Labor government Tasmania would have been given a grant with no strings attached. This would have proved cheaper in the long run. After all, we are all Australians, whether we are from Darwin, Hobart, Goondiwindi, Gulargambone or even Parramatta. What is good for one part of the country is good for the nation as a whole. If the provision of a special purpose grant is the most efficient way in which to promote a forestry scheme or any other financial project, then that is how it ought to be done. The little idiosyncrasies of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) about ‘self-help’, ‘life not being meant to be easy’ and giving all ‘power and responsibility ‘ to the States, should not stand in the way of the most practical method of implementing financial assistance.

At any rate, $236,000 a year is now available from the Federal Government for eucalypt for.estation programs. Fortunately it is a native forest program, unlike some other forestry programs that have been introduced. For instance, the program in Western Australia introduced foreign and exotic species into the environment. This program will be an asset to the landscape as well as a sound economic venture. This Bill also amends the original Act so that the financial assistance from the Commonwealth may now be used to acquire new land for new forests. I think that a reasonable equation is that conservation equals improvement to the environment. But when we start talking about improvement to the environment I think we have to take quite a number of factors into consideration. Conservation policies must be tempered with the realities of the real world such as the requirements of the electorate, the need for various services and programs that the electorate requires, and eventually the need for employment.

I think it has become fashionable in the last few years for almost extreme conservationists to forget the realities of the real world. I remember once being away in the Northern Territory with the Expenditure Committee. We had as our adviser a very eminent gentleman who, it is to be regretted, passed away about six months ago. His name was Kel McGrath and he had been a Dean of the Forestry School at the Australian National University. I learned so much in a few days from Kel McGrath about what forests are all about. He was able to point out to me that whereas foresters are sometimes considered to be the rapacious enemies of forests, ripping down trees, in fact this is not the case. Anybody who has had the time with a real, eminent forester that I have had realises that foresters really love the forests. They love the trees, they love the environment and all the work that they put into forests in silviculture programs in fact improves the forests and the environment. I know that the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson) will understand this as he is a gentleman who is very interested in conservation. Sometimes we let our minds run away with us when we talk about conservation. Conservation must certainly be reined in in practical terms.

The Opposition is delighted that this money is to be spent on improving the native forests in Tasmania and not on growing exotic species that are foreign to our landscape.

I point out that this assistance is part of a package which is designed to boost Tasmania’s economy, a package which includes other assistance nominated in last year’s Budget, such as the restoration and development of the Port Arthur region, a pilot industrial estate at Legana, reequipment of the Launceston Precision Tool Annexe and assistance to build educational facilities within a fish centre at Hobart.

Mr Birney:

– Hear, hear!

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-No doubt the honourable member for Phillip would be interested. He probably belongs in an educational facility in a fish depot. All of these things will occur as a result of Sir Bede Callaghan ‘s report, which I mentioned earlier. It might sound as though Santa Claus is coming to Tasmania in the shape of the Federal Government but on examination the amount of $ 1.3m that was designated for assistance to Tasmania in the last Budget is not so amazing after all. When we take note of the -

Mr Birney:

– You should have stayed at the butcher’s shop in Parramatta. You know nothing about Tasmania.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The House should take no notice of the honourable member. He is actually my dummy. I play him with my foot. I am a ventriloquist. When we take note of the repayment plan for the loan of $236,000 which is the basis of this Bill we begin to see that the Government is less than generous in its dealings with Tasmania. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to see that two Tasmanians have entered the chamber in the course of this debate. I conclude my remarks by telling the House of ft few of the things that a Labor Government will do to assist Tasmania in an unfettered way. It will not tie it to a 60-year repayment period that lessens the effectiveness of the loan or, in fact, cancels it and gives it a negative effect.

I would like briefly to outline some of the specific policies that would be implemented by a future Labor Government to assist Tasmania. There would be a more equitable sharing of Federal Public Service jobs among the States. This would mean the creation of many additional jobs in Tasmania, something which this Government has not been able to implement despite the brains of the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) and the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman). Secondly, employers who create new and permanent jobs would be subsidised by the payment of the standard unemployment benefit for each new employee who found a job. A development fund would be created, funded jointly by the Federal and State governments to promote industrial development. Designated growth industries would qualify for a 50 per cent investment allowance and negotiated, flexible depreciation allowances. The desirability of a new fare structure to encourage air travel to the State would be explored and, having been explored, would’ be implemented. Subsidies would be made available for some freight carried within Tasmania to encourage development of designated industries. Finally, structural adjustment assistance would be provided on the basis of two-to-one funding.

In summary the Opposition gives this Bill some qualified support because it is at least some attempt to produce new industry in Tasmania. But we find it not at all satisfactory or sufficient. I point out to the Tasmanian members in the House that a Labor Government would find a way of implementing assistance to Tasmania in a much more flexible, practical and valuable way.

Mr BURR:
Wilmot

-The Tasmanian members of this Parliament are delighted that the Australian Labor Party has seen fit to support these Bills because we think they are of immense importance to Tasmania. But I found some of the comments that were just made by the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) a little difficult to understand. It seems now, with an election looming within the next six months, that the Labor Party is finally realising that Tasmania exists. I remind the honourable member for Parramatta- I urge the honourable member not to leave the chamber- that his party in government had three years in which to implement some of the measures which would be of assistance to Tasmania. However, his party was very noticeable by the fact that it did nothing at all to help Tasmania. On the other hand, the present Government made promises during election campaigns that it would do positive things to help Tasmania. This Government has made good the promises that it made to the people of that State.

I would like to give the House some idea of the attitude to Tasmania of the Labor Party during its period in government. Tasmanians well remember the classic statement by Mr Enderby, the then Attorney-General, that Tasmania in fact was an island surrounded by water. I thought that was a marvellous piece of deduction from the then Attorney-General who in fact is a Queen’s Counsel. We also remember the classic statement that came from the then Minister for Transport, the present honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones). When invited to Tasmania to look at our roads, he made the statement that there were more votes in Newcastle than there were in Tasmania.

Mr Keating:

– I rise to order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the course of the debate another Deputy Speaker called me to order on the question of relevance to the Bill. In that respect my distance from the Bills was very slight indeednothing like that of the honourable member who is now speaking. The honourable member who is now speaking is talking about events that took place five years ago. I believe that his remarks are totally irrelevant and out of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-The honourable member will leave that to the Chair. I will watch that matter. ‘

Mr BURR:

-I noted that the honourable member for Parramatta, now having determined that Tasmania is of some importance because an election campaign is looming, pointed out that the Australian Labor Party would implement these measures in Tasmania with no strings attached, that the Labor Party would not make available this assistance by way of loans, as the present Government is doing, but by way of handouts or grants. I ask the honourable member for Parramatta: If this is the attitude of the Labor Party why did it not do these sorts of things when it had the opportunity to do so in government?

The present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) promised that in fact he and his Government would make positive moves to assist the economy and the people of Tasmania. This is exactly what this Government is doing. It has made positive contributions to Tasmania, through the initiative of the Callaghan plan and other measures that I would like to mention. It has not just talked in terms that might attract a few votes now that an election is coming around.

I remind the House that the two Bills we are now discussing provide assistance under the Callaghan plan to the Launceston Precision Tool Annexe and Tasmanian native forests. These two measures are being implemented under what the honourable member for Parramatta referred to as the Callaghan plan. I compliment the honourable member for Bass, the Minister for Productivity (Mr Newman), and other Tasmanian members of this Parliament who worked so hard, first, to persuade the present Federal Government to set up the Callaghan inquiry into the structure of industry and the employment situation in Tasmania and, secondly, to make positive moves to see that the Government implemented the recommendations made by Callaghan. The two measures before us are just two of the recommendations made by Callaghan. I think considerable credit is due to the Minister for Productivity, the honourable member for Bass, that he has been able to convince his Cabinet colleagues about this matter. Considerable credit is also due to other members from Tasmania in that they have been able to convince their party colleagues that these measures are necessary and of vital importance to Tasmania.

The legislation seeks to assist the development ofthe Launceston Precision Tool Annexe by providing a loan of $343,000 for the acquisition of equipment essential to its viability.As the honourable member for Parramatta has already said, that is not a gram; it is not a handout on behalf of the Government. It is a loan that will be repaid by a commercially viable organisation. I think that point needs to be borne in mind by honourable members when they are considering this legislation.

Mr Keating:

– I rise to order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to know whether the honourable member means he is not supporting grants to Tasmania, that he does not want to hand money to Tasmania. Is that what he is saying?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr BURR:

– In view of the point of order just taken by the honourable member for Blaxland, I think it is well worth reminding the honourable member and his colleagues that Tasmanians are very proud people who do not want to be given handouts by governments. What we want is the opportunity to be able to compete without being disadvantaged by Bass Strait or by other economic considerations. We are not looking for handouts from big government.

Mr Goodluck:

– Hear, hear!

Mr BURR:

– Thank you. I acknowledge the support from my colleague the honourable member for Franklin. This Government recognises we can stand on our own two feet provided that we are given the opportunity to do so. The measures now before us, and other measures that are being implemented under the Callaghan plan, give the Tasmanian economy the opportunity to develop on a fair, reasonable and equitable basis alongside the economies of the larger States of Australia. We are proud of what this Government has done. Tasmanians are proud of the efforts that have been made by the Minister for Productivity and honourable member for Bass, and. by my Tasmanian colleagues- the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), who is now in the chamber, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and the honourable member for Braddon (Mr. Groom). Collectively all have made a contribution to impress on the Government the most urgent need to provide Tasmania with other assistance. Progressively this Government has done that by way of freight equalisation, the transfer of maritime and Antarctic science divisions and so on. These are some of the measures taken by this Government to give very real and positive assistance to Tasmania. We from Tasmania are indeed grateful for what this Government has done in recognising those needs of the State.

I say to the honourable member for Parramatta, in closing my contribution to this debate, that while his party, the Labor Party, was in office it did precisely nothing for Tasmania. In fact it failed to recognise even its existence. This Government promised that it would help Tasmania and has done purposeful things to honour the promise that it made to the people of Tasmania. I assure the honourable member for Parramatta, the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) and their colleagues that, whilst they might be making bleating noises now that an election is looming, they might as well spend their campaign money in the mainland States because the people of Tasmania recognise those who have done the work and who have been able to produce the results. I assure honourable members opposite that the people of Tasmania, given the opportunity of an election, will re-elect from that State the people who have been able to achieve so much for it. We have been able to do that with the positive cooperation of a first-class government led by a first-class Prime Minister.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 72

NOES: 33

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2929

TASMANIA AGREEMENT (LAUNCESTON PRECISION TOOL ANNEXE) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 1 May, on motion by Mr Anthony:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2929

WHALE PROTECTION BILL 1980

Debate resumed from 14 May 1980.

Consideration of Legislation Committee report.

Amendment made by Legislation Committee.

Clause 6, page 4, lines 1 7 and 1 8, omit ‘Australian citizens domiciled in Australia, ‘.

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

– I move:

That the amendment made by the Legislation Committee be disagreed to.

The amendment suggested by the legislation committee of this House is not acceptable to the Government. It conflicts with our firm commitment to a world-wide ban on whaling. This policy is supported by most Australians and is firmly stated in the Bill presented to this House. The Opposition moved an amendment in the Legislation Committee which could enable Australians to take part in whaling operations anywhere in the world outside the Australian fishing zone.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-I again ask the House to maintain decorum. The honourable member for Melbourne will remain silent. The Chair would be reluctant to have to deal with honourable members, but if they persist no alternative course of action will be open to the Chair.

Mr THOMSON:

-If the amendment were accepted Australians could involve themselves in pirate whaling operations anywhere. We do know that pirate whaling ships are taking protected species, undersized whales and lactating females and calves. It would be nonsense for the Australian Government to be seeking to have all countries impose a world-wide ban on whaling and, at the same time, pass legislation which allows its citizens to take part in whaling as freely as they wish outside the Australian fishing zone. The Government will continue to seek this world-wide ban on whaling through its commissioner on the International Whaling Commission. The amendment proposed by the legislation committee will weaken and limit the capacity of the Australian commissioner to the International Whaling Commission to achieve the Government’s stated policies. We cannot expect other countries to take seriously bur attempts to give a lead in introducing a total ban on whaling if our legislation does not oppose such a ban in respect of all Australian citizens.

This Bill is for an Australian law to implement an Australian policy on whaling. The amendment would unacceptably weaken the Australian stand in both the domestic and international spheres. Honourable members should be aware that in 1946, Australia, by signing the International Whaling Convention, accepted an obligation to control world-wide the activities of its citizens in relation to whaling. Section 7 of the Whaling Act 1960 passed by this Parliament gives clear effect to that obligation. It states that the restriction on whaling should apply within and without the Commonwealth. This was a clear indication of the policy of the Government to extend its laws on whaling outside the territorial limits of the nation. That Bill was passed by the Parliament in 1960.

The Government is surprised that attempts are being made to change that situation in 1 980. If we accepted the amendment Australia could be in breach of its obligations as a signatory of the International Whaling Convention of 1946. Article 9 of that Convention states:

Each contracting government shall take appropriate measures to ensure the application of the provisions of this Convention and the punishment of infractions against the said provisions in operations carried out by persons or vessels under its jurisdiction.

The article continues:

Prosecution for infractions against or contraventions of this Convention shall be instituted by the Government having jurisdiction over the offence.

I note that article 9 of the International Whaling Convention specifically mentions ‘persons under is jurisdiction’. This amendment which was proposed by the Legislation Committee would contravene both the spirit and the letter of that Convention. I reiterate that Australia has considered whaling as an appropriate matter for extra-territorial restrictions on Australians since 1946. Other countries have acted similarly with respect to whale protection and conservation. The United States of America and New Zealand are examples of this.

The Whale Protection Bill 1980 as presented to this Parliament makes it illegal for Australians domiciled in Australia to take part in whaling anywhere in the world. If they wish to take part in whaling they have a choice: They may change their place of domicile to that of another country and could then therefore legally under Australian law take part in whaling operations. This is as far as the Government is prepared to go. To go any further weakens our case and our policy for seeking to impose a universal ban on whaling. On 4 April 1979 the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) stated:

The Government upholds the central conclusion of the Inquiry into Whales and Whaling, namely, that Australia should pursue a policy of opposition to whaling and that this policy should be pursued both domestically and internationally through the International Whaling Commission and other organisations. The Government will continue to be an active member of, and to support, the International Whaling Commission, and to support efforts to revise the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. In particular, we will seek the extension of the Commission’s charter to the conservation of all cetacea.

The Bill gives effect to the Prime Minister’s statement. The Government does not accept the amendment proposed by the legislation committee. I once again commend the Bill to the House.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– I am disappointed that the Government has not accepted the amendment. As we indicated in the legislative committee, we support the Bill with one exception, in clause 6. We have commended the Government for introducing this legislation. We are very supportive of its desire to ban whaling throughout the world. I want to pay tribute to the people who belong to Project Johah. People such as Tony Gregory and others fought hard to bring about the ban on whaling. It is wonderful to see that they have won an international conservation award. This legislation is a tribute to their efforts, for which we commend them.

However, the fear of the Opposition concerns a question of civil liberties and civil rights that arises from this legislation. Australians who are living, at least temporarily, outside Australia and are doing something that is perfectly legal in the country in which they are working could find, on returning to Australia, that they are subject to fines of up to $100,000. Whilst we want to see whaling stopped, we find such a possibility abhorrent. We have looked at the legislation and have anguished over this question; but overwhelmingly we supported the civil libertarian point of view. People doing something perfectly legal in another country could on their return to this country, be charged with having done something that was illegal here. I give perhaps a not very good analogy. If abortion were illegal in this country, a woman going outside the country for an abortion could, upon returning to Australia, find herself being charged with a crime because abortion was illegal in this country. One could go on and on giving similar analogies, but I do not propose to do so. I think that principle is wrong. If it were suggested that we introduce legislation like that in this country I am sure that the majority of Australian people would be outraged.

I have spoken to people from Project Jonah and I have recognised their genuine concern. They have suggested that if clause 6 is amended, as recommended by the Legislative Committee, Australian whalers could register ships under flags of convenience and operate from places such as Taiwan, Indonesia or any other country one would care to name and whale just outside the 200-mile limit and, therefore, get around this legislation. That is a possibility. Basically, that is what is behind the proposal of the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson). After further discussions today, we suggest that we proceed with the amendment proposed by the legislation committee. However, if after a period of, say, 12 months we found that this provision was being abused and that Australian whalers were getting around the law by operating under flags of convenience, perhaps then we would have to overlook the civil rights position and move a further amendment to overcome the problem.

The Minister has suggested that accepting the amendment will diminish Australia’s influence on the International Whaling Commission. Quite frankly I cannot see that. I do not believe that this legislation, which is banning all whaling, and the taking of any whaling products by any Australian vessels, crews, aircraft or whatever, is something of which Australia as a nation should be proud. I doubt very much whether the fact that someone might come in and say: ‘Ah, yes, but Australian residents can live in Chile, Peru the Argentine or Taiwan and they can go on and whale’ in any way diminishes the case of the Government. If it does those people who are arguing against the Government are nitpicking. This legislation will stand strongly on its own. The point that I made in the legislative committee was whether leaving the Bill unamended will any way increase whaling or maintain whaling as it is now. I do not believe it will do either. Any of those countries that I mentioned before who want to continue whaling surely will do so. They will operate outside the 200-mile limit as pirate whalers on the high seas. If they cannot get Australian crews or Australian whalers they will get their own nationals to do it. For the life of me, I cannot see, nor can the Labor Party see, that the whale of one life will be saved by this amendment.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– The whale of one life?

Mr COHEN:

-Yes, it is a whale of a life. The life of one whale, I should say.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– That is what you said.

Mr COHEN:

-I know, but it is late at night.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I am giving you an opportunity to correct it.

Mr COHEN:

-It disturbs me just to look at the Prime Minister. It makes me nervous and apprehensive. I am sure that he will forgive me. Even I make mistakes. I would suggest that the amendment be given a trial of at least 12 months. If at the end of 12 months we find that there are Australian in significant numbers- I do not mean the odd Australians- operating pirate whaling ships from countries such as Taiwan, we should have another look at the legislation and perhaps agree to the Government’s argument. I rest my case by saying that we ought to carry this amendment because there is a civil liberties position to uphold.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– I think the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) admitted in part the weakness of his case when he suggested that the amendment he proposes be given a test for a year. I really believe that in this debate there is a degree of muddled thinking about the issues that are involved. I can well understand honourable members being concerned about the extra-territorial reach of Australian law or the law of other countries when it is improperly based. Australia has had some difficulty in relation to some law of the United States. Laws have been passed in this Parliament to protect Australian corporations -

Mr Keating:

-That’s right.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I am glad that the honourable gentleman agrees with me. A test of the relevance of a national law is whether the person or the corporation to be touched by the law has an adequate connection with the country passing the law. If there is no connection with the country passing the law, I think the extraterritorial reach is wrong, and plainly so. That is basically the case in relation to the United States law to which this Government has objected. We are not proposing that our law in relation to whaling have an extra-territorial reach for people or corporations which are not significantly connected with Australia. That is the difference. I think that is a very significant difference indeed.

I would like to go through the details for a moment. The amendment plainly would weaken the Whale Protection Bill. I will seek to show that it would weaken it substantially. I believe that that would be regrettable. Since 1946 there have been some extra-territorial reaches in Australian obligations. We supported the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, which imposed obligations of quite a severe kind. We upheld the principles of the Convention, as in the Whaling Act 1960, within and without the Commonwealth. Although that Act may not have had the same extra-territorial reach as this legislation, there was an extra-territorial element in it. The House has been presented with a long list of Acts which have an extra-territorial element. No one Act is quite the same as another. Each stands in its own right and has to be argued separately. There are no exact precedents, one law to another, in this instance.

The issue here is whether people normally resident in Australia should be denied the opportunity of whaling in Australian ships or in the 200-mile fishing zone, or whether Australian citizens ordinarily domiciled in Australia also should be denied that opportunity. If we were to restrict the application of our law to people living in Australia and operating off Australian shores in the 200-mile fishing zone there will be very serious defects in the law. There will be opportunities for the purpose of the law to be evaded, and opportunities for the purpose of Project Jonah and everything behind that campaignwhich I know the honourable member for Robertson supported, as did this Governmentto be put in jeopardy in a way that should not be the case.

If the amendment which was accepted by the legislation committee, which the honourable gentleman supports, were accepted and endorsed by this House, then quite plainly Australian citizens who are ordinarily domiciled in this country would be able to charter or register vessels for whaling either in International Whaling Commission countries or in other countries. In that sense we would not be meeting our obligations that we have stated within Australia and internationally in acceptance of the Frost report to do everything we properly can to outlaw whaling within Australia and within the world. New Zealand and the United States of America have found no difficulty with a stronger extraterritorial element in their laws than we are proposing here. This legislation has been carefully drafted to try to catch Australian citizens who are ordinarily domiciled in Australia. If a person is living overseas and has cut his connections with this country then I would agree that we have no real right to catch him under our laws, but if he is ordinarily domiciled in Australia and seeking to evade the law by chartering or registering vessels from or in countries where whaling is permitted then he is plainly seeking to evade the thrust of our law in a way which I believe on a free vote the majority of honourable gentlemen in the Australian Labor Party would not support.

There is another amendment that could be proposed, as I understand it, to restrict the activities of such Australian citizens who are ordinarily domiciled here to countries operating under the International Whaling Convention. If those people were trying to whale from a country where pirate whaling was undertaken then our law would catch them. That is closer to the Government’s position than it is to the position of the Australian Labor Party, but there is still a gap. I think that it would be less likely that an Australian citizen ordinarily domiciled here- I emphasise that because that is the person whom we are seeking to catch; not somebody who has cut his connection with this country- under those circumstances would be able to go whaling be- cause under the whaling licences and whatever of the International Whaling Convention contries there are probable limits. The chances of an Australian citizen being able to charter or register a whaling boat from an International Whaling Convention country is probably remote. The chance is there, but it is probably remote.

If the amendment of the honourable gentleman is agreed to then whaling anywhere, from a pirate country or whatever, will be permitted. The likelihood of that occurring would obviously be very much greater. I believe that the amendment which the Legislation Committee passed, which is supported by the honourable gentleman, is obnoxious to the conservation of whales and whaling. I believe it ought to be rejected on good and proper grounds. I can understand well arguments about civil liberties, but I do not believe they are valid in this case. I do not believe that they should concern this Parliament in this case because the Government has been concerned to frame a law which catches Australian citizens who are normally domiciled here who, by their actions, plainly seek to evade the law. It is probably unlikely that we would know of or learn of somebody who might just go to work on a whaler as an individual. It is much more likely that we would have brought to our notice the activities of a person who chartered or who sought to register a vessel in a country overseas for the purpose of whaling. That would not be permitted under the law as it is proposed by the Government.

I hope very much that the House will Accept the stronger law because I believe it upholds the principle without jeopardising important principles of civil liberties which I know are important to all honourable members of this House. I believe that if the issues are seen clearly the Government’s legislation will be supported. The very fact that the honourable gentleman himself indicated, I think, some sense of weakness and some lack of conviction about his own amendment by indicating a trial period in itself demonstrates that it might well be better to have the trial the other way around. I do not believe that the honourable gentleman or any person in this Parliament has made out a case that the civil liberties of an individual would be unfairly or improperly prejudiced as a result of the legislation that is before the House. I ask members to look at this matter clearly and to bear in mind what the extra-territorial reach of laws does involve, when it is proper and when it is improper. I end on the point where I began: It is proper if the person or the corporation has a sufficient connection with this country to enable our laws to touch that person or corporation. It is not proper if that person has cut his links with this country to such an extent that he no longer belongs to it or is part ‘of it. The Government is not seeking to apply the law in such cases. I hope, and believe, that the legislation will be supported.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I would like to say a few words on the amendment to the Whale Protection Bill which is supported by the Opposition and, of course, by the Government members who sat on the legislation committee.

Mr Baillieu:

– Not all of them.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-There were enough of them to give a clear majority to the decision which we reached. I find it rather sad that in a piece of legislation which is compassionate, sensitive and which sets out in the most sincere way to preserve one of the most beautiful creatures of the sea- the whale- the spirit of which we support wholly, includes a clause as draconian as clause 6. As the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) pointed out, this clause sets out to institute a situation in which an Australian who is regularly or generally domiciled in Australia, having engaged himself in some whaling activities, no matter for how long or to what degree, in some other part of the world- the clause allows that- where whaling might be legal, even in a country which is a signatory to the International Whaling Commission as Australia is and which is partner to the conventions of that Commission, could face a fine of $100,000 on coming back to Australia. I do not think that it would weaken our resolve to be part of a world-wide conservation scheme to assist in the preservation of whales if this clause were removed. I felt that the

Prime Minister weakened his own case by suggesting that the person the Government is trying to catch is the person who goes to another country or outside our territorial waters and leases or charters a boat and involves himself as a proprietor in the hunting of whales. The clause does not spell it out to that degree. I would think that the possibility is there.

I point out a scenario of some young Australian who is on holiday in Europe. He then finds himself in Norway and short of money. He finds himself a job in the whaling industry, works there for a couple of weeks and comes back to Australia. Some kind pimp reports him to the Government as having involved himself to such a minor degree in whaling and flensing. He is then faced with the prospect of a $100,000 fine or a period in gaol. I think that the Government is weakening the resolve of its own case. It is trying to put itself forward as a government compassionate and sensitive towards the whales- I applaud that- but what about its having some sensitivity to ‘civil liberties’? There is a weakness in the clause and I think that the Government should have a rethink about it. I do not support the view of the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) that there should be a 12 months trial period. I think it is such an important issue in relation to civil liberties that it should be enshrined for all time in this legislation.

There is another important point which is worthy of comment. This Government has formed a number of back bench committees, one of which I am a member of, which go to no end of trouble to carry out investigations and inquiries, to reach decisions and to bring down recommendations which are put before the Parliament. Such recommendations are supposed to be replied to within six months. In most cases it is more like 12 months before they are replied to and when the Government does make its response it very rarely institutes any of the findings of the recommendations of those committees. What is the point in the Government’s setting up legislation committees on which members from both sides of the House sit to investigate these matters fully and to come up with amendments- I might add that this amendment was overwhelmingly supported by the committee- when such amendments are flung back in their faces by the Government? I hope that the Government supporters who are members of that legislation committee and who supported the amendment put forward by the Opposition- it is very similar to an amendment put forward by the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond)- have the courage at least to vote with the Opposition and against the Government for its failure to accept this recommendation.

Mr CHAPMAN:
Kingston

-In considering the report of the legislation committee and the amendment proposed by that committee perhaps it is instructive for us to remind ourselves of the reason that whales need to be protected. Whales are one of the few animals whose intelligence approaches that of human beings. They have large brains both in absolute terms and in relation to their own body weight. Perhaps more importantly the area of the brain which controls the emotions and affective states of the whale are well developed, and scientific research shows that whales have a complex emotional life. The nervous system and that portion of the brain which relates to pain especially are very similar to those of humans; therefore, they feel pain much as we do. Whales are social animals which live in groups. They relate to each other as individuals and the bond be-‘ tween mother and offspring is maintained beyond the lactation period.

Therefore, on this basis the killing of whales can be justified only if three preconditions are met. The first is that there be an overriding human need for whale products. The second is that the killing of whales should not cause serious depletion of the whale population. The third precondition is that the killing should be undertaken in a humane manner. Currently none of these three preconditions is being fulfilled. There are adequate substitutes for whale products. Indeed even the oil of the sperm whale now has an adequate substitute in jojoba oil. That was one of the main products of whales which was difficult to replace. Furthermore the serious depletion in the whale population is now generally acknowledged. For example, nearly all species of whale located in the Southern Hemisphere have been depleted to about a quarter of their initial stock levels. In some species this depletion is far worse.

Mr Innes:

– Why don’t you deal with the clause.

Mr CHAPMAN:

-The House is dealing with the report of the legislation committee, not the clause. The maximum potential growth rate for whales is about S per cent a year and this is unlikely to be achieved in most circumstances. Because whales produce their young at a rate of less than one a year that growth rate will not be achieved. Hence this serious depletion is a major problem to be considered. The killing methods applied to whales are totally unsatisfactory. This is especially so when compared with the methods used for the killing of cattle or sheep. In about half the cases when whales are killed instantaneous death occurs. For the rest the quickest death is about three to seven minutes. In many cases it takes some 25 minutes for a whale to die. As I mentioned earlier whales feel physical pain in much the same way as humans because of their complex brain system. The Frost inquiry commissioned by this Government confirmed the inhumanity of the present methods of killing whales. Therefore, because those three propositions -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! Whilst the honourable gentleman is canvassing matters of considerable interest he is not being altogether relevant to the question before the House.

Mr CHAPMAN:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I was about to say that because those three propositions are not fulfilled it is important that the legislation as proposed .by the Government, including the extra-territorial provisions, is passed. The amendment which was passed by the legislation committee was passed largely because of arguments based on civil liberties. I believe there is an overriding necessity, because of those points I have just made, to protect the whale situation rather than the civil liberties of Australian citizens. On that basis the amendment moved by the legislation committee is unsatisfactory.

The amendment would not provide any sanction against Australians engaging in whaling except those operating within the 200-mile limit of Australian waters. Therefore, Australians could undertake whaling outside the 200-mile limit or elsewhere in the world on three bases: Firstly they could engage in whaling under the flag of an International Whaling Commission member country which had not banned whaling completely. We should remember that some 90 per cent of the total whale catch is taken by members of the IWC and, in particular, Japan and Soviet Russia through the operation of their factory ships. Secondly, an Australian could engage in whaling elsewhere in the world on the part of a country which is not a member of the IWC such as Peru, Chile, Portugal, Spain, South Korea, Taiwan and China. Those countries are not only taking whales but also are taking whales that are being determined by the IWC as deserving of protection. Thirdly, of course, we have the situation of pirate whaling ships operating under flags of convenience. These operators take protected species. They take undersized whales and they take lactating females and calves. Indeed having done that, they often use only part of the whales they have taken. The operation of this third category is a direct challenge to the conservation of whales.

The legislation, including the extra-territorial clause, is important. It is of great credit both to the Government and to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that the legislation has been placed before this House. Indeed I welcome the entry of the Prime Minister into this debate because it showed his personal commitment to this clause. It is important that this clause be maintained because of the high international and domestic profile the Government has taken on this issue. The Government instituted an independent inquiry into whales and whaling under the chairmanship of Sir Sydney Frost. On the basis of the report of that inquiry the Government introduced the legislation we are now debating in this chamber to ban whaling in Australian waters. It based that legislation, as recommended by the Frost inquiry on the New Zealand and United States legislation.

The Government has also banned the importation of whale products from 1 January 1981. We have supported and achieved through the International Whaling Commission a sanctuary for whales in the Indian Ocean. We have also initiated in the IWC a study of the extent to which exploitation of krill and other marine resources will have an effect on future whale populations. Most importantly, the Government has sought vigorously a world wide ban on whaling. Therefore, for the Government to back down on the extra-territorial provisions as proposed by the legislation committee would weaken the legislation and would weaken the position of this Government in its international resolve to achieve a ban on whaling. It has been suggested as a possible substitute amendment that the extra-territorial provision should not apply to Australians operating through member countries of the IWC and that we should allow Australians to engage in whaling in accordance with IWC quotas. A number of aspects of the IWC and its administration are unsatisfactory, although, of course, its operation has much improved since the days when it was a whaler’s club. The IWC now operates on the basis of quotas recommended by its scientific committee. Recently certain queries have been directed at the validity of the conclusions of that committee. Many people believe that the scientific committee has understated the need for conservation. Furthermore, the IWC has been accused of ignoring the recommendations of the scientific committee. This was much in evidence at the thirty-first meeting of the IWC in July 1979. At that meeting there was support for the United States to permit Eskimos to continue hunting bow head whales. There was much compromise before final agreement was reached on quotas for various whales. This was contrary to the recommendation of the scientific committee. Indeed, Australia’s Commissioner to the International Whaling Commission, John Ovington, made an impassioned plea for the scientific committee’s recommendations to be more closely accorded with. He stated that the IWC would have little credibility left if, for the fourth time, it ignored the recommendations of its scientific committee.

On that basis, it is important that the recommendation of the legislation committee be rejected. Furthermore, as the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson) has already said, the Whaling Act instituted in 1960 has extra-territorial application. Also, under the articles of the International Whaling Convention, we are required to have extra-territorial provisions. For all those reasons, I believe that the recommendation of the legislation committee to remove the extra-territorial application of this legislation should be rejected. The position, as stated by the Government through the Minister and through the Prime Minister earlier in this debate this evening should be supported.

Mr HUMPHREYS:
Griffith

-I must say that I support -

Mr Cohen:

– Moby Dick.

Mr HUMPHREYS:

-Yes, Moby Dick. I support the amendment that was passed by the legislation committee and also ably moved by the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) and supported by the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown). I was very interested to see the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) enter the chamber this evening. He was concerned about how he would apprehend Australians engaged in whaling outside the territorial waters and also overseas. I would be delighted if the Prime Minister would take a bit of interest in trying to catch some Taiwanese and other illegal fishermen on his own Barrier Reef before trying to catch Australians. Then we could fine them $100,000 if they are engaged in illegal activities of whaling overseas.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I think that everybody present in the chamber tonight knows that if we tried to catch these Australians it would cost $500,000 to apprehend them. In the courts, we would have to pay for the legal fraternity to try to prove them guilty. It just shows one how specious these arguments are. It is interesting to know also that the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson), who is at the table, does not seem to be concerned that he would be issuing 12-month permits to people who are likely to kill whales accidentally. Is that pan of clause 1 1 of the Bill designed to protect the Japanese longline fishermen who fish in their own territorial waters? Why should the Government be granting 12-month permits? I ask the Minister Why should he grant 12-month permits to those people who are likely accidentally to kill whales or other cetaceans? This part of the legislation under clause 11 was designed to protect the Japanese long-line fishermen once again.

In the legislation committee which considered the Whale Protection Bill, under clause 31, subclause 2 (a) and (d), I asked the Minister about ships that would be allowed to enter Australian ports. There were some exclusions to the provision regarding the vessels and this had something to do with the cargo. These vessels that break down outside or in the Australian territorial waters are allowed to enter Australian waters because of certain cargoes. Would that cargo -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-I must ask the honourable member to maintain relevance to the question.

Mr HUMPHREYS:

– I think I am maintaining relevance. We are talking about the legislation committee. I did ask the Minister questions on this matter.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The question before the House is that the amendment, as proposed by the legislation committee, be not agreed to.

Mr HUMPHREYS:

-Yes. I am addressing the Minister. I thought he was concerned in catching Australians who would be engaging in illegal activities in whaling. I thought he might take that into consideration, and catch these illegal whalers; and if there were any Australians on those whaling fishing vessels he might be able to apprehend them when they came into port. I will finish on that note and bow to your decision. Quite clearly, the provisions of clauses 1 1 and 3 1 of the Bill are very shallow. I support the amendment that was passed by the legislation committee. It was supported by honourable members from both sides of the House who were members of the legislation committee. I am very sorry that the Minister has taken this course of action.

Mr COTTER:
Kalgoorlie

-Tonight we are debating whether the amendment made in the legislation committee be disagreed to. Much of the extraneous argument that has been brought forward about the protection of whales bears no relationship to the decisions which the House has before it; in fact, there is very little argument. There is certainly no argument on my part whether whales should be protected. In fact, I go so far as to say that whales should be protected and Australia should use its influence in international whaling agreements through the United Nations and other forums to convince the countries that are presently whaling to cease such activity.

There is no question in my mind that the extra territorial reach of the provisions of this Bill, in respect of which the legislation committee has recommended amendment, is ridiculous in the extreme. There is no question as to the bona fides of the majority of Australians in wishing to protect a mammal such as the whale in the future, and there is no question that we should be using our influence in all spheres and forums to do just that. I find myself in a position where a reasonable compromise has been offered to the Government in this matter. I believe that that has been carried by an overwhelming opinion in the legislation committee. An overwhelming concensus was reached in another place in which we had an opportunity to express our opinions. It is my contention that the provisions of this Bill in that respect are too draconian. It is a measure that will bring ridicule on the Australian Government, because it is a law that could not be policed. No country would be prepared to agree to extradition proceedings to bring Australians back to Australia to face the draconian measures that are detailed in the Bill.

I believe that the Government is sparring with shadows in the clause in which it seeks to extend extra-territorially the conditions imposed by the Bill. I ask the Minister whether he can give me the name of one Australian who is presently engaged illegally in whaling anywhere in the world. I certainly know of nobody. I asked the Minister whether he could supply me with a list of names, or even one name of an Australian who is presently engaged illegally in whaling when there is no legislation in force to this effect, and no real inhibiting factor on an Australian engaging in whaling around the world. I believe that there has been a genuine offer to the Government to reach a compromise situation. If the Government is prepared to ignore the forms of the Parliament and if the Government is not prepared to accept the clear concensus in another place, I must oppose the legislation. Therefore, I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Robertson and carried in the legislation committee. I will support the amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Dummond), which I believe seeks to achieve a reasonable compromise situation.

Mr HYDE:
Moore

-I seem to be in some minor disagreement on this matter with the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson) who is at the table and with my leader, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). That is a pity because we agree on most matters. I do not believe that any reasonable case has been established by the Government for extraterritorial reach of this law. I do not believe that the removal of the extra-territorial provisions will, in fact, substantially weaken this measure. I concede that I have some doubts about the whole measure and that the best advice I can get is that those species of whale that are, in fact, endangered, might be in greater danger because we are not actively participating in the whaling industry. Be that as it may, a question of legal principle is involved. It seems to me that it is unreasonable that any citizen should be required to accord with the requirements of two laws that may be inconsistent. It seems to me that that sort of situation ought to be avoided as carefully as possible, wherever possible.

An Australian citizen or a person who is not an Australian citizen but who is domiciled in Australia might go overseas and in some way get involved in the whaling industry. It is conceivable that that activity within the whaling industry might even be accidental. I concede that if such activity were accidental that would probably be a reasonable defence in court. It is not reasonable, though, that that person should even be faced with charges for perhaps operating a typewriter in a whaling company or for doing some other activity that was perfectly legal in the laws of the country in which the person resided at the time. I do not believe the term ‘ordinarily domiciled’ is adequately defined. I suspect that it cannot be adequately denned. Therefore, a serious question of civil liberty arises. I support the amendment moved in the legislation committee. In the event of its not being agreed to I will support the amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond).

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
Dawson

– I speak as one of the 12 members of the legislation committee which discussed this matter. There was talk of an overwhelming vote as far as the amendment is concerned. Might I advise the House that if only two members on that committee had changed their minds, the vote would have been a draw. I think that is the extent to which the vote can be described as an overwhelming vote.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Underwhelming.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:

– It was probably underwhelming. I bow to the finer knowledge of the English language of the honourable member for Lalor. We have been talking about civil liberties tonight. We have been talking about illegal acts overseas and things like that. We have also had put to us examples which I think miss the point entirely. I think that this Bill is comparable to other Australian legislation. I mentioned in the legislation committee that what this Bill sets out to do, along with other Acts, is to set down Australian standards for Australian citizens acting not only within Australia but in other parts of the world. I should imagine that any person domiciled in Australia, knowing that there was a particular Act within Australia which imposed penalties or a law within Australia that made certain things illegal, would take those standards with him when he travelled overseas. He would not set himself the standards of the countries to which he travelled. One can only take the example of a murderer, and here I do not mean an abortionist. Just because there is a penalty for murder in Australia, if a person goes overseas and there is no penalty for such a crime, that would not leave a person free to commit that crime overseas. I think it is most important that we set these Australian standards.

I do not see anything draconian in this legislation. In fact, what we might be talking about as being draconian is the penalty of $100,000. The purpose of the amendment is not to question that penalty of $100,000. I just cannot follow at all those people talking about draconian measures in connection with this amendment. The civil liberties are those that I have indicated. The people who will lose their liberties are those who commit a crime or whatever overseas. If that is the extent of the loss of civil liberties, I do not think anybody really minds. I cannot see my civil liberties being decreased by this legislation. As I say, it is only the guilty who will have any problems about that.

It was also mentioned in the legislation committee that this legislation will not decrease the amount of whaling done overseas and that therefore whales might be in ever-diminishing numbers. That is no reason for Australia not to take a stand. There are parallels in other aspects to which we should be giving our attention and on which Australia can take a lead, even though it may not affect the eventual result. So, in the few moments I have left, I have no hesitation in supporting the legislation. I see nothing inconsistent about it. It has been discussed in the legislation committee. I just say that being one of those four members who supported the retention of the Bill as it was, I did so for those reasons and I will continue to do so.

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

– I participate in this debate mainly because I think it is necessary for me as a Western Australian to put an alternative point of view to that of what I might describe as the ratpack of Western Australians on the other side of the chamber.

Mr Cotter:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I object to that remark. I find it extremely offensive. I ask for it to be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The Chair must confess to having been temporarily distracted. I did not hear the remark, but I call on the honourable member for Fremantle to withdraw it if he feels that it may be contrued as being offensive.

Mr DAWKINS:

-I referred to certain members of the Government from Western Australia as being a ratpack. I am not sure that is offensive.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member to withdraw it on the basis that the term is unparliamentary.

Mr Cohen:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, is it offensive to describe the whole group as rats; is it only individuals?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Robertson offends.

Mr DAWKINS:

-I did not describe them as rats and I did not even include the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter). If the honourable member finds some attraction to that term and feels that it is an accurate description of him, I am happy to withdraw it in relation to him. The point is that at least four Western Australian Liberals have been involved in a campaign to resurrect whaling in Australia. There is absolutely no question that the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) is clearly designed to provide a loophole for the continuation of whaling in Australia. If one really wants to know the vintage Liberal Western Australian view of whaling I will quote from the Hansard of 13 May wherein the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) is recorded as saying:

The three Bills -

One of which we are debating now- before the Parliament are designed to provide for the preservation, conservation and protection of all cetaceans; that is, the great whales, beaked whales, pilot whales, killer whales, dolphins and porpoises.

There followed an interjection from the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr):

Kill them all.

The honourable member for Swan, a Western Australian Liberal, part of the Western Australian Liberal ratpack, wants to kill them all. He wants to kill all the whales and all the porpoises.

Mr Cotter:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I still find that term rather offensive. I ask for it to be withdrawn.

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

-I, like the previous occupant of the Chair, was distracted at the time the remark was made. What was the remark?

Mr DAWKINS:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not going to withdraw it. I have already indicated that if the honourable member for Kalgoorlie feels that is an accurate description of him and if he takes offence, I am happy to withdraw it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member withdraws the remark.

Mr DAWKINS:

-I withdraw it in relation to the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. The point is that what I said was that the honourable member for Swan -

Mr McLean:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member for Fremantle withdrew the comments he made with regard, he said, to the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. As a Western Australian who is also in this chamber I ask him to withdraw the remark in relation to myself.

Mr DAWKINS:

– We have a series of 10 Western Australian Liberals all getting up and deny-, ing they are part of a ratpack. That is quite absurd. What I am saying is that -

Mr McLean:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, are you going to rule on my point of order?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Fremantle will resume his seat. I gather that the remark which has been taken exception to is something along the lines of the remark made when the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) was in the chair. Is that correct?

Mr McLean:

– It was made when you were in the chair too.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I think it is an unparliamentary remark and I ask the honourable member to withdraw it.

Mr DAWKINS:

-In deference to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw. May I say that there is absolutely no question that in so far as the honourable member for Swan represents the view of the members of the Liberal Party in Western Australia they are a whale killing ratpack because he has said that he wants to kill them all. He wants to kill the whales and the porpoises. He wants to kill them all, and he makes no attempt to withdraw that remark. That is the point I want to make. I, as a West Australian, want to disassociate myself from those who are part of that ratpack and who are interested in killing whales and who want to resurrect the whale industry not only in Western Australia but also in other parts of Australia.

There is a great inconsistency in the Government’s position on this measure. Although clause 6 takes the extreme position that it shall be illegal for anyone normally domiciled in Australia to take whales anywhere in the world, clauses 9 and 11, taken in conjunction, make it possible for fishermen in this country to take porpoises and other small cetaceans. In fact, permits for that purpose have been issued. I refer honourable members to the Hansard record of the proceedings of the legislation committee. I asked the Minister about clause 9, which provides that it is all right for someone who is normally fishing for something else to take accidently a porpoise or other form of small cetacean. However, clause 1 1 provides that the Government can issue licences to fishermen to take porpoises incidentally to the catching of other fish, and it has done so. If the Government was as dinkum as the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson) and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) have stated this evening, was really that passionate about this issue, it would ensure that no Australian fishermen could take any cetaceans, whether large in the form of whales or small in the form of porpoises, dolphins and the like. I would not have throught that it would have embraced the sentiments of the honourable member for Swan and thought that it was all right to kill them all. That is the great inconsistency in this Bill. On the one hand, the Government is prepared to issue permits to fishermen to take dolphins. On the other, it is prepared to bring in what it admits is a very extreme measure, under which it may fine up to $ 100,000 any hapless Australian who finds himself overseas engaged in whaling in some form or other. That is a very important inconsistency.

The Government’s case really falls down- and this is one matter on which I agree with the honourable member for Kalgoorlie- because it has failed to bring forward any evidence that Australians are engaged in private whaling anywhere in the world. There is no law against Australians engaging in whaling now, here, or overseas as far as I know. Certainly there is no law preventing Australians domiciled in Australia from engaging in the whaling industry anywhere in the world. There has never been such a law. Where is the evidence to suggest that that activity is so widespread, that Australians have such a great passion for killing whales anywhere in the world, that clause 6 is really necessary? If the Government were prepared to bring in evidence to show us that Australians were engaged in the killing of whales in other parts of the world, not only would I support this measure enthusiastically but every other Opposition member would do likewise. The Government ‘scase falls down in another regard as well. The Prime Minister himself said that the clause in virtually unenforceable.

Mr Baillieu:

– He did not say that.

Mr DAWKINS:

– He said that there was no way in which the Australian Government would know of all the instances in which Australians who were normally domiciled in Australia were engaged in the whaling industry elsewhere. That he said can be proved. Everybody knows that an unenforceable law is a bad law. Therefore, unless the Government can demonstrate the way in which the proposed law can be enforced there is absolutely no obligation on this Parliament to pass this measure. The only justification for such a measure would be that it was persuasive in getting Japan and Russia to pass similar laws to ensure that their citizens were not engaged in whaling in other parts of the world. It is the Russians and the Japanese who are the main culprits in this whole exercise. They are the ones who are taking whales far outside their territorial limits, who are threatening the whole whale species, who are engaged in inhumane acts, who are brutally killing whales, that we are really trying to get at.

I repeat, if the measure were at all persuasive in convincing the Japanese and the Russians to take similar measures I suppose that one would have to give it serious thought. But we have seen, in relation to the activities of the International Whaling Commission, that the Russians and Japanese are quite unconvinced, quite implacable in their conviction to continue whaling throughout the world, both in their own territorial waters and in that of other countries if they can get away with it. Therefore until there is evidence that a measure such as this can be persuasive in wiping out whaling throughout the world, it is not justified in terms of the infringement of civil liberties which it entails.

Mr McLEAN:
Perth

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 62

NOES: 38

Majority……. 24

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 64

NOES: 38

Majority…… 26

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr DRUMMOND:
Forrest

– I move:

On 13 May I canvassed the reasons why I thought an amendment should be moved. It gives me no great pleasure to propose an amendment which is in conflict with the consensus of the Government parties to which I belong. But I believe the part of the Bill which deals with the extra-territorial activities of Australian citizens does not have the support- in fact, far from it- of the majority of my party.

The amendment extends the Bill to include residents of Australia and allows citizens and residents to engage in whaling activities which are in accordance with the international whaling convention. I do not wish to be dogmatic in any shape or form about the resident part of the amendment. It appears to me that this provision is used in many Bills. All I seek is a logical explanation from the Government as to why such a provision should not be included in this Bill. I would like to quote two examples where such a provision is used. The first is the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Bill 1978. The Attorney-General (Senator Durack) in his second reading speech said:

In all the circumstances, including the need to preserve international relations, there is a need for legislation to deal specifically with the problem, including preparations in Australia for these activities.

To this end, clause 6 will prohibit incursions into foreign countries for the purpose of engaging in hostile activities. This clause will apply to Australian citizens, persons ordinarily resident in Australia and persons who at any time during the period of one year immediately proceeding the commission of the offence were present in Australia . . .

It appears to me that that is a clear indication that the residents provision has been and can be used in this type of legislation.

I would like to turn briefly to another piece of legislation- there are many such pieces of legislation- namely, the Pollution of the Sea by OU Act. This piece of legislation, after indicating that oil is discharged and so on provides that the owner and the master of an Australian ship is each guilty of an offence against this section for so doing. The legislation, when mentioning the owner or master of an Australian ship, does not in any way mention the words ‘Australian citizen or resident’. Annex A of the Act provides that it is an offence to drop oil 30 miles from the Yugoslav coast in the Adriatic Sea. I do not wish to be dogmatic in any way about the resident provision that this amendment proposes to insert. I still seek an explanation from the Govern-, ment as to why this is not a right and proper amendment to this Bill.

Turning to the other part of the amendment, I do not wish to canvass, nor do I have the time to do so, all the arguments which were raised last week and during the sitting of the legislation committee. However, let me make a very brief precis of them. The legislation breaks new ground. What directions will future governments give to their people? As I said last week, one could imagine that those who smoke pot in California, which is highly illegal in Australia could come back to this country and face prosecution. Are we more interested in whales than in the health of our people? I also use the example of uranium.

I appreciate the questions the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) posed in his speech: Really and truly will one whale less be killed in the world because of this rather draconian-type legislation we are introducing, and is there any chance that the Government will desire to police the Act? It would be quite easy, as has been pointed out by other speakers tonight, for someone to work overseas in an office of a company which that person did not realise was heavily involved in the whaling industry. According to this legislation, that person could be subject to prosecution on his return to Australia. Many speakers noted during the legislation committee debate that the question of extra- ‘ territorial legislation is a very vexing, complex and important one. The extension of a nation’s laws beyond that nation’s perimeters is something that should be done only in extreme circumstances. If this amendment is passed by the House I will be moving a consequential amendment.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– I will be very brief. The Opposition does not support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Forest (Mr Drummond) simply because it does not believe that one can be selective aboutcivil liberties. Either one opposes people being fined in countries where a practice is perfectly legal or one does not. The amendment proposed by the honourable member suggests that we should divide the world into two sections; one where people can be fined if they return and one where they cannot. This would be perfectly legal in both of these areas. However, one belongs to the International Whaling Commission and the other does not. So as a matter of principle, to be consistent we oppose the amendment.

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

– I find myself in complete agreement with the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) on this matter. This amendment is not acceptable to the Government partly for the reasons which the honourable member has just stated. The amendment misses the whole point of the Government ‘s policy which aims to give a lead to the international community in the introduction of a world wide ban on whaling. We could not give that lead if we were to tie ourselves of our own volition to an existing international practice that permits whaling.

As I said in my speech on the previous amendment the Government, through the Whaling Commissioner and the International Whaling Commission, will make every effort to persuade other countries to ban whaling throughout the world. We will do that using the legislation as it stands without amendment. This legislation will give us much greater authority to carry out this objective. I will not go over once again the reasons for the Government’s position. The Government does not accept the amendment.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Drummond’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 7

NOES: 89

Majority……. 82

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Debate interrupted.

page 2942

ADJOURNMENT

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! It being past 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Thomson:

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

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2942

WHALE PROTECTION BILL 1980

Debate resumed.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I assume that the honourable member for Forrest, who was going to move a consequential amendment had his motion been carried, will not now proceed.

Mr Drummond:

– That is right.

Bill, as reported from Legislation Committee and as further amended, agreed to.

Third Reading

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

page 2942

FISHERIES AMENDMENT (WHALE PROTECTION) BILL 1980

Debate resumed from 14 May.

Consideration of Legislation Committee report.

Motion (by Mr Thomson) agreed to:

That the report of the Legislation Committee be adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2943

CONTINENTAL SHELF (LIVING NATURAL RESOURCES) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Debate resumed from 14 May.

Consideration of Legislation Committee report.

Motion (by Mr Thomson) agreed to:

That the report of the Legislation Committee be adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2943

NORTHERN TERRITORY (COMMONWEALTH LANDS) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 May, on motion by Mr John McLeay:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-This Bill is supported by the Opposition. The reason for this Bill was some failure on the part of Ministers when gazetting certain acquisitions of lands by the Commonwealth prior to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act coming into force on 1 July 1978. There was some doubt whether the gazettal in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. S 1 16 on 29 June 1978 was properly performed. If there were some legal doubt about acquisitions being gazetted in that Gazette it could lead to some unhappy consequences in a number of areas. The Opposition, whilst deploring the necessity for this legislation, because it shows a failure on the part of the Government to perform its duties accurately, is not surprised that it has happened. The Opposition supports this legislation which makes certain of the legality of that gazettal.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

-In the absence of the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) I want to say a few words on this Bill. In the years that he has been a member he has been a dedicated representative of the people of the Northern Territory. He is not able to be here tonight. As has been mentioned by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), the Bill is not being opposed by the Opposition. The Bill ensures that there is no legal doubt about acquisition of lands by the Commonwealth for its purposes in the Northern Territory. Some of those purposes for acquisition include defence, as was mentioned in the second reading speech of the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay), and a number of other reasons which I will not enumerate on in my speech in the second reading debate. This Bill is obviously beneficial to the people of the Northern Territory and to the people of Australia generally in that the legality of the acquisitions should be beyond any doubt. This is what the Bill does. Again I pay great tribute to my colleague the honourable member for the Northern Territory for the part he played in the development of self-government for the Northern Territory and for the time that he has been a member of this House.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I remind the House of the remarkable incompetence that this Bill displays. The fact that the Government has to bring in legislation such as this to overcome a piece of administrative neglect back in 1978 shows this incompetence. It is a remarkable achievement even for this Government. I remind the House that the Government now has an average of one major blunder of this sort a year. The New South Wales redistribution was passed before the 1977 Commonwealth election which, of course, did not comply with the law. It had to be withdrawn and hurriedly brought back to the House and passed by the Parliament. Then there was the blunder on the brandy excise legislation two or three years ago. This was found to be totally misconceived inasmuch as the brandy was not produced in Australia. There was already an excess of supply and there had to be a rapid change.

About three years ago a States Grants Bill for Aboriginal affairs passed through the House. Honourable members opposite, through their Minister, adopted the policy of bypassing the Senate. They did not bother to send that Bill to the Senate. It went to His Excellency the Governor-General with the necessary signatures on it attesting that all the requirements of the Constitution had been complied with. Of course all that Bill had to go through all the procedures again. Then there was the notable case which caused a great deal of disadvantage to one of the local businesses in Canberra. The Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Council brought down a report in which a firm was mentioned quite erroneously. These are just samples of the incompetence with which this country has been inflicted since this Government seized power. Those are just the cases we know about. There must be dozens of others which are obscured either through incompetence or because the Acts are simply administrative ones.

This Bill seems a fairly devious way- I am not talking now about the machinery of the Commonwealth gazettal- of overcoming some of the difficulties created in the attempt to give the Northern Territory a degree of autonomy. I hope we take a good look at the general direction of development in the Northern Territory. It should have a free hand in those areas for which it is responsible and we should develop a co-operative attitude in those areas where it is necessary. We need co-operation with the States in an increasing number of public interest areas rather than the confrontation which this Bill implies.

This Bill is an interesting application of the rights of the Commonwealth to acquire land. Over the years that we have been confronting the Government on the question of Aboriginal land it has continuously denied its capacity to take steps such as this. However the legislative and administrative machinery is readily available.

The Bill is an intriguing document. I have glanced at the Schedule in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette describing the land to be acquired by the Commonwealth, and I suggest to the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay) that as a piece of information for the community it is fairly obscure. One might say that it is obscurantist. It describes the land in all the traditional terms. Even for somebody who might know the area it is difficult to establish to which area it refers. In a document such as this the land ought to be defined more precisely so that people who may well become the victims of an acquisition order of this sort at least might be aware of it. This does not occur only in the cases where we are simply confirming historic questions but it can occur also when people are quite unaware that their land has been acquired under Commonwealth acquisition legislation. This has happened in the past. By looking at the schedule, there is no way that one can tell what it is about.

It is an interesting document also because it describes one piece of land as follows:

All that parcel of land in the Northern Territory of Australia containing an area of 75 square metres more or less being Lot 369 1 , in the Town of Alice Springs-

One wonders for what purpose a lot of 750 square feet or thereabouts is being used. It is the sort of thing that the very early land boomers in Melbourne and Sydney would have decided was a bit small for them. I remind the House and those countless thousands outside the House who are listening carefully and continuously to the debates here that this is another example of the remarkable incompetence of this Government. I hope that people will not trust them any further than the next election.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2944

ADJOURNMENT

Aboriginal Affairs

Motion (by Mr John McLeay) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

-The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is always anxious to appear as a champion of human rights, particularly the rights of black nations. I will not disparage his role in Zimbabwe. He realised that the election and result which produced the Muzorewa Government was neither just not durable. It is a pity that his concern for human rights does not extend to his own country. The Prime Minister and his colleagues, particularly his hatchet man in this matter, Senator Chaney, have imposed a merciless, insensitive and sytematic slashing -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! I ask that the honourable member withdraw the offensive term.

Mr WEST:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw. These two Ministers have imposed a merciless, insensitive and systematic slashing of expenditure in Aboriginal socio-economic areas. In 1975 the Whitlam Labor Government allocated $130m for Aboriginal affairs. In 1979 the Prime Minister and Senator Chaney allocated $125m despite the fact that the Aboriginal population has increased by 2.2 per cent each year. Using the most conservative deflator index that is a cut of 3 1 per cent in real terms. One of the worst and most shameful cuts in Aboriginal affairs has been in the health area, where there has been a cut by 1 5 per cent in real terms over five years.

The average life expectancy of an Aboriginal is 50 years, compared with 72 years for a nonAboriginal. The Aboriginal infant mortality rate in the Northern Territory- 48 per 100- is five times higher than the rate for the rest of the population. What did the National Trachoma and Eye Health Program report tabled last month state? It established that more than one in five aged Aboriginals are totally blind; that a further 21 per cent are blind in one eye with impaired vision in the other eye; that one third of aged Aboriginal men and almost half of aged

Aboriginal women have a sight-threatening trachoma disease; and that 90 per cent of the Aboriginal people examined by the trachoma team had never encountered an eye doctor before. These appalling findings speak for themselves against the background of systematic cutting of Aboriginal expenditure.

Two health problems are seldom mentioned in this Parliament. They are shameful problems. It is not the shame of the Aboriginal people who suffer these conditions but the shame of Australian governments for forcing them to live in the squalid and degrading environment in which these diseases flourish. I refer to Hansen’s disease, or leprosy, and sexually transmitted diseases, specifically syphilis. Professor Hollows, who led the trachoma team told the Department of Aboriginal Affairs last September:

There were 14 individual cases of leprosy in the Northern Territory and 16 in Western Australia in 1977. That is a strike rate per 100,000 of 54 in the Northern Territory and 100 in north western Australia.

Overseas, the highest strike rate is just over 50 for the five most affected countries- the poorest Third World nations.

On this analysis northern Australia has the worst leprosy rate in the world. As a statistic that is horrifying enough. Imagine how much more horrifying it is for the people inflicted with this disease, which was introduced from abroad and propagated by white Australian neglect of Aboriginal health problems. The disease has a long incubation period of up to seven years. But, of course, it occurs in the most abysmal of living conditions. I quote again from what Professor Hollows had to say to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. He said:

I am seeing Hansen’s disease sufferers in Darwin from Alice Springs. Leprosy is occuring in Alice Springs now and there have been two cases in Bourke. It is a bad living conditions disease and it will go on occurring while living conditions are what they are.

Northern Territory notifications for sexually transmitted syphilis went from 35 cases in 1973 to 703 cases in 1977. The non-Aboriginal rate rose from 50 to 166 cases. The strike rate for Aborigines in 1977 was 27 per 1,000 compared with two per 1,000 for non-Aboriginals. Professor Hollows wanted to implement a mass screening parallel to the trachoma effort but he received no support from either the Federal Department of Health or the Northern Territory medical services. The trachoma survey would have presented an ideal opportunity for the screening and treating of these diseases. Now we must rely on the extension of community-based Aboriginal medical centres or, if we could extract the money from this anti-Aboriginal Government, a trachoma-type survey in north Australia for both leprosy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member’s time has expired. It being 11 p.m. the debate is interrupted.

page 2945

NOTICES

The following notices were given:

Mr Hodgman to move; That this House deplores the action of the members of the Australian Labor Party in the House of Representatives on the 20th of May in refusing to grant leave to the Honourable Member for Denison to speak in support of the proposed $8.4m Commonwealth Law Courts complex to be built in Hobart.

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 the Parliament, namely: The construction of research laboratory complexes for the CSIRO Divisions of Applied Organic Chemistry and Materials Science at Clayton, Victoria.

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 Commonwealth Law Courts at Hobart, Tasmania.

Mr Burns to move ; That this House

page 2945

PAPERS

The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 20 May 1980, pursuant to statute:

Audit Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980, Nos 101, 102.

Customs Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1980, No. 99.

Naval Defence Act- Regulation- Statutory Rules 1980, No. 100.

Public Service Act- Appointment- Industrial Relations Bureau- B. W. Overton. Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980, No. 103.

Remuneration Tribunals Act- Remuneration TribunalDetermination 1980/3- Deputy Chairman of the Australian Dairy Corporation.

Seat of Government (Administration Act) Ordinances 1980- No. 13- Real Property (Amendment); No. 14- Registration of Deeds (Amendment).

Superannuation Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980, No. 98.

page 2946

REPLY TO A REQUEST FOR DETAILED INFORMATION

Joint House Department

  1. 1 ) Has the attention of the Presiding Officers been drawn to an article in the New York Times of Wednesday, 5 December 1979, entitled Excess X-ray Radiation Found.
  2. If so, have they taken any steps to obtain the report by the United States of America General Accounting Office which is mentioned in that article in view of the recent installation of X-ray equipment at the front entrance to Parliament House.
  3. What Federal or Australian Capital Territory legislation governs the use of X-ray equipment for any purposes in the ACT.
  4. Can they state what are the recommended limits for radiation from X-ray equipment (a) under any applicable legislation in the ACT and (b) as recommended by (where applicable) (i) the World Health Organisation, (ii) the Australian Academy of Science, (iii) the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences, (iv) the Australian Radiation Laboratory, ( v) the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, ( vi) the Australian Safeguards Office and (vii) any other relevant body within Australia.
  5. What steps have been taken in relation to the X-ray equipment now in use at the front entrance to Parliament House to protect (a) the attendants who are required to operate the equipment, (b) regular users of the building and (c) occasional visitors, from excess radiation.
  6. How much radiation is emitted by the equipment currently installed at the front entrance to Parliament House, as measured in millirems per hour.
  7. Has their attention been drawn to the article entitled US Academy Denies Threshold for Radiation Damage (Nature, Vol. 279, 10 May 1979, pages 90-1) and the conclusion of the US National Academy of Sciences quoted in that article that for most radiation-induced cancers, the possibility of linear no-threshold dose-effect relationship cannot be excluded.
  8. Have they taken any steps to obtain the report by the US National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation mentioned in the article.
  9. If so, have they arranged for any scientific evaluation and review of that report, and who has undertaken that evaluation.
  10. What were the findings of that evaluation.
  11. What monitoring program had been instituted (a) by Friday, 8 February 1980 and (b) since that date to determine what levels of radiation are continuously emitted by the X-ray equipment at the front entrance to Parliament House.
  12. Have they received any representations regarding the use of this X-ray equipment from (a) the Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers), (b) the Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association, (c) the Professional Officers Association, ( d ) any other industrial organisation and (e) any other individual or body.

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) The information asked for in these questions is being sought from the Departments of the Capital Territory, Health and Science and the Environment. Answers will be supplied to the honourable member when the information is received.
  4. (a), (b) and (c) A survey of the X-ray equipment was carried out by the Australian Capital Territory Health Commission prior to commencement of operations. No radiation leak was detected. Although the survey confirmed the safety of the equipment, regular checks by survey meter are made and all Attendant operators wear special film badges which are checked by the Australian Radiation Laboratories each four weeks to detect and measure any radiation dosage the wearer may have encountered.
  5. I am informed that the amount of radiation emitted externally is indistinguishable from background.
  6. Yes.
  7. Yes, the Parliamentary Library has the report on order.
  8. When the report is received consideration will be given to its contents.
  9. See answer to (9).
  10. 1 1 ) (a) and (b) Following one initial survey, a monitoring program involving monthly tests by survey meter and continuous wearing of radiation film badges by Attendants has been operational.

  11. (a) Verbal representations were received and dealt with when the equipment was commissioned.

    1. to (e) No recorded representations received.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 2947

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Cocos Island: Air Reconnaissance (Question No. 5368)

Mr Dawkins:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Is he able to say with what regularity Cocos Islands is used as a base for air reconnaissance by (a) the United States of America and (b) Australia.
  2. Is it intended to increase this usage; if so, is it intended to expand staging facilities on Cocos Islands for this purpose.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. (a) In no sense is the existing civil air facility in the Cocos Islands to be regarded as a military base. During the last twelve months, US Navy P3 Orion aircraft have staged through Cocos Islands on air reconnaissance flights on eleven occasions.

    1. During the last twelve months RAAF P3 Orion aircraft have used Cocos Islands whilst carrying out air surveillance flights on twenty-one occasions.

  2. The frequency of usage of Cocos Islands for surveillance purposes will depend on the circumstances prevailing at any particular time. Some minor improvement of the limited existing accommodation and storage on the island is under consideration by interested Departments.

Cockburn Sound Naval Base (Question No. 5370)

Mr Dawkins:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government invited more regular visits by United States of America warships to the Cockburn Sound naval base, WA; if so, has the United States accepted the invitation.
  2. If the United States has accepted the invitation, can he say what numbers of warships are expected to visit and with what regularity.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) As announced by the Prime Minister in his statement to the House of Representatives on 19 February, the Department of Defence is discussing with US authorities ways in which we might assist US forces operating in the Indian Ocean. Options that have been canvassed include US use of the naval base at Cockburn Sound, HMAS Stirling, as well as use of staging facilities and our exercise areas and support from our repair and maintenance facilities. These discussions are continuing.
  2. See(l)above.

Cockburn Sound Naval Base (Question No. 5371)

Mr Dawkins:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 February 1 980:

  1. ) Has the Government invited the permanent stationing of United States of America warships and auxiliaries at Cockburn Sound, WA; if so, what numbers and types of warships has the Government offered to host.
  2. Are nuclear powered vessels included; if so, what special provision has been made for servicing and for the environmental monitoring of these vessels.
  3. Has the United States accepted the invitation; if so, on what basis.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

See answer to Question No. 5370.

Cockburn Sound Naval Base (Question No. 5372)

Mr Dawkins:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) What steps is the Government taking to upgrade the defence establishment in Cockburn Sound, Western Australia, in the light of recent events in Iran and Afghanistan.
  2. Which ships are currently deployed at Cockburn Sound.
  3. Prior to October 1979, which ships were projected for deployment at a future date.
  4. Have any additional deployments been determined since October 1979; if so, what are these additional deployments.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) My Department is developing plans for an early start on the construction of an armament depot at HMAS Stirling and for the construction or acquisition of housing which will be required for additional personnel.
  2. HMAS Moresby and HMAS Acute are currently home ported at Cockburn Sound.
  3. In the context of the 1976-81 Defence Programme, it had been planned to base port up to two destroyers and two submarines in Western Australia from 1979 on a rotational basis. This plan was deferred due to financial constraints and a shortage of trained technical personnel to man HMAS Stirling.
  4. Since October 1979 HMAS Torrens, Jervis Bay and Orion have been deployed for short periods to the Cockburn Sound area. Additionally, there were visits by nine foreign naval vessels. The deployment of an Australian Carrier Group to the Indian Ocean is now planned for the second half of 1980, and periodically thereafter. The ships involved will use Western Australian port facilities fromtime to time. Planning also includes base porting destroyers at HMAS Stirling from about September 1980 on a rotational basis until facilities are available there to enable home porting. The number of ships to be deployed is still under consideration.

Defence Facilities in Western Australia (Question No. 5373)

Mr Dawkins:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Does the Government intend to station strike aircraft on a permanent basis in Western Australia at (a) Pearce, (b) Learmonth or (c) Derby; if not, has provision been made for regular usage of the facilities at these installations by strike aircraft.
  2. Can he say if, in future visits by United States of America warships to Western Australia, regular usage will be made of these facilities by land-based strike aircraft in exercises involving Australian and United States forces.
  3. On what occasions and by what forces has such use been made in the past.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There is no intention at present to station strike aircraft on a permanent basis in Western Australia. Furthermore, there are currently no Defence facilities at Derby, and the airfield there is not capable of supporting strike aircraft operations. However, both Learmonth and Pearce have been developed to support strike and reconnaissance aircraft operations, and RAAF strike aircraft (Fills) are deployed there periodically for exercises and training. The Derby airfield when developed will be able to support the same range of air capabilities.
  2. No. See also answer to question No.5370.
  3. Strike aircraft have been deployed to WA bases as follows:

Air Surveillance of the Indian Ocean (Question No.5374)

Mr Dawkins:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) From which Australian bases is air surveillance of the Indian Ocean currently being undertaken and with what regularity.
  2. Does the Government intend to increase surveillance activity from Pearce, Learmonth and Derby in Western Australia; if so, will this involve the permanent stationing of surveillance aircraft at Learmonth and Derby.
  3. Does the Government intend that United States of America surveillance aircraft should use these facilities; if so, on what basis and with what regularity has the United States indicated that it will use them.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) RAAF aircraft make use of the following RAAF bases for Indian Ocean surveillance flights: Edinburgh, Pearce, Learmonth and Darwin. The average frequency of surveillance flights over the Indian Ocean is at present one flight a week.
  2. Some increase in Indian Ocean surveillance activity is planned, but details have not yet been finalised. There are no current plans to station surveillance aircraft at Learmonth or Derby on a permanent basis.
  3. See answer to Question No. 5370.

Health: Advertising (Question No. 5539)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 February 1 980:

  1. 1 ) What advertising agency is used by his Department to publicise its programs and policies.
  2. 2 ) What sum is paid to the agency for the purposes of this advertising.
  3. What was the total sum spent by the Government on advertising and explaining changes to the health care scheme for (a) 1977-78, (b) 1978-79, (c) the period 1 July 1979 to date, and (d) each time amendments have been made to the health care legislation since I January 1976.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Several advertising agencies have been used in recent years to publicise the Government’s programs and policies in the health field. These agencies have been selected jointly by my Department and the Australian Government Advertising Service, the Branch of the Department of Administrative Services which is responsible for arranging Government advertising. Under the system for arrangement of such advertising, separate agencies are used for creating advertisements and then for placing them with the media. In the past year, for example, three agencies- Fountain Huie Fish Pty Ltd, Compton Advertising Aust. Pty Ltd, and Schofield Sherbon Baker Pty Ltd- have been used for creating advertisements. Two other agencies- Berry Currie Advertising (N.S.W.) Pty Ltd and Fortune (Aust.) Pty Ltd-are the official Commonwealth placing/charging agencies through which advertising is placed with the media and then accounted for.
  2. Advertising agencies which create, place and charge for advertising for Departments through the Australian Government Advertising Service are reimbursed for their time and internal costs by the standard system developed and operated by the Australian Government Advertising Advisory Council. The Department of Health has no knowledge of amounts paid by that Council to the agencies. That information has been classified as private information by successive Ministers with the portfolio responsibility for Commonwealth Government advertising.
  3. The following sums have been spent by the Government on advertising changes to the health insurance scheme:

From 1 January 1 976 to 30 June 1 977, $ 1,009, 1 28.68.

From 1 July 1977 to 30 June 1978, $13,966.55.

From 1 July 1 978 to 30 June 1 979, $96 1 , 884. 1 7.

From 1 July 1 979 to date, $626,42 1 . 09.

Gas Prices (Question No. 5541)

Mr Hyde:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 27 February 1 980:

  1. What are the prices of (a) Liquefied Petroleum Gas and (b) Natural Gas for (i) household and (ii) commercial purposes in each of the Australian States.
  2. Are any supply and price arrangements with companies sanctioned by State Governments or the Federal Government; if so, with which companies and what are the (a) contracted prices and (b) conditions of supply.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The wholesale price of LPG for household and commercial use is $205 per tonne at the refinery gate in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, and at the Long Island Point terminal, Westernport, Victoria. In the Northern Territory and Tasmania the price of LPG is increased by the cost of the freight element from whichever source the LPG is derived. A subsidy of $80 per tonne is also paid to the distributor of LPG (or towns gas derived from LPG feedstock) used in households or non-profit residential-type institutions and schools.

The price of natural gas at the city gate of each of the mainland State capitals is commercially negotiated between the producers and the distribution companies in each of the States. The prices paid are not disclosed to the Commonwealth Government.

The actual prices paid by householders and commercial users of natural gas and LPG in each of the Australian States are determined by the utilities concerned and are affected by factors in addition to feedstock costs, such as freight elements, manufacturing costs (if any) and distribution efficiencies. Tariffs are often on a sliding scale so that large consumers pay significantly less than small consumers. Details of tariffs are available from the gas utilities and distribution companies.

  1. Under the Commonwealth Government policy for LPG the Prices Justification Tribunal has been requested to reduce the maximum justified wholesale prices of propane and butane to $205 per tonne at all refineries. The producers of naturally occurring LPG from Bass Strait have agreed with the Commonwealth Government to make LPG available at this price at the Long Island Point Terminal.

Insofar as natural gas is concerned the Commonwealth Government has not entered into any supply and price arrangements with companies. However, I understand State Governments may have such arrangements but details are not available to the Commonwealth Government.

Alleged Social Security Frauds (Question No. 5571)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 5 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) How many cases of alleged fraud did the Department of Social Security begin to investigate in the period 1 July 1979 to 26 February 1980.
  2. How many of these cases have been resolved.
  3. In how many cases was the beneficiary concerned claimed to be responsible for the alleged fraud.
  4. In how many cases where the beneficiary was allegedly responsible was the beneficiary prosecuted.
  5. How many cases of alleged fraud were awaiting prosecution on 26 February 1 980.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. to (5) Information is not available on the number of cases investigated in connection with alleged fraud. However, in the period 1 July 1979 to 31 December 1979, it was decided to prosecute 888 persons for offences against the

Social Services Act. In the same period 652 cases were prosecuted for offences against the Act. At 31 December 1979, the latest quarter for which precise figures are available, there were 1367 cases awaiting prosecution.

Companies and Securities Law Review Committee (Question No. 5658)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 18 March 1980:

  1. Further to his predecessor’s letter to me of 23 November 1979, has the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee been established.
  2. ) If so, when was the committee established and who are its members; if not, why not.
  3. Has his Department referred its views on an Accounting Standards Review Board to the committee and what are these views.
  4. When is the committee expected to report on this question.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. to (4) The Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities has not yet decided on when the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee will be established.

Australian Development Assistance Bureau (Question No. 5699)

Mr Simon:

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 25 March 1980:

  1. Has the Public Service Board recently (a) reclassified the positions of 2 Deputy Directors within the Department of Foreign Affairs to Division 2, level 5 and (b) created a new Deputy Director position at the same level within that Department.
  2. ) Was the classification of the Director of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau raised to the same level as the level of the 3 Deputy Directors referred to in part ( 1 ); if not, has the status of the Bureau within the Department of Foreign Affairs consequently been weakened.
  3. Has the Government made any decision to downgrade the position of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)I have been informed that last October the Permanent Head of the Department of Foreign Affairs proposed a number of variations to the top structure organisation of the Department. The Public Service Board ‘s examination of the proposals included a detailed assessment of the Department’s total Second Division resources and consideration of changed working arrangements at senior levels to meet its increased responsibilities. The Board agreed, inter alia, on (a) the abolition of two positions of Deputy Secretary, Level 4, Second Division; and (b) the creation of three positions of Deputy Secretary, Level 5, Second Division.

  1. ) I have also been informed that the classification of the Director, Australian Development Assistance Bureau, was not changed and remains at Level 4, Second Division. The Public Service Board noted changes which had occurred in the work of the position, working arrangements between the Director and the Permanent Head and the respective responsibilities of the Director and the Permanent Head for the work of the Bureau. The Board also took into account the very high status of the position of Director, in terms of salary and classification accorded when the Bureau was established.
  2. The Government has not decided to downgrade the status of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau.

Commonwealth Teaching Service (Question No. 5719)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) How many student teachers were in receipt of Commonwealth Teaching Service scholarships as at 26 March 1980.
  2. How many student teachers in receipt of Commonwealth Teaching Service scholarships (a) completed their degrees or diplomas in 1979 and (b) will complete their degrees or diplomas in 1980.
  3. How many Commonwealth teaching positions were offered in the (a) Australian Capital Territory and (b) Northern Territory at the commencement of the 1980 school year.
  4. How many Commonwealth teaching vacancies will become available in 1981 in the (a) ACT and (b) Northern Territory.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) One hundred and fifty-one.
  2. (a) One hundred and twenty-eight, (b) 105.
  3. (a) Three hundred and forty, (b) 200.
  4. No reliable projection is available at this stage. Vacancies will depend on factors such as growth of the school systems, demographic developments and’ resignations of current teachers.

Staff College, Queenscliff (Question No. 5733)

Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 March 1 980:

  1. 1 ) What was the cost of the work being carried out at the Army’s Australian Staff College, Queenscliff, Victoria, as at 26 March 1980.
  2. ) What is the purpose of these works.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Two thousand nine hundred dollars.
  2. The pouring of concrete gun mounts to replace old rotted and rickety wooden mounts which were considered to present a safety hazard to the public.

Student Statistics (Question No. 5763)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 3 1 March 1980:

Further to the answer of his predecessor to question No. 3297 (Hansard, 1 May 1979, page 1712) is he now in a position to answer part (2) of that question: viz. Of all students currently undergoing university education, what percentage have attended (a) private schools, (b) Catholic schools and (c) Government schools.

Mr Fife:
LP

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

The Australian Statistician has advised that the information on type of school attended by students currently at university was collected in the Second Special Supplementary Survey (a household survey covering various socioeconomic topics) which was conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics during the period September to November 1979. The results of the survey are expected to be available around June 1980, at which time arrangements will be made to supply the honourable member with information.

Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (Question No. 5765)

Dr Blewett:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 3 1 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) How many students have been in receipt of Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) allowances in each year since the Scheme ‘s introduction.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Adelaide News of 10 March 1980 that the number of applications for (TEAS) allowances in South Australia is currently running behind that for the same period in previous years; if so, is there any substance in the report.
  3. What is the situation in other States regarding applications.
  4. If applications in 1980 are at a lower level in South Australia and other States than in previous years, what are the reasons for the decline.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The number of students in receipt of Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) allowances in each year since the scheme was introduced in 1974 are as follows:

1974, 56,975; 1975, 81,000; 1976, 96,000; 1977,

99,153; 1978, 98,220; 1979, 93,559 (preliminary).

  1. The report in the Adelaide News of 10 March 1980 was based on a media release of 4 March prepared by the South Australian State Office of my Department. At that time 900 fewer applications had been received compared with the number received by the same date in 1979. The purpose of the media release was to encourage students to lodge their applications as soon as possible. Since the issue of the media release, the gap between applications received this year and in 1 979 by the same date, has narrowed. By 2 April 1980, 9,627 applications had been received compared with 9,729 by 2 April 1979.
  2. The situation in other States and the Australian Capital Territory is as follows:
  1. The total number of applications received by 2 April 1 980 is 102,703 which is a 3.7 per cent decrease on the corresponding number of 106,606 for 1979. Although I am not aware of specific reasons for the shortfall, it may be related to changes which are (have) occurred in the proportions of full-time and part-time student enrolments in universities and colleges of advanced education.

Government-to-Government Oil and Oil Products Trading (Question No. 5797)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. Is the Minister able to advise which nations currently engage in government-to-government oil and oil products trading as (a) exporters and (b) importers.
  2. If so, in each case (a) what percentage of (i) exports and (ii) imports is attributable to governmenttogovernment oil and, oil products trading and (b) when did the government-to-government oil, and oil products trading commence.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. No comprehensive official reports are available. However, information on government-to-government oil trading has been compiled by my Department from a variety of sources including official announcements by certain countries concerned and unofficial reports from international contacts and the petroleum press.

Oil exporting countries known to be involved in government-to-government sales include Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, Venezuela, Libya, Indonesia, Nigeria, Algeria, Gabon, Ecuador, Angola, USSR, China, Malaysia, Mexico and Norway.

Governments of oil importing countries reported to be engaged in oil purchasing in one form or another, either through wholly or partially owned State companies or under “umbrella” agreements (bi-lateral agreements under which oil purchases by commercial enterprises are promoted or protected, notably those negotiated by Japan) include, amongst OECD members, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, West Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and amongst other countries, Taiwan, South Korea, Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Sudan, Liberia, Morocco, South Yemen, Cyprus, Brazil, Argentina and Chile. Also, East European interest in oil purchases would be expected to be at a governmental level.

  1. This information is not available in the detail sought. However, a general perspective of the importance of government-to-government transactions in 1979 is given by the following estimates prepared by Petroleum Intelligence Weekly and published in its issue of 25 February 1 980:

These figures relate to original sales of crude oil in international trade, which in 1979 averaged 30.3 million barrels per day.

Public Sector Participation in Oil Refining Industry (Question No. 5798)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister able to advise in which countries there is public sector participation in the (a) financing, (b) ownership or (c) operation of oil refineries, and
  2. When this participation commenced in each case.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. (a) (b) (c) and (2). This information appears in the Financial Times Oil and Gas International Year Book 1979/80 published by Longman Group Limited of London.

Natural Gas Prices (Question No. 5801)

Mr Hayden:

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

Does the Government have full details of the prices charged by all producers of natural gas to (1) distribution authorities, and (2) major industrial customers where relevant; if so, what were the prices in each case as at 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:

No. The price that purchasers of natural gas pay to the producers is a matter of commercial negotiation and is generally treated as confidential by the parties concerned.

Gippsland Basin Oil Fields (Question No. 5806)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. When is it expected that the (a) West Kingfish, (b) Fortescue, (c) Flounder, (d) Snapper, (e) South Mackerel, (f) Tuna, (g) Dolphin, (h) Bream and (i) Seahorse fields will begin crude oil production.
  2. What level of production is expected in each case.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) 1982. (b) 1983. (c) 1984. (d) The Snapper Field is being developed essentially as a gasfield. Production is expected to commence in the second half of this year. (e) Production commenced 30 November 1979. (f) Production commenced 15 May 1979. (g), (h) and (i) No announcements have been made.
  2. (a), (d), (g), (h) and (i) No announcements have been made. (b) Maximum production will be 45,000 barrels per day. (c) Maximum production will be just over 15,000 barrels per day. (e) Production for the first quarter 1980 was 6,450 barrels per day. The future level of production will depend on results of a second well currently being completed. (f) Production for the first quarter 1980 was 9,700 barrels per day, but production is expected to increase to about 1 5,000 barrels per day later this year.

Import Parity Prices for Oil (Question No. 5807)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. 1 ) Are details of the components of the import parity prices set for Australian crude oil (a) publicly available and (b) provided to industry.
  2. If this information is not available, why is it not available.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The import parity pricing formula was outlined in the Press Statement of the then Minister for National Development on 4 July 1978. The details of the components are not (a) publicly available or(b) provided to industry.
  2. Details of the calculation are not made (a) publicly available nor (b) provided to industry because certain elements of these calculations are provided to my Department by industry on a confidential basis.

Crude Oil Production (Question No. 5810)

Mr Hayden:

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

What is the expected production of ( 1 ) import parity, (2) non-import parity and (3) ‘new’ crude oil from (a) Bass Strait, (b) Barrow Island and (c) Queensland oil fields in the periods (i) 1 January to 30 June 1980, (ii) 1 July to 31 December 1980, (iii) 1 January to 30 June 1981, (iv) 1 July to 31 December 1981, (v) 1 January to 30 June 1982, and (vi) 1 July to 31 December 1982.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

My Department does not publish crude oil production forecasts disaggregated either by basin, or by the parity, non-parity and ‘new’ classification because such forecasts are based on information provided to Government on a confidential basis.

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Question No. 5816)

Mr Hayden:

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

What quantity of liquefied petroleum gas was exported from Australia in each of the periods: (1)1 January to 30 June 1975, (2) 1 July to 31 December 1975, (3) 1 January to 30 June 1976,(4) 1 July to 31 December 1976,(5) 1 January to 30 June 1977, (6) 1 July to 31 December 1977, (7) 1 January to 30 June 1978, (8) 1 July to 31 December 1978,

1 January to 30 June 1979 and (10) 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. 635,200 tonnes, (2) 552,653 tonnes, (3) 557,828 tonnes, (4) 619,816 tonnes, (5) 609,155 tonnes, (6) 705,068 tonnes, (7) 849,669 tonnes, (8) 842,498 tonnes, (9) 738,02 1 tonnes and ( 10) 832,700 tonnes.

Motor Spirit (Question No. 5817)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. 1) Is the Department of National Development and Energy monitoring the penetration of 92 octane and 9 7 octane motor spirit into the wholesale motor spirit market.
  2. Is the Minister able to indicate (a) what share of the motor spirit market is currently held by and (b) how many and what percentage of service stations currently sell (i) 89, (ii) 92, (iii) 97 and (iv) 98 octane motor spirit.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. (a)Consumption of Major Petroleum Products Based on Oil Industry Sales by State Marketing Area ‘ released by the National Energy Office, Department of National Development and Energy, provides monthly consumption statistics for super and standard grades of motor spirit. The statistics for super grade refer to sales of 97 octane motor spirit, this being the current minimum octane rating for this grade. There is no longer any production of 98 octane motor spirit in Australia. As only one company, Caltex, sells 92 octane motor spirit, sales data for this product are confidential, and accordingly are not released by my Department. Sales of 92 and 89 octane motor spirit are combined in the published statistics for standard grade. In 1979 motor spirit sales for Australia comprised 1,348,715 kilolitres of standard grade and 13,539,234 kilolitres of super grade (i.e. super grade represented 90.9 per cent of the total ).
  3. (b) The number of retail outlets in Australia as at 3 1 December 1979 was 12,900. All sell super grade motor spirit, and virtually all sell either 89 or 92 octane motor spirit. The number of sites selling 92 octane motor spirit at the end of 1 979 was approximately 500.

Oil Refining Capacity (Question No. 5821)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. Will Australia have adequate local oil refining capacity available by (a) 1985 and(b) 1990.
  2. Will the provision of adequate local refining capacity require the addition of a new refinery to the 10 now operating; if so, what information or advice does the Government have that a new refinery is planned for construction during the next 10 years.
  3. If such a refinery is planned, can the Minister say (a) which companies are involved, (b) when it is expected that the new refinery will be operating, (c) where will it be located, and (d) what will be its capacity.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1) (a) and (b) For the Government’s views on local refining capacity see the statement by the Minister for National Development of 1 June 1978. The Government’s position is supported by the extent of refinery expansion and upgrading which has taken place in recent years. For example during the four years ended December 1978 the average installed capacity at Australian refineries increased by 5.2 per cent; furthermore during the same period refinery outturn increased by 9.2 per cent while demand for petroleum products increased by only 7.3 percent.
  2. and (3) Not necessarily. Recent increases in refinery capacity have been achieved by the expansion of existing refinery facilities, not by the addition of a new refinery. Over the next eighteen months to two years the Total Oil Company plans to expand its refinery at Matraville, New South Wales from the present 12,000 barrels per day capacity to 45,000 barrels per day. The Government knows of no firm plans to build a new refinery.

Oil and Oil Product Prices (Question No. 5827)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Does the Prices Justification Tribunal (PJT) monitor overseas (a) official and (b) spot prices for crude oil and oil products.
  2. Does the PJT monitor actual shipping charge rates for oil cargoes.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. (a) and (b) Yes. The Tribunal’s examination of notices involving higher petroleum product prices takes into account a wide variety of international and locally published information relating to official and spot prices for crude oil and refined products.
  2. In its examination of shipping charges from overseas loading ports, the Tribunal has regard to the appropriate worldscale rate for particular voyages and the average freight rate assessment (AFRA) adjustments arrived at by the London Tanker Brokers Panel for particular types of tankers.

This approach to the calculation of freight rates is common throughout the industry and is the method employed by trans-national oil companies in the billing of their affiliate Australian companies.

The method was subject to discussion during the course of the Shell public inquiry in early 1979 and the Tribunal concluded, after hearing argument about alternative systems, that it represented an adequate procedure for assessing the justification of freight rates.

Petrol Price Increases (Question No. 5828)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Is the Prices Justification Tribunal permitted to disclose publicly the date of notification of proposed price increases by oil companies.
  2. If not, (a) when did this restriction come into force, (b) does it apply (i) to price rises for all commodities or (ii) only when increases are not subject to public inquiry and (c) what is the reason for the restriction.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The Prices Justification Tribunal places no restriction on making information available concerning dates of notifications.

Stocks of Crude Oil and Oil Products (Question No. 5834)

Mr Hayden:

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

With reference to the answer to question No. 4079 (Hansard, 21 February 1980, page 32) why is information on the stocks of crude oil and oil products held in Australia regarded as confidential.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

Information on the stocks of crude oil and oil products held in Australia is provided to the Department of National Development and Energy by companies on condition that it be treated as confidential.

Gippsland Basin Oil Production Forecasts (Question No. 5836)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. 1 ) In relation to the answer provided to question No. 3349 (Hansard, 19 February 1980, page 77), why were forecasts of production not available for publication.
  2. Are forecasts still unavailable; if so, why.
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) Forecasts of production are not available on a field by field basis because this information is provided to Government on a confidential basis.

Oil Refining (Question No. 5837)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. 1 ) In relation to the answer provided to question No. 3583 (Hansard, 7 June 1979, page 3140), does the Fifth Report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum provide the most recent information available to the Government on the (a) rate of crude oil refined and (b) utilisation factor of each Australian oil refinery.
  2. If so, does the Minister regard this as a satisfactory basis upon which to develop policy in relation to oil refining in Australia.
  3. Has the Government taken action to obtain more recent information; if so, what action has been taken; if not, what more recent information is available.
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. However the references quoted in answer to question No. 3583 provide the most recent published statistics available in relation to refinery utilisation and individual refinery outturns.
  2. ) See answer to (1).
  3. Oil refining companies regularly provide data to the National Energy Office in the Department of National Development and Energy, concerning input of crude oil and other feedstocks to refineries and refinery product outturn.

Radio Pharmaceuticals and Isotopes (Question No. 5851)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

  1. Is he able to indicate how many hospitals in (a) Australia, (b) the United Kingdom, (c) the United States of America, and (d) European Economic Community countries currently use cyclotron-produced radio pharmaceuticals.
  2. Is he further able to indicate in how many hospitals cyclotron-produced radio pharmaceuticals are preferred to nuclear reactor-produced isotopes for medical purposes.
  3. Is it a fact that higher quality isotopes with shorter exposure times are being denied to patients in Australian hospitals because of the inability of the HIFAR nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, N.S.W., to produce them.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) There are 45 nuclear medicine centres in Australia able to use four approved radiopharmaceuticals manufactured from cyclotron-produced radionuclides. These are (i) Gallium 67 Citrate, (ii) Thallium 201 Chloride, (iii) Indium 1 1 1 Calcium DTPA, (iv) Sodium 22 Chloride. The number of hospitals using each one depends on their requirements and available equipment. For example, Thallium 201 requires expensive computer facilities and hence usage is mainly limited to the larger centres. All four radiopharmaceuticals are imported from overseas and the radionuclides have half-lives longer than 60 hours. Procurement from overseas of radionuclides with half-lives less than 60 hours is difficult and for half-lives less than a few hours is impossible.

However, it must be realized that the abovementioned cyclotron-produced radiopharmaceuticals service a very small proportion, probably 5 per cent or so of the patients imaged in most nuclear medicine departments in Australia.

There are no cyclotrons in Australia at present for the production of radionuclides for medical purposes. (b), (c) and (d) Information is not available on the number of overseas hospitals that are using cyclotronproduced radiopharmaceuticals. However the number of cyclotrons that were producing radionuclides for medical purposes in 1 976 was:

United Kingdom 5

United States of America 24

European Economic Community 26.

The number of hospitals using radiopharmaceuticals manufactured from radionuclides produced by these cyclotrons will depend on a number of factors including:

  1. the half-life of the radionuclide

    1. the shelf-life of the radiopharmaceutical
    2. the transport time from manufacturer to hospital
    3. the production schedule of the manufacturer

  2. v) the periods when the radiopharmaceutical is required for use

    1. vi ) the cost of the radiopharmaceutical
    2. vii) the availability of measurement equipment
    3. the research involvements of the hospital in relation to the use of radiopharmaceuticals.
    1. There are hardly any radionuclides of medical importance which, in practice, are produced both by nuclear reactor and cyclotron. Hospitals, therefore, do not normally have to indicate preference for a particular radionuclide on the basis of its method of manufacture.

Preference for radiopharmaceuticals using cyclotronproduced radionuclides over reactor-produced radionuclides is thus not related to hospitals but rather to the radionuclide and its proposed use. For instance, cyclotron-produced Iron 52 (8 hour half-life) which cannot be made in a reactor is preferred to reactor-produced Iron 59 (45 day half-life) for use in bone-marrow studies. Also Iodine 123 ( 13 hours halflife), which can only be produced by a cyclotron, is preferable to reactor-produced Iodine 131 (8 day half-life) for thyroid studies, but, reactor-produced Technetium 99M (6 hours half-life) is only marginally inferior to Iodine 123 for this purpose. Some Iodine 123 labelled compounds, for example Iodine 123 Iodohippurate, are preferable to the corresponding Iodine 131 compounds since the resulting absorbed radiation dose is less and the image quality is better. However, the 13 hour half-life of Iodine 123 introduces procurement problems and the radiopharmaceutical cost is much higher.

The number of types of investigations for which radiopharmaceuticals manufactured from cyclotron-produced radionuclides are preferred to those manufactured from reactor-produced radionuclides is small. The precise number would require detailed cost benefit studies which are difficult and have not been reported in the scientific literature.

  1. Cyclotrons do not necessarily produce isotopes of a better quality than reactors. However cyclotrons are able to produce some radionuclides that cannot be produced in a reactor. The majority of these have a reasonably short half-life and consequently result in low radiation doses when administered to patients. This is an advantage but, as indicated above, is not the only consideration. Such short half-life isotopes, however, may increase the risks of radiation exposure for the staff handling them.

For very short half-life radionuclides such as Carbon 1 1, Nitrogen 13 and Oxygen 15 with half-lives of 20, 10 and 2 minutes respectively, the cyclotron must be adjacent to the nuclear medicine centre. In addition to this requirement, highly specialised scanning equipment (Positron Scanner) is required in order to make the most efficient use of these radionuclides. Radionuclides with such short half-lives have not commonly been used for routine patient care. Consequently, Australian hospitals could be provided with radiopharmaceuticals which have half-lives between a few hours and about 60 hours and which are not available to them at present, through a cyclotron located in some central position. To supply centres wishing to use very short half-life radionuclides would require a cyclotron at each centre. However, as indicated earlier, the use of cyclotron-produced radiopharmaceuticals accounts for approximately 5 per cent of the patients attending nuclear medicine departments.

HIFAR could not be replaced by a cyclotron for the manufacture of certain essential radionuclides in high demand, particularly Technetium 99M and Iodine 131.

Replacement of HIFAR Reactor (Question No. 5870)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Are any sites being considered in relation to the design cost study for a possible replacement of the HIFAR reactor at Lucas Heights, NSW. If so,

1 ) what sites are being considered,

is the study confined to economic and technical considerations in relation to the siting of any proposed replacement,

have public submissions been called for relating to the siting, and

is it envisaged that members of the public will be given an adequate opportunity to make submissions before a decision to proceed with acquiring and building a new reactor is made.

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) At this stage, the design cost study of a possible replacement for the HIFAR reactor is confined to technical, scientific and economic aspects of reactor design. Until technical and scientific aspects are defined no detailed studies of siting and environmental aspects can be meaningfully undertaken.
  2. and (4) Sec reply to Question No. 3783 parts (4) and ( 5 ) ( House of Representatives Hansard, page 416).

Service in Reserve Defence Forces (Question No. 5933)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 April 1980:

What is the average term of efficient service in the reserve Defence forces.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

Royal Australian Naval Reserve

Officers- 15 years.

Sailors- 9 years.

Active Citizen Air Force

Officers- 8 years.

Airmen- 6 years.

Army Reserve

Officers- 9.6 years.

Other ranks-3.9 years.

HMAS ‘Albatross’ (Question No. 5935)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 April 1980:

Will the proposed transfer of operations of HMAS Melbourne to the Indian Ocean for significant periods result in any consequential changes in personnel levels, etc., at HMAS Albatross.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

page 2955

No

Regular Army Officers (Question No. 5978)

Mr Connolly:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 April 1 980:

  1. How many Regular Army Officers transferred to the Australian Army Reserve during the last 3 years.
  2. What percentage of total officer resignations from the Regular Army did this represent.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 481 officers transferred to the Australian Regular Army Reserve and Army Reserve between 1 April 1977 and 31 March 1980.
  2. 74.6 percent.

Insecticidal Esters (Question No. 5983)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 22 April 1980:

  1. What progress has been made by the CSIRO’s Division of Applied Organic Chemistry in Melbourne, in the development of the potent biodegradable insecticides, insecticidal esters.
  2. Did the insecticides, when synthesised in 1977, appear to be effective but harmless to animals.
  3. Did the CSIRO collaborate with any company or companies in developing and testing the insecticides to the commercial stage; if so, what companies were involved.
  4. Have the insecticidal esters yet been produced economically and when is it anticipated they will be on the market.
  5. Did the CSIRO lodge patent applications on the new compounds (a) in Australia and (b) overseas; if so, were these successful.
Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The potent biodegradable insecticides named insecticidal esters discovered by CSIRO’s Division of Applied Organic Chemistry are currently in the development stages. As announced in a statement by the former Minister on 1 1 July 1979, CSIRO has selected two companies, Roche-Maag Ltd and Nippon Kayaku Co. Ltd from 36 applicants to participate with the Division of Applied Organic Chemistry in a 3-party program to develop and exploit these compounds on a world-wide basis. This program is proceeding satisfactorily with promising results and good co-operation between the three parties. At present emphasis is being given to small scale field trials and laboratory tests by the companies to determine which of the many possible insecticidal esters should be selected for commercial production.

In Australia, Roche-Maag Ltd has a very active program preparing and testing these compounds in their laboratories on Australian pests. The CSIRO Division of Applied Organic Chemistry is currently undertaking back-up research and is developing ways to increase the potency of the compounds even further.

  1. In 1977 when they were first announced, the compounds apeared to be effective against insects but harmless to mammals. The test results obtained since then have substantiated this view.
  2. and (4) As mentioned in the first part of this answer these compounds are not yet at the commercial stage. CSIRO is collaborating with Roche-Maag Ltd and Nippon Kayaku Co. Ltd in a development program to bring them to commercial use. It will take 3 to 5 years to develop the methods for large scale commercial production and to complete the safety tests required under the regulations to prove that there will be no adverse toxic effects, before any specific insecticide can be registered for use in Australia.
  3. To date CSIRO has lodged a total of 50 patent applications on these compounds in Australia and overseas. Of these, 6 have been granted and the rest are still under prosecution. CSIRO does not expect any difficulty in obtaining those patents.

Rundle Shale Oil Project (Question No. 5987)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 22 April 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government taken steps to ensure that the Queensland Government and the Rundle shale oil project partners meet Federal environmental protection laws before the Queensland Government gives legislative effect to a franchise agreement for exploitation of Rundle shale oil deposits; if so, what are they.
  2. Will an independent environmental impact study be required by the Federal Government and discussed publicly before the project is approved.
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 Rundle Oil Shale Proposal is being examined under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. The Minister for Science and the Environment has directed the preparation and submission, by Southern Pacific Petroleum and Central Pacific Minerals, of an environmental impact statement under the terms of the Environmental Protection Administrative Procedures.

Deployment of HMAS ‘Melbourne’ in Indian Ocean (Question No. 5996)

Mr Kerin:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Further to the answer to question No. 5550 (Hansard, 15 April 1980, page 1760), will the planned deployment of

HMAS Melbourne in the Indian Ocean in the second half of 1 980 be on a ( a ) permanent or ( b) temporary basis.

  1. If the deployment is on a temporary basis, how long is HMAS Melbourne expected to be in the Indian Ocean.
  2. Will any support facilities for HMAS Melbourne be affected by this deployment.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A temporary basis.
  2. About 3 months.
  3. No.

Moscow Olympic Games (Question No. 6062)

Mr Hodgman:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 30 April 1980:

Has the Government formulated contingency plans for the release and repatriation of Australian competitors who may be taken hostage by the Soviet authorities should the Australian Olympic Federation determine to send a team to the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games in defiance of the express wishes of the Government; if so, (a) what powers does the Government possess to enforce its plans and (b) is there any guarantee that the Government could force the USSR to set free competitors who may be forcibly detained.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

The Government has not formulated any such contingency plans. It considers the contingency raised as remote in the extreme.

Human Rights (Question No. 6063)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 30 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a reported statement made on 22 April 1980 by M. Georges Marchais, the leader of the French Communist Party (the Melbourne Age, 24 April 1980) calling for the release of 13 imprisoned persons who might be referred to as victims of human rights abuses, including the Soviet dissident Anatoly Scharansky and the Czech dissident Yaclav Havel.
  2. Is the Government taking action to secure the release of dissidents in foreign States including (a) the USSR, (b) Czechoslovakia and (c) countries nearer to Australia; if so, what are the details.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. My attention has been drawn to the reported statement.
  2. The Government abhors the denial of human rights officially practised in many parts of the world, and has made its views known to a number of Governments. In the cases of the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, it has protested directly to the Governments of those countries about their recent, well-known abuses and repeated its call to them to abide by the human rights principles embodied in the United Nations instruments and the 1975 Helsinki accords. The Government will continue to make its views known whenever and wherever such infringements occur.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 20 May 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1980/19800520_reps_31_hor118/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant